Jaramillo and Tampering?

Like everyone else I'm delighted by the hiring of Jaramillo, but this line caught my attention:

"I knew this team wasn't going to have a hitting coach at the end of the season, and that's why things worked out," Jaramillo said

That has the aura of tampering, to me. Have there been any other stories that have raised the tampering question? - TL

29 days ago timlacy 21 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

but I don’t see it. I won’t rule the notion out, but it sounded to me like he wasn’t warm to the current situation in Texas, and played the market a bit, rather than jumping on the Rangers’ one-year renewal.

by Damen Jackson on Oct 22, 2009 12:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 22, 2009 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess I was surprised because...

…I had no notion that Lou or Jim were unhappy with Von Joshua—-despite the emergency nature of his hiring. I admit I stopped following the Cubs news cycle closely about mid-September—-trying to avoid heartbreak, you know. But I only became vaguely aware of Jaramillo’s upcoming freedom about 2-3 weeks ago. …Anyway, I believe Jaramillo will be a boon to the Cubbies. I don’t want to lose him for a goofy reason. – TL

by timlacy on Oct 22, 2009 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Joshua never seemed to fit in...

He just wasn’t a Lou guy, and frankly, it struck me that Piniella was unhappy about having to get rid of Gerald Perry from day one, which didn’t help.

I suspect he would have been gone regardless of their interest in Jaramillo.

by Damen Jackson on Oct 22, 2009 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

Joshua was only a temporary fix, UNLESS the Cubs had somehow magically turned into fearsome run producers after he was hired.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 22, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Plus...

… I think tampering only applies to players, not coaches or managers.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 22, 2009 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure about that

If that were the case, why would teams need permission to contact managers and coaches under contract?

I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Oct 22, 2009 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know there are specific penalties for tampering...

… in the MLB-MLBPA Basic Agreement. There’s no such agreement for coaches and managers.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 22, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Again, then why the need for permission?

Coaches and managers aren’t players; why would the MLB-MLBPA agreement apply to them?

I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Oct 22, 2009 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Common courtesy?

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 22, 2009 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're kidding, right?

I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Oct 22, 2009 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The need for permission

is directly related to the team having the coach/manager under contract.

Legally, the coach/manager cannot talk to any other team about a position while they are under contract.

Not sure if there is any MLB restitution but a team could always go the old fashioned route and sue.

Hey, it's a new century!

by cowsarecool220 on Oct 22, 2009 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

they got permission. This thread is stupid.

by cubswin on Oct 22, 2009 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, thanks for that valued input

Not sure why you chose to reply to my comment, when your statement was a non-sequiteur to it.

I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Oct 22, 2009 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

The permission news wasn't...

…widespread. Try leaving grown-up comments.

by timlacy on Oct 23, 2009 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Rangers obviously don't think so

and they gave the Cubs permission to talk to him before his contract expired on 10/31. Even if it had not been the Cubs
I think Jaramillo was leaving because he wanted a muli-year deal and they would not offer one. Keep in mind also that
there were several stories LAST year that Ron Washington did not want to keep him though I have no idea why.

"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either Jim

by Doggie Stalker on Oct 22, 2009 12:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Non issue...

…the Rangers gave the Cubs permission to talk to him and they wouldn’t have if they thought something was up.

Bottom line, behind the scenes discussions go on all the time in these sort of situations. It wouldn’t have been directly with Rudy and Hendry, but mutual friends can pass along messages of interest. It’s sort of like how the Godfather used buffers to protect himself from what went down on the street.

What I am more interested in is why Texas didn’t want to give him more than a 1 year deal.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Oct 22, 2009 3:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs