Years ago during a wrestling practice in college, I was taken down and for a split second, mainly due to frustration, I did not cover up and the other wrestler through a leg in and really began working me over - my situation went from bad to worse. The coach who happened to be focusing on us yelled at me in frustation and definitely without any sympathy, "Tad, you deserve that."
Figgins may work harder than any player on the team, and he may have lost focus due to poor situation he found his team due to the run just scored against them. But that loss of focus can not be tolerated - mentally you must have that laser beam focused and for the sake of your team not take any plays off.
Figgins did take the play off it may have just been a mental lapse due to frustionation, but nonetheless he took the play off. And Wak as a manager can not allow that lapse to continue to go, it amounts to lazy, lackadaisical which will get a manager fired quicker than poor club house atmosphere. Wak had to draw the line somewhere especially after the constant base running gaffs.
Yes being called lazy may have tweaked Figgins to no end, but in that one instance he was Lazy, he did not have the burning fire to compete and go after the ball. Wak could not let that go and I applaud him for it. Now if he would only say something to our plump third baseman.
Legal disclaimer: This article is nothing more than opinion, supposition, and hearsay. It might or might not bear relation to the truth. Rumors of rumors of rumors aren't meant to be construed as factual testimony. -- Jeff
.
Q. Who's Terry Collins again?
A. The last manager the Angels had before the Scioscia era. They were a mess with him and began their run as a model franchise at precisely the moment they fired him.
.
Q. If Figgins' cyber-version were true, would this make the incident Wakamatsu's fault?
A. It wouldn't exactly excuse Figgins, but it would certainly mean that Wakamatsu set himself up for this kind of a catastrophe.
There is a line that managers have to be aware of, also, and there are certain things that *are* going to get an amp'ed up athlete in your face whether you're in the manager's office or in the middle of a White House visit. Calling a deep-south black player "lazy" in front of his 25 teammates isn't okay in the 21st century.
.
Q. Wakamatsu failing to treat his players with dignity? Tough to buy.
A. Odd to think of Don Wakamatsu having a 'Terry Collins moment' when he's worked so hard to bring dignity to the clubhouse. You remember that in 2009 he wasn't ejected from a single game. Certainly his public persona is the opposite of Terry Collins'.
Whether Figgins was being 100% accurate defending his side of the story to his friends is another subject, but if Figgins relayed the incident accurately, then it certainly helps to explain Zduriencik's response to the whole deal.
Zduriencik's failure to discipline Figgins in any way is (1) pretty close to unprecedented, if he plans on keeping Wok around much longer, and (2) completely at odds with Zduriencik's old-school ethic.
Zduriencik is a principled man, a people person, and for him to hang Wok out to dry this weirdly ... well, he's got to be frustrated seeing a promising Felix-Lee team lose 100 games, but Figgins' side of the story would explain a lot.
.
Q. A racial comment by Wakamatsu? Really?
A. We can safely presume that if Wakamatsu, in frustration, said "move your lazy a** next time" or somesuch, that he was saying it colorblind. Wok himself qualifies as a minority, by the way.
There's even the suggestion from Figgins' friend that Wak called him a "lazy n*****" in front of his teammates. SSI files this one under the "incredible" category, not "incredible" in the sense of "amazing" but in the sense of "not feasible."
We don't doubt for a second that either Figgins or his friend -- if this account be accurate, and no aspersions on Pitch for relaying what he heard -- was spinning the story to be more defensible than it was.
.
Q. Where does SSI's moral compass take it here? What's "Justice" on this one?
A. The M's clubhouse has been a complete catastrophe since May -- since before the chickenfeathers dirty laundry aired against Ken Griffey Jr. -- and Figgins hasn't helped.
We can safely presume that there are not two, but probably more like five, different platoons in the clubhouse firing away at each other. This is at bottom because (1) sometimes pro athletes act like children -- we knew this -- and (2) because Wok evidently doesn't carry a Piniella's or a Cox's or a Valentine's clout to be able to clean it up.
That pro athletes could be weird, we knew. Zduriencik obviously feels that after Figgins gets under a strong manager, and the M's are winning, that he's not an incorrigible.
What I think would be ideal morality, and what is the morality of pro sports, are two different issues.
...............
Right now Zduriencik evidently feels that the "blame" is on Wakamatsu for not being a strong enough manager -- despite the winning, Griffey, and Sweeney carrying him in 2009 -- and that once you get the right guy in here, at bottom the 25 men in the clubhouse right now are decent guys in a bad situation.
Dr. D wearily acknowledges this as justice in the MLB context. If Wak, in the middle of taking this team to 100 losses, said something as stupid as Figgins' friend charges that he did, then he pretty much has himself to blame to the detonation following.
................
Am still not a Figgins fan, but Zduriencik feels that a winning context and a strong manager and Figgins will revert to being a good actor. (Note that Figgins, after the meet, said "for me the same page is winning" and this is suggestive of Zduriencik's resolution as supposed here.)
............
Thanks Chance. As y'know: anytime bro'.
Jeff
Comments
... and it's always great to have an accomplished athlete give the field-level kibitz.
