As Frank Sang, "Regrets, I've Had a Few . . . ."

But I don't think I'm entirely crazy.

If you haven't seen the prior post, check it out now.  Read the comments, too.

As I mentioned in my comment, I wish I had taken a less dramatic approach.  But I don't think I was entirely out of line on this.  Ignorant about ALS, guilty.  Ass, guilty.

But this has been on my mind for quite awhile.  I looked ahead.

 Look, I'm a guy that worries about stuff like this.  I don't even like Fight Night, so if you think I'm too much of a mamby-pamby, you're entitled.   But let me invite you to join me in a little theater of the mind. Consider this decidedly non-crazy hypothetical:

Josh throws a bat.  Bat hits someone, doesn't matter who.  Maybe into a group of kids who couldn't protect themselves.  Someone is badly hurt.  The Rangers aren't able to make a private settlement.  This isn't like a foul ball, where spectators have a reasonable expectation of one coming their way.  Scene:  A law firm conference room.

HIGH-PROFILE PLAINTIFF LAWYER:  Good morning, Mr. Daniels.

JON DANIELS:  Good morning.

HPPL:  Mr. Daniels, you're aware of the events of August 3.

JD:  Yes.

HPPL:  Mr. Daniels, were you, or perhaps I should say, to your knowledge, were the Texas Rangers aware of the statistics regarding thrown bats?

JD:  I don't understand the question.

HPPL:  Were you aware that a bat being thrown into the stands is a relatively rare occurrence over the course of a season, and even rarer for a single player to have done it on several occasions in a season?

JD:  I didn't know the exact numbers, but generally, yes.

HPPL:  In fact, the number of bats thrown by Mr. Hamilton, several of which went into the stands, may be a major league record?

JD:  I don't know.  I do know it was somewhat unusual.

HPPL:  On occasion, did Mr. Beltre leave the on-deck circle over concern about Mr. Hamilton's thrown bats?

JD:  It may have been a gag.

HPPL:  The team regarded it as funny?

JD:  No.

HPPL:  Were you concerned about the thrown bats?

JD:  Somewhat, yes.

HPPL:  Did you speak with him about it?

JD:  Yes.

HPPL:  What did you say to him, and what did he say to you?

JD:  I asked him why he was throwing the bats.  He said he didn't know.

HPPL:  Is that all?

JD:  He said he guessed he just couldn't help it.

HPPL:  Did he say anything about the bats, or maybe his batting gloves?

JD:  No.

HPPL:  Did he give you any reason for the increased frequency of thrown bats?

JD:  No.

HPPL:  What did you say to him about it?

JD:  I explained that we were concerned about the safety of our fans and the players on the field, of course, and urged him to make every effort not to throw the bat.

HPPL:  What was his reaction?

JD:  He understood.  He said he would try.

HPPL:   Did you ever think it was intentional?

JD:  Certainly not.

HPPL:  A subconscious issue of some kind?

JD:  No, no.

HPPL:  How long was this second meeting before the incident and Mr Hamilton's suspension by Major League Baseball?

JD:  A month or so, I think.  Six weeks maybe.

HPPL:  But after that and before the incident, he threw another bat into the stands and another towards the dugout, did he not?

JD:  I believe that's correct.

HPPL:  Did you do anything else?

JD:  We spoke to him again and repeated our concern about the thrown bats.  He said he was sorry but he just couldn't help it.

HPPL:  Did you speak to Mr. Washington about possibly removing Mr. Hamilton from the  lineup?

JD:  No.

HPPL:  Why do you think he threw the bats?

JD:  I don't know.

HPPL:  Did it concern you that he said he said he couldn't help it?

JD:  Well, yes, of course.

HPPL:  What do you think he meant by that?

JD:  I don't know.  I thought he meant he would just lose his grip from his swing.  Obviously, he swings very hard.

HPPL:  But the frequency was increasing, was it not?

JD:  Yes.

HPPL:  Did you ever ask Mr. Hamilton to submit to a medical examination to determine why he might be losing his grip on the bat?

JD:  No.

HPPL:  No further questions.

+     +     +

THAT's what I was thinking.  That when the whole world can see there's something odd going on that results in the threat of bodily harm to your fans and highly-paid athletes, you do something about it in advance of tragedy.  And where you don't know the reason, you ask people who know about holding on to things to have a look.  Even if they don't find anything, you've done what you could to find out why this extremely unusual and dangerous series of events were occurring.  Other than sitting him down to think it over.

It would surprise me if I am the only person in the metro who has thought -- there's something wrong here.

But in retrospect, I should not have focused on the specific possibility of ALS.  That was look-at-me, even by my somewhat relaxed standards, and I should have thought twice about that.

Let the piling-on continue.  I know, I know, I've lost a reader.

Chucking Chuck

It's always dangerous when I get sportsy, but this really isn't all that sportsy, so I'm slinging it out there.

Somewhere along the line someone is going to spill the beans about what really happened with the Chuck Greenberg termination.  Until they do, I have a thought or two.

I have heard it said that nothing was revealed at yesterday's press conference.  I heard two things I found, if not revealing, at least suggestive.

First, there were frequent references to Greenberg's "passion."  I hear that from time to time in the business world in which I move, and it frequently means that the guy is a jackass -- that his "passion" is a little too apparent in the way he deals with people -- subordinates, peers, and bosses.   Was it Evan Grant who mentioned rumblings about a possibly abrasive character in private?  I heard it somewhere. 

Second, note that I mentioned bosses.  Greenberg  had some.  In that presser, you also heard frequent references -- and pointed references -- to the Rangers board of directors.  The board of directors, not the CEO or President, have the ultimate responsibility to the corporation's owners.  That board is full of money guys who have come up through, and headed, large organizations.  They're button-down guys.  They want their CEO to be responsive to them and to run the team like a business.   The board probably consists of guys who have confidence in the business theory that calls for clear lines of reporting and responsibility.   Greenberg may well have strayed from the reservation in his dealings on the Cliff Lee thing -- remember that there was a point there where Ryan and Daniels seemed to be excluded from the negotiations.  And there may have been other instances where he didn't keep in touch with his board or involve the baseball people who, in large measure, attracted this risk capital to the Rangers in the first place.   Greenberg is by no means an amateur businessman, but as I read his bio it looks to me like he may never headed anything as conventionally corporate as the Rangers.  His out-front "style" may have looked a little too Cubanesque (his friend, despite the Ranger auction, and former neighbor) for their taste.

Pure speculation based on the items that caught my ear in the press conference.  May be way off base.  N.P.I.