The Chicago Cubs had to do something. Carlos Zambrano was acting up again so general manager Jim Hendry banished him without pay for 30 days, and the team was playing so poorly the Cubs fired Hendry. The interesting twist is Hendry deserved it more than Zambrano.
I don’t like to see people get fired, but sports history is filled with the dismissal of general managers, managers and coaches who have been fired for failing to get the job done. I like Hendry, but how long could the Cubs’ new owner, Tom Ricketts, spend more than $125 million on the Cubs’ payroll, which he has done each of his first two years, and not get at least a contender out of it?
The 2011 Cubs are an awful team. They have not had a winning record since 17 games into the season, and the last time they were even at .500 was three games later. The National League Central has been a forgiving division, but the Cubs are forgiven nothing.
Hendry, who held the job for nine years, is a good baseball man and a good guy, but he had a penchant for giving lucrative contracts to players who didn’t produce.
Zambrano, for example, signed a 5-year contract worth $91.5 million that also provided a player-vesting option for a sixth year with a $19.25 million salary. But he has a 43-26 record under that contract, including 9-7 with a 4.82 earned run average this season.
Zambrano has also caused internal off-field problems that have prompted suspensions, including the current 30-day unpaid banishment to the disqualified list.
The 30-year-old Venezuelan pitcher was ejected from a game in Atlanta in the 5th inning Aug. 12 and basically had a temper tantrum. He cleaned out his locker, told clubhouse attendants he was retiring and left Turner Field before the game was over.
Hendry was understandably upset with Zambrano and had as much as he was going to take from the pitcher. But he went overboard in his remarks to reporters and sounded as if he were throwing a tantrum.
“His actions last night were totally intolerable,” Hendry told reporters. “This was the most stringent penalty we could enforce without a release.”
Zambrano, however, clearly acted out of frustration. The problem is players aren’t allowed to become frustrated. They are expected to be cold, hard automatons but not human beings.
Earlier this season Jorge Posada of the New York Yankees incurred blistering criticism from his team, the news media and fans for removing himself from the starting lineup, in which he was scheduled to bat ninth.
Posada, who had been mired in a lengthy slump, acted out of frustration and deserved more compassionate and more intelligent treatment.
It was the same with Zambrano. He wasn’t angry with the Cubs; he was angry and frustrated with himself and his performance.
The public and the news media don’t get to see general managers’ tantrums when their $20 million players boot ground balls that lose games or strike out for the final out with the tying run at third base.
General managers do it in the privacy of their boxes or their offices. Owners do it, too, some privately, some, like George Steinbrenner, very publicly.
Hendry’s comments about Zambrano had nothing to do with Hendry’s dismissal. Hendry told reporters that Rickettts, the owner, had told him July 22 he was being let go but asked him to stay on to complete pending business, such as the July 31 trading deadline and the signing of draft choices.
In other words, Hendry was the lamest of ducks when he erupted over Zambrano and sent him away for 30 unpaid days.
Hendry will have to return to testify at a hearing on Zambrano’s grievance, if the grievance reaches that stage. Chances are good, however, that the union and the commissioner’s office will resolve the dispute without a hearing.
Although I would never predict what an arbitrator might do, the Cubs’ action seems to have no chance to survive the discussion. Zambrano might have angered Hendry with his behavior, but the only thing he did that seemed to be punishable was violate team rules by leaving the park before the end of the game.
Players have been disciplined – fined – for that act, and they haven’t been suspended without pay for 30 days.
It is not a violation for a player to clean out his locker; nor is it a violation to tell a clubhouse attendant he is retiring. It’s not even official. A player can retire any time he wants, but it’s official only if he puts it in writing.
That reminds me of the time many years ago when a frustrated and fed-up Lou Piniella, the New York Yankees’ right fielder, told a reporter after a night game that the game had been his last; he was retiring.
But it was getaway night, and the reporter wanted to make the team charter home so he told Piniella he didn’t have time to write a retirement story along with a game story and he should wait until the next day to retire.
I don’t recall when the cooperative Piniella retired, but it wasn’t that night so it was no more official than Zambrano’s utterance to the clubhouse attendants.
An ESPN.com columnist suggested that Zambrano might have created a loophole through which the Cubs could tear up the remainder of the pitcher’s contract. His reasoning? Zambrano cleaned out his locker and said he was retiring.
Sorry, but neither one of those acts will work to free the Cubs of the minimum $23 million and possibly $42 million they owe Zambrano.
The same columnist, on a roll apparently, suggested that the union might be better off not taking the case and defending Zambrano, unpopular in the Cubs’ clubhouse and around baseball.
Such a suggestion could come only from someone who has never dealt with the union nor has any understanding of the way the union operates. The union defends any player no matter how unpopular he or the case is.
The view here is that the union will win back every dollar the Cubs withhold from Zambrano’s $17,875,000 salary.