From where I sit, Figgins' messup was so bad that he should have accepted a chewing, like you point out.
... unless it was something wayyyyyy over the line (which is part of the reason that his entourage (1) represents it as, or (2) it actually was, a racially-tinged type situation).
Let's be clear -- I don't think Wak has a racist bone in his body. I don't even think he meant to demean Figgy. I honestly believe (from my days playing ball), that Wak thought enough of Figgy that he thought the veteran would take the high road and may have been trying to show the team that everyone would be held to a high standard. I think this is more a case of Figgins knowing he's been less than stellar and already bent at himself before he stepped foot into that dugout and reacting to a comment he felt was offbase.
I think the only thing Wak is guilty of is forgetting where Figgy was from and HOW he might take it.
Figgins was out of line. I think he stepped into that dugout carrying the guilt of a season lost, and knowing full well he missplayed the ball. Pride has its good and it's bad. Pride carried Figgy to push himslf, to demand more of himself than his tools really had to offer. I think his pride also got the best of him that day.
I dunno if his growing up in GA played into it or not, but I will say this. I have a couple of friends, both from GA, one black, one white. I ran the scenario by them both and they were completely in agreement that in some places, insinuating he was lazy was almost as ugly as dropping an N-bomb.
Wak doesnt know that. Dude grew up playing baseball in baseball cities and let's be honest, you grow up seeing players not races for the most part (at least thats how it was for me and my buddies). I don't even think he's got any real Terry Collins in him, but, the situation readily made me think back to the "little facist", as some used to call him.
Calling a guy out can be done. Calling a guy out and embarrassing him stays with both the guy that got called out and the guys that saw it. It's just a bad precedent.
I think the racial issue is tenuous at best, although I can see how Figgins, his pride wounded and feeling disrespected, could grab at that in defense. I'm not saying some of that isn't at play; and I'm not saying Figgins is wrong if he thinks that; I'm saying that *IF* this is a component to what happened, it's a fairly small component. My opinion.
However it makes sense to me - because I get mad at myself when I screw up - that Figgins returns to the dugout mad at himself, and when the manager makes an example of him, he just snaps. I can hear myself as Figgins saying, 'ME??? You're benching ME and leaving Lopez on the field???'
Which gets to what I think is the real problem. Ryan Divish on the post game the other night minced no words about how other players, past and present, have shaken their head at Lopez (and before he was traded, Betancourt) and his lazy approach to the game. According to Divish, Miguel Cairo was brought in specifically to try to get Lopez right in this regard.
Wak has a big problem if his players thinks he gives Lopez or whoever is slacking a pass, and takes harder-working guys to task. He'll lose his good players this way.
Interesting. Figgins definetly sounds like the type of player who responds better to positive reinforcement.
Bottom-line thouh, Figgins' head left the game on that play. Wak was right to call him out.
The fact that Figgins reacted the way he did shows that Wak doesn't command respect in the clubhouse. Imagine how Lou would have handled this.
... am glad you clarified for those just joining us, though.
Between your first post and this one, that's pretty much how I had it pictured mate.
...............
Figgins got used to being a semi-marquee leadoff hitter, went through the heady FA recruiting dance, undoubtedly saw himself as sacrificing plenty already to bat #2 and play second ... and the losing, the terrible season on his own part ... "guilt" isn't a bad way to put it, "humiliation," whatever.
It explains why Zduriencik sees Figgins as far from a lost cause.
Some guys are fine if you get them in the right context. Get them in the wrong one and you've got problems. Milton Bradley is an example, hey, 20% of the guys playing for that matter.
Figgins in 2010 has been an unfortunate match for this situation -- in my view, a major part of the problem for a 100-loss club that threw in the towel late April. In 2011 he could be fine, depending.
....................
Wak thought that Figgins would accept the chewing and he guessed wrong. I wish that Figgy would have taken it, but as we all know, a diseased situation is going to show symptoms somewhere. If it hadn't been that, it would have been something else.
In the 1980's they threw around the word "insensitivity" every other sentence, much to my nauseation.
But in this case, that might actually be part of the reality, a failure on Wok's part to be alert to the way that Figgins would reasonably take a public butt-chewing for 'laziness.'
Figgins, as a team leader, it's actually his place to take that from the manager even when it's actually meant for the ears of other players.
But like we say, 100 losses will lose a manager a lot of political capital.
If you could prophesy ahead of time, that tonight a player would going off on Lou Piniella in an ML dugout with the cameras rolling .... I'd pay the $250 for the Presidental Seats to be within earshot :- )
I'm glad somebody got around to mentioning what Lou's response would have been to Figgin's BS. ProBallNW's kid was watching that play and told his dad it looked like little league. and how much does the punk make? and why wouldn't a mgr stick a .200 hitter in the number nine hole. GMZ has purged Bavasi personnel and brought in his own. and they're limited talent losers. Figgins being right up there. I don't buy any of this figgins story. and don't blame Wak for going off after weeks of crap baseball where pros play like little leaguers. where do you start with this collection of prima donna boneheads? the prob's not Wak, the prob is GMZ, Armstrong, Lincoln.