You may have read Sam Mellinger's takedown of the Kansas City Royals because they decided to save a few bucks and not spring for Negro League uniforms for Negro Leagues Day, which will played today in Kansas City. If not: Read it. I'll wait. I'll also sum up best I can: Every year, the Royals have a Negro Leagues Day. This makes sense since the Negro Leagues were formed in Kansas City, and the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum is in town, and the beloved voice of the Negro Leagues, Buck O'Neil, called Kansas City home and called the Royals his favorite team.
As part of the celebration, the Royals players and the opponents usually wear Negro Leagues replica uniforms. This is a nice gesture that gives the game a special feel. Later, they auction off the uniforms to raise some money. It's a nice, easy, and relatively cheap way to make the promotion a little bit better.
This year, the Royals decided not to wear the uniforms. The reason for this is generally unclear -- the explanation in Sam's column is that the Royals just wanted to try something different -- which strongly suggests that, once again, they were too cheap to do the thing right.
If the Royals had a strong history of doing things right, of course, you would give them the benefit of the doubt and say it was just an innocent mistake. But they don't have such a history. In fact, while reading Sam's column, I felt a shudder of memory: I wrote about the Royals being too cheap to wear Negro Leagues uniforms NINE YEARS AGO. At the time, the Royals were a wreck financially and structurally. Their connection to the community had become frayed to the point of breaking. They were, essentially, a national joke.
Things are supposed to be different now. The Royals are supposed to be going in the right direction. They are supposed to be building a model franchise. You may or may not care about Negro Leagues Day. You may or may not think they should even have one. But that's not what this is about. If they are going to HAVE a Negro Leagues Day, they should not let a few grand keep them from buying special uniforms for the players and the event. But they did.
Anyway, Sam's column sparked me to go back and find my original column. It ran June 28, 2002 in The Kansas City Star. With a mere changing of the names, it could run today. I enclose it here:
Royals Blunder Absurd: Teams won't don Negro Leagues uniforms
Saturday, for the first time in years, the Royals will not be wearing Negro Leagues uniforms on Salute to the Negro Leagues Night. We reported earlier that this is because the Royals are too cheap to spend the measly six grand to buy the uniforms.
Well, the Royals would like to clear things up.
They're not cheap, they explain. They're incompetent.
"The bottom line," says Charlie Seraphin, Royals vice president for marketing, "is that new guy Charlie messed up."
Sometimes, you just have to wonder whether the Royals' strategy is to alienate every single person in Kansas City individually, of if they prefer doing it all at once. They canceled the Royals banquet because it was too expensive. They thought it best to come up with no slogan for this year. They eliminated the best general-admission seats in baseball based on some shrewd business strategy that has Royals attendance at its lowest level in 25 years.
And now, no Negro Leagues uniforms. Why not? Well, here's what the Royals want you to believe. They goofed up. Seraphin is new. So is pretty much everybody else in the marketing department. And Seraphin says he just wasn't aware that this "wearing of the uniforms thing," was kind of a tradition.
"I had no concept," Seraphin says.
Never mind that the Negro Leagues were created here. Never mind that Satchel Paige, the essential player in the Negro Leagues, lived here until his death. Never mind that Buck O'Neil, the eloquent spokesman of the Negro Leagues, still lives here. Never mind that the Negro Leagues Museum is here. Never mind that Saturday in Detroit - with about one-millionth of
the Negro Leagues history of this city - the Tigers and Pittsburgh Pirates will wear Negro Leagues uniforms. Players will wear the uniforms in 10 other cities this year, some of them minor-league cities.
"I just didn't know," Seraphin says. Hard to imagine. Still, because he didn't know, the Royals set up Negro Leagues night against the Padres. And, you see, San Diego never had a team in the Negro Leagues. So, Seraphin says, naturally it wouldn't be right for the Royals to play in their Negro Leagues uniforms with the Padres playing in their regular old uniforms.
"Frankly, we think it would be stupid," Seraphin says.
Now, he readily admits that Major League Baseball did not say the Royals could not wear the uniforms. He readily admits that the Padres did not tell the Royals not to wear the uniforms. When you ask him why the Padres couldn't have just played in the classic Padres yellow-brown uniform or some other old uniform from its past (and there were black teams also in San Diego), or why they couldn't have just changed the date, or why the Royals couldn't just wear the uniforms some other night, Seraphin just says it wouldn't work.
"We don't want to compound my mistake," he says.
There you go. The Royals aren't going to wear the Negro Leagues uniforms because Charlie Seraphin scheduled the wrong team. That's the reason. And it's hard to imagine that professionals could come up with a reason that bad. I mean, these guys have meetings. Couldn't they have come up with something else? Frankly, I think the Royals should have just stuck with the "We're too cheap to pay for them," excuse. At least then we could have had a bake sale.
Poor Charlie. One thing you have to say about the Royals: They do have loyal soldiers willing to take the bullets.
"Look, I know I messed up, and I feel rotten," Seraphin says. "If there are any arrows to sling, sling them at me."
Seraphin says he wants to make up for his mistake. No, the Royals won't wear the uniforms, which would make up for the mistake. But he promises that next year's "Salute to the Negro Leagues Night" will be bigger and better than ever. He guarantees that the Royals will do a much better job supporting the Negro Leagues Museum. And, as a goodwill gesture, he said that he would have manager Tony Pena and several players come out to the opening of the Buck O'Neil Negro
Leagues Baseball Classic on Thursday night.
"Our motives are pure," Charlie says. "I realize that I'm in the Show-Me State now. Words are cheap. It's time to show Kansas
City."
Thursday evening, the Buck O'Neil Classic began as scheduled. Kids ran the bases. They tried to hit home runs. And, here in the Show Me State, as you've already guessed, not a single Royals player showed up.
Along those lines, Suellentrop had a not too dissimilar write-up on Grantland: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6743732/hard-times-paris-plains
ReplyDeleteOh, Kansas City.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's already hard to be a Royals fan. Why does the organization actively try to make it harder?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the Tigers and White Sox WILL be wearing throwbacks (next weekend) and the Royals aren't:
ReplyDeletehttp://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/06/29/detroit-tigers-negro-leagues-weekend/
It's amazing how short-sighted people can be. Save a couple pennies now and hurt your reputation for the long run.
ReplyDeleteTone deaf is a term often applied to the people responsible for insulting decisions like this. I think it goes beyond this. I think it is a glimpse of exactly what some of these owners really are like. Apathetic, selfish, and greedy. Its there because its too lengthy for Joe's blog here
ReplyDeleteI don't think they really care what Joe Posnanski writes. He's not in their country club, nor does he own a boutique vineyard, or send his children to academies ending in "Hall"
The Giants fortunes turned around when Harlan and Sue Burns bought the plurality shares of the Giants in 1992. For what its worth, there is a distinct contrast between the ownership groups of the Giants and Dodgers. And it is like night and day.
Whatever their shortcomings, the Giants ownership is unsurpassed in honoring their traditions and not always limited to former players or personalities.
Good stuff, Joe. Your column from 2002 reminds me how bad those teams were and how much of a joke the Royals were nationally. I keep hoping we are headed down a better path. But decisions like this one don't do much to reinforce that.
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest problems most CEOs have is they are disconnected from the people who buy their product. David Glass is no different. Sometimes, because of ego, they just don't care. Other times, they just don't know. Neither rationale for a decision like this is acceptable. And we diehard KC fans appreciate you and Sam calling the franchise out. That is the only way to get Glass' attention -- if he is listening, that is.
As many have mentioned in the past, 'what can you expect from a guy that ran Walmart?'
ReplyDeleteAny chance Dan Glass sees the interests of the Kansas City community when he takes full control of the Royals? Hopefully the apple does fall far from the tree.
The Negro League Museum is the only baseball organization that is more poorly run than the Royals.
ReplyDeleteI've been driven absolutely insane by the way every team has to have five different uniforms--one all rep cap, one all-blue, one blue with a red bill, one red with blue, one for St. Paddy's day, one for the 4th and memorial day, one home jersey, one road, one alternate, one vest to be worn over a t-shirt, one old school jersey, and those god-awful Padres uniforms in camouflage. And the Rays and D'Backs have changed their uniforms more times in 12 years than the Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox and Cardinals combined. And where do they draw the line? At honoring a group of people who were extraordinarily talented but kept out of the game and the spotlight because of prejudice. Way to go, baseball. Hey Royals, I think it's time for a new all-blue road alternate jersey with Kansas City written in script instead of block letters. Get on that ASAP!
ReplyDeleteI cannot believe they're not going to be wearing the Monarchs uniforms this year. Those things are always so cool to see! And no hats for the fans? What is going on? Remember the days when we were proud of Kansas City's baseball legacy? When we celebrated that rich history? Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteAlso, reading that old article I just had to be reminded of old GA. Oh, GA. Why did that wound have to be reopened?
According to Forbes' "The Business of Baseball" from March of this year (http://blogs.forbes.com/kurtbadenhausen/2011/03/23/baseballs-most-valuable-teams/), the Royals made a profit of $10 million last year. They were listed in a group of low attendance teams that were profitable thanks to $400 million in revenue sharing.
ReplyDeleteAn important thing in this report is in the information on the Royals page (the Royals were ranked the 26th most valuable MLB franchise). It said, "The Royals are set to see profits soar in 2011 as the final payroll could come in below $40 million."
