
By Dejan Kovacevic | 12:58 p.m. Thursday
Click here to submit question.
With almost a full day now to allow some of this to process ...
__________
Q: I'll keep this question short and sweet: Are we cursed?
Doug Cieslinski of New Kensington
KOVACEVIC: It certainly has been a lousy month for the franchise, on and off the field. Just terrible, actually, especially when gauging -- from this perspective -- the highs and lows of those following all this. So many seemed enthusiastic about the trades, especially the Jason Bay one, until they saw the immediate fallout. So many were outright giddy about the Pedro Alvarez agreement, until they saw it called into question.
I have written this before: It takes a special breed to follow the Pirates. It really does.
__________
Q: Despite the depth and breadth of your coverage about the Alvarez contract dispute, I have a question about maybe a peripheral issue: If, indeed, the Pirates had permission to extend their talks with Alvarez beyond midnight, why did Neal Huntingdon tell the media it all happened right at deadline?
Earl McDaniel of North Versailles
KOVACEVIC: The Pirates' contention at the time -- and it remains thus -- is that Alvarez uttered, "I accept," before midnight. Where the team was not forthcoming was in not divulging that anything at all happened after midnight, even if that was just awaiting confirmation of receipt of the email at MLB headquarters.
And, later on, the team was not at all forthcoming in giving out the real reason Alvarez had not reported. That was carried to the extent of citing things such as "travel" and other vague "complications" related to the agent. Those clearly were not the real reasons, we now know.
Regarding the latter, I can relay that the Pirates, in explaining that, have told me they were most interested over the past couple weeks in protecting Pedro Alvarez's image in Pittsburgh.
__________
Q: Dejan, as a supervisor of a 9-1-1 center, I know how critical precise time is in a court proceeding. Our equipment has to be time-stamped to validate the true time an event happened.
How will an arbitrator determine what the actual time was in this case? Was Scott Boras' watch conveniently 10 minutes fast? Was the Pirates' watch 10 minutes slow? Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?
Brad Frantz of Oakland, Md.
KOVACEVIC: Actually, Brad, your last question might be most appropriate because all indications are that this case will be determined not on what time the agreements were struck but, rather, whether or not the commissioner's office had the right to extend the deadline.
Remember, that is the grievance here. No player is cited. Not team is cited. Even in the union's press release yesterday, the union's mention of the extensions referred to hearing about it from "sources." That hardly sounds like there was wiretap involved.
The case is about the procedure. It is all about the procedure. It is aimed at the commissioner's office "unilaterally" approving an extension, then doing the same in approving the contract. It is very general. And that is a large part of why it is very difficult for some to conjure a scenario in which the arbitrator rules retroactively at a specific case such as Alvarez and the Pirates.
As for your actual question, proving one version over the other as far as the timing of a phone conversation is not going to happen. The closest anyone likely will be able to come to establishing a time element -- assuming the arbitrator even seeks this -- is the time the Pirates' email was sent and received. But even there, one can find many variables. How many of us have computers whose time displays are in perfect sync with the rest of the world?
Man, this is getting weird.
__________
Q: Do you feel the recent activity between the Pirates and Boras will hinder future negotiations between the two parties, if the Pirates even try to work with him again?
Conor Dawley of Erie
KOVACEVIC: I do not get that sense, but only because I know for a fact -- from both sides -- that Boras and Neal Huntington have a good working relationship. That remains intact.
For all the attention on Frank Coonelly yesterday because of the scathing statement and Boras' rebuttal, it probably bears pointing out anew that only Huntington communicated with Boras during these talks.
__________
Until tomorrow ...
Posted
Aug 28 2008, 12:58 PM
by
Dejan Kovacevic