The Futility Infielder

It's official: the dog days of August are here. I have no idea whether Sirius, the Dog Star is visible in the night sky (the proper origin of the term "dog days") but I do know that I've reached a level of ennui that characterizes late summer in New York City. I can't find it in myself to get worked up about the Yanks' latest drubbings (shut down by the Ape? Isn't this the Angels steamroller they ran into last October?), or excited about the Red Sox failure to pick up any ground. And I'm certainly not getting my blood pressure up over this Pete Rose thing.

But I did weed through enough stuff in the aftermath of yesterday's hubbub to cull a few worthwhile links, and in these lazy dog days I'd rather revisit that than dwell on the dog-ass ugly play of a certain pinstriped nine. Jon Weisman of Dodger Thoughts has a thoughtful take. Bringing his background as a professional journalist and sportswriter into the equation, Jon discusses the nature of scoops:

The pressure for a scoop is absolutely intense - intense enough that one local sportswriter you've come to know simply did not want to put up with it and quit doing the work full-time. Eleven years later, I'm still not really sure why scoops are so prized. Sure, a reputation for being first in the business will drive readers to you, the way starving supermarket shoppers flock to the woman serving the sample wieners. But imagine trying to live your life off pigs-in-a-blanket. Scoops don't come every day, and so ultimately, it's clear that what keeps readers coming back is sustained quality coverage...

I can understand the desire for Baseball Prospectus to go with its Pete Rose story. Nailing this story splashes them across the map in a way that daily, nose-to-the-grindstone intelligent baseball coverage (unfortunately) does not...

ESPN responded the way most competitors respond to a scoop (putting aside that ESPN and Baseball Prospectus have an affiliation). ESPN put out its own take on the BP story - namely, that the story was wrong. Furthermore, ESPN got a source to go on the record saying that the story was wrong - MLB president and COO Bob DuPuy. All the credibility in the world, right?

Well, it just goes to show you how little value unnamed sources have when MLB can come out looking as stand-up as Walter Cronkite.

Now that's a scary thought. As for those sources, Larry Mahnken of the Replacement Level Yankees Blog did yeoman's work in transcribing Will Carroll's appearance on ESPNews and posting it to Baseball Primer yesterday evening. Here is an exchange between Carroll and ESPNews's Brian Kenney about the genesis of the story:

BK: Well, what did bring the report on?

WC: Actually, I was following a story about a trade rumor, and one of my sources mentioned to me, ‘hey, have you heard anything about this Pete Rose thing?’, and I was like, ‘really? What Pete Rose thing?’ And it went from there. We followed it, that was Saturday evening, and we’ve been following it ever since then, and had all the evidence in order, and my editors and co-authors at Baseball Prospectus decided we had enough information, and we published it last night.

BK: What is the process for deciding that ‘we have enough information’? Double confirmation, what does it entail, or is it just sources that you believe to be impeccable?

WC: Both. I believe my sources are accurate, and it’s not just my sources, we also have other authors that have spoken with people both inside and outside baseball, and the information corroborated each other. The multiple sources had nearly identical information and nearly identical conditions. Obviously, something is lost in a phone conversation, but we believed it to be accurate enough to run with.

Another Primer reader named Sam M weighed in with an insigntful reading of the situation that's worth passing on (unless you'd prefer to wade through 600+ posts, that is):

I think the BP people made a big assumption that Rose wouldn't have to make any admissions because such a condition wasn't in the agreement read to them by their sources. That assumption, based on what Stark and others are saying, is probably wrong -- he *will* have to make an admission of some kind, which may or may not have yet been negotiated. Second, if the agreement was initialed by a "high major league official," it may not be an actual agreement, but simply reflects what MLB is willing to agree to. Happens all the time in contract negotiations; a draft of a deal is prepared, goes to the decisionmaker, who initials it as something he or she can live with, and that forms the basis for the next, and often final, round of negotiations. BP's sources may have misunderstood to some degree the finality of the deal or the significance of the initials on the document. That's not to say the sources were wrong about what will emerge (to the contrary, even those like Stark who are saying BP got this wrong are agreeing Rose *will* be reinstated after the season), but perhaps they were about where they are in the process.

If you're asking me what I think based on all of this, aw shit... well, my best guess -- and it wouldn't fetch 2¢ if auctioned on eBay -- is this:

• The basics of an agreement for an eventual Rose reinstatement were hammered out last fall/winter, with some back-and-forth happening behind the scenes since then.

• The deal is contingent on Rose's continued good behavior, say a full year dating from last year's offseason to this one, before MLB will come forward with an announcement.

• It will most definitely require some kind of admission by Rose. To reinstate him without this would be PR suicide for Bud Selig and MLB. I wouldn't be surprised if this remains the sticking point -- enough to quash the deal entirely.

• It will immediately take him off of the permanently ineligible list, allowing him to be considered for the Hall of Fame. If this happens before early January, there's a good chance Pete's Red ass will be in Cooperstown late next July.

• It will entail some kind of further probationary period before Rose can assume any position of responsibility within baseball. Say, a year.

• After that, Rose may be hired anywhere within the game -- including as manager.

The only one of these I'd have any beef with is the last one. I'm fine with restoring Rose so that he can finally get elected to the Hall, and I'm fine with keeping a further eye on him once he's been removed from the ineligible list. And while I wouldn't have any problem if somebody wants to make him a spring instructor or something half-assed like that, I think it would be utter madness to let him manage a ballclub -- namely, the Reds, which is what skinflint owner Carl Lindner reportedly wants so he can put fannies in the seats in his new ballpark. That seems like a recipe for disaster, a supposedly rehabilitated fox guarding the henhouse while making plans for a dish of Chicken à la Hit King. And while I loathe the Reds organization enough to wish them little more than continued disaster, I'm not sure they deserve the stink of this Rose.