The Royals payroll for 2011, according to Cot's Contracts, is $38 million. Last year, it was $75M.
Here is what's most interesting. Last year, the Padres were MLB's most profitable team, making $37 million.
If everything stays the same this year (the Royals attendance this year is nearly identical to last year at around 20K per game), the Royals will add $37M in profit just because of reduced payroll. That would bump their profit to $47M, which could make them the most profitable team in all of baseball.
I guess saving a few grand here and there could bump those profits even more. Sounds like a big money grab to me.
E
ReplyDeleteNice take on the Giants ownership but I have a question for you and please correct me if I am wrong. This is about your comment of how ownership has shown great respect for the team's tradition.
Have the Men in Black come back to San Fran and erased all traces of everyone's memories of Barry Bonds? Considering he was the team's greatest or second greatest player ever, was the godson of Willie Mays and broke baseball's most iconic record, the fact that he has disappeared from the team's memory without a trace is rather startling to me.
Are his sins THAT bad that he becomes a non-person? Like he was cut out of a Soviet encyclopedia?
Not even a plaque?
I would be interested to hear your take on that (or any other Brilliant Readers).
Just briefly Mark, this isn't my blog obviously, but its a great subject. Your observations are astute vis a vis Bonds' apparent invisibility. But knowing how Team President Larry Baer works, (he's a p.r. and marketing genius)he knows Bonds could probably still get elected to office in S.F. Obviously they are keeping a low profile temporarily until there is final disposition of his court case at least.
ReplyDeleteHe was brought back last October to throw out the first pitch in one of the playoff games and the place was rocking harder than Candlestick was during the '89 Earthquake Series.
Baer and the Giants specialize in rehabilitating the tarnished reps of their former players: to wit Bobby Bonds alcoholism, Willie McCovey's income tax conviction on baseball card shows, Bowie Kuhns banishment of Mays for associating with gamblers, Orlando Cepeda's drug related issues in Puerto Rico, Gaylord Perry's spitball, and Juan Marichal's clubbing of Johnny Roseboro.
All of those players with the exception of Bobby Bonds are now in the HOF. It may not happen this season, but I am pretty confident that the Giants will gin up their reputation-rehabilitation machine when they think the time is right.
Bonds is extremely popular here in the Bay Area. Giants fans are to Bonds what Yankee fans are to Jeter, and Royals fans are to Brett.
To Giants fans, Bonds may be the black sheep of the family, but he's still family. The Giants understand that and they know their fans understand that. Its only a matter of time I suspect
Think the Royals will spring for All-Star batting practice uniforms next year?
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame - I grew up in Kansas City and during the franchises first 25 years (until the passing of Mr. K) the Royals were the model franchise of doing things right. You always gave them the benefit of the doubt - after the success of the baseball academy, the quick accumulation of talent, the great managers - you could trust they knew what they were doing.
ReplyDeleteNow, who knows what is going on there.
No offense, Joe, but you are one more person who has left Kansas City, now complaining about things happening in Kansas City. (Same with Suellentrop)
ReplyDeleteYou lose some credibility when you leave the city. Just the way it is.
I'm not sure that Joe complaining about the Negro Leagues uniforms is comparable to Suellentrop making broad generalities about the people who live here.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing about this column is that I attended the 2002 game in question. My wife and I flew out from Oakland for the game because I wanted to go to a Royals game, and they were playing the Padres, which are the two teams of my youth in KC and San Diego. I remember they handed out free Monarchs hats that night (sponsored by Dodge). I had no clue why. I guess the promotions department couldn't even promote what was actually going on at the stadium that night. My memory of the game is a Ron Gant grand slam to win it for the Padres late.
ReplyDeleteAnd in case you were wondering, Charlie Seraphin followed up on that Not-Ready-for-Prime-Time moment by eventually landing plum jobs in Major League Soccer and the NBA D-League. He's now a consultant... but probably not for the Negro Leagues Museum.
ReplyDeleteI also think it's a travesty that next year, when Fenway Park celebrates 100 years of existence, that MLB has elected to let this ownership group of the Royals host the All Star Game. Say what you want about the Red Sox, but in moments when the history and grandeur of the game are in the offing, they answer the call and honor the fans and what is best about baseball. MLB is missing out on a chance to feature and celebrate one of baseball's most beautiful ballparks (made all the more precious after the loss of The House Ruth Built), and will instead award a franchise that can't get it together enough to place a rush order at Ebbets Field Flannels. Nice.
ReplyDeleteFenway Park hosted the ASG in 1999, not that long ago in the context of thirty teams. The last time the Royals hosted the game was 1973. Think of it more as a reward for the long-suffering fans rather than for the ownership.
ReplyDelete