Readers write, and occasionally club owners and club executives write. Today is a time to look at e-mail comments from an owner and an executive.
The owner is Jim Crane of the Houston Astros. He didn’t care for a recent column about Major League Baseball’s minority hiring practices. The column wasn’t about Crane, but it featured him because he hired Bo Porter, an African-American, as the Astros’ manager and fired him before he was able to complete his second season even though the team was headed for its best won-lost record and division standing in four years.
Crane especially took exception to what I wrote about his alleged reputation in racial matters, and his lengthy e-mail to me was similar to his reply earlier this year to comments made by Bryant Gumbel, a highly regarded, long-time television sports host, about Crane’s reputation in racial matters.
Gumbel made his comments on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” which has far greater circulation than this website column. Gumbel’s comments elicited a statement from MLB in defense of Crane. MLB issued no statement about my column, which noted that Crane’s treatment of Porter prompted speculation about an intriguing but bizarre conspiracy theory.
“Crane was guaranteed to build Brownie points by hiring Bo,” a veteran baseball man said.
However, the conspiracy theory went on, Crane’s dismissal of Porter suggested that he hired him with the intention of firing him. I wrote in the Nov. 23 column, “Crane hired Porter, the theory goes, to alleviate the racial criticism, knowing Porter wouldn’t be around long. In other words, he was hired as a cover to be fired.”
Crane’s response in full:
Your recent article entitled “Good Program, Bad Enforcement” was sensationalistic and represented failed journalism. Your article failed to report real facts and the reality of my record was completely disregarded. In an attempt to question the low number of minority managers in MLB, you attacked me – an owner that actually hired a minority manager. And, you did this knowing – even acknowledging – that the basis of your article was a “bizarre” “conspiracy theory.”
You state in your article that I hired Bo Porter “as a cover.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Minority hiring and the advancement of minorities in baseball is an important issue to me. Since becoming owner, I have proven to be one of MLB’s best in regard to minority hiring and advancement of minorities. There are two members of our ownership group who are African-Americans; we are the only MLB club that has an African-American radio play-by-play announcer; and we have more African-American players than any American League team and the second-highest total in MLB. And, of course, we hired Bo Porter in 2012.
Additionally, I have worked very hard to help the minority community in the Houston area. The Astros’ Urban Youth Academy provides free services for underprivileged kids and promotes the game of baseball to minority children (mostly African-American). I created the Community Leaders program, which has received commitments of over $18 million to refurbish baseball fields in disadvantaged and mostly minority neighborhoods. We also hosted the 2013 MLB Diversity Summit; the 2012 and 2013 MLB Urban Invitational (which is nationally-televised and designed by MLB to give Historically Black Colleges and their baseball programs national exposure); the 2013 MLB Breakthrough Series (which is designed to give high school African-American and Hispanic ballplayers exposure to college and professional baseball scouts); and the 2014 MLB Civil Rights Game (which is a tribute to those that have fought for equality in our nation).
Despite my record as owner of the Astros, you dredged up an old civil lawsuit and based your story on allegations that were disproven in court. Had you cared enough to investigate those allegations, you would have discovered that the federal judge who presided over the case repeatedly admonished the plaintiffs’ lawyers for making baseless, inflammatory allegations about me and my former company. In fact, the judge stated, on the record, that the plaintiffs were “relying on third-rate gossip in order to impugn” me. He also stated that the plaintiffs were “taking positions that have no factual or legal merit.”
You also wrote that the “Houston Chronicle quoted [me] as telling executives of one of [my] companies not to hire” minorities. This is completely false and misleading, and I’m certain you knew that when you wrote it. Not only did I never make such a statement, the Houston Chronicle never quoted me as making such a statement. The fact that you have tried to add credibility to that sensational allegation is extremely disturbing and is clearly defamatory.
Your article did mention that you attempted to contact me to discuss your story. After receiving your message, I investigated your blog and read some other inflammatory articles. Based on those articles, I was concerned that you were only interested in writing sensational attack articles and I was concerned that I might not be able to trust you to write an honest article. Unfortunately, you have proven that to be true.
Contrary to Crane’s claim, the column did not mention an old civil lawsuit against one of his former companies. Gumbel referred to that case in his television appearance, but if Crane were to reread the column, he would be hard pressed to find mention of it.
He also wrote that he never said his company shouldn’t hire blacks “because once you hire blacks you can never fire them.” But a report issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2000 quotes him as saying precisely that, and it has received wide circulation.
Replying to Crane, I told him if he had responded to my efforts to talk to him, that was one of several things he could have cleared up before the column was posted. Then maybe he wouldn’t have found it so “sensationalistic.”
I also told him I thought he was confusing sensationalism with criticism. Some of my columns are critical, but they don’t rise – or fall – to the level of sensational, at least not in the Crane definition.
The club executive who sent me an e-mail was Stan Kasten, the 62-year-old president and CEO of the Los Angeles Dodgers. I have known Kasten since he became president of the Atlanta Braves in 1986, and his e-mail stunned me.
I had tried to reach him for a column I was writing about the evolution of the position of president of baseball operations. The Dodgers had named Andrew Friedman to that position. Kasten did not return my call.
When I wrote to him again, Kasten replied:
I think first you need to learn some basic courtesy to office people and professional ethics, before you ever get another return call from me.
I was stunned; I had no idea what he was taking about and told him so in another e-mail. Rude to office people? Since Kasten became the Dodgers’ top executive in April 2012, any time I called him was on his cell phone. I was never rude to his voice mail message.
Professionally unethical? I am pleased to say that no one had ever made that accusation in my career.
When two weeks had passed and Kasten had not responded with an explanation of his double-barreled accusation, I wrote to him again. This time he replied on Tuesday that he expected to have time to talk on Wednesday. But he didn’t call so I remain perplexed.
I also remain optimistic that we will be able to straighten out this confusion. Kasten has been one of the better executives to deal with.