11/21/24
April 19, 2009
Don't be late if you play for the Natinals: Elijah Dukes reported five minutes late on Saturday after being held up with charity work. He was given a $500 fine and threatened with demotion. But if that's not ridiculous enough, apparently the team also forgot how to spell Nationals.
After this fiasco, why would anyone admit to being a Nats' fan?
We're also taking bets on when Manny Acta gets fired: I have May 15.
posted by jjzucal at 11:05 PM on April 19, 2009
I can understand the fine, because rules are rules, but threatening to demote him for being late is idiotic. Who really believes they would send a player down solely for that reason? It makes the manager and GM look insane.
After this fiasco, why would anyone admit to being a Nats' fan?
If embarrassment could make you stop being a fan of your team, why am I still a Texas Rangers fan?
posted by rcade at 11:49 PM on April 19, 2009
I agree with rcade, the fine is acceptable and warranted. Discipline is somewhat lost in sports and society, but that is for another time and place. Threatening to send a player down, who has been the best performer thus far, is absurd. He was late because he was doing public relations for the team. The Nationals should be concentrating on how to put a better product on the field and getting more fans in the seats.
posted by soocher at 08:37 AM on April 20, 2009
The article mentions Stan Kasten's plea to Philly to come down for the games. I was at the Nationals' first (and only) win Thursday night, and that half-empty stadium was more than a quarter full of Phillies fans.
As for Dukes, I completely agree that threatening demotion is out of line is this case for the worst man on your roster, let alone one of the few who is actually producing. The fine, I understand it, although given the circumstances of the charity work, perhaps exercising some discretion would be in order.
posted by bender at 09:42 AM on April 20, 2009
I agree with rcade, the fine is acceptable and warranted. He was late because he was doing public relations for the team.
Well, I have to disagree with both of you about the fine, even though it was a small one. He was doing charity work for the team, I repeat, for the team, so how can they feel right about punishing him in any sense of the word? I guess my question now is this, what kind of punishment are they going to deal out when he refuses to do charity work for them in the future?
posted by hellapuckboy at 10:07 AM on April 20, 2009
He was doing charity work for the team, I repeat, for the team
I didnt see anything in the first article that said he was doing this for the Nationals. I'm a Nationals fan so I looked into this more and found another link.
Dukes was late because he was signing autographs at a Little League function that was not sponsored by the Nationals.
posted by WolfpackMD at 12:25 PM on April 20, 2009
The Nationals instead of changing the culture to be more disciplined should be changing the culture to care more about winning. How does benching Dukes give them a better chance to win? It absolutely does not. He is a rare bright spot on this horrific team. Maybe if they focus more on winning, they might actually avoid being the worst team in baseball again this year.
Also, the Natinals thing is both sad and hilarious.
posted by bperk at 12:31 PM on April 20, 2009
Now, if the event was not sponsored by the Nationals, then it changes everything.
Signing autographs at a non-sponsored event is fine, it does not get you off the hook for being late. That wouldn't fly at most of our jobs.
now, I wouldn't be throwing out the demotion threat, seems a bit drastic, and now you have to demote him if he runs into car trouble in a couple of weeks.
posted by dviking at 12:54 PM on April 20, 2009
A quote from the article above"
"OK, so rules are rules, but sometimes there are exceptions that should be made and Dukes' excuse would seem to qualify him for one - he was doing charity work for the Nats at a local Little League."
It seems Elijah Dukes was indeed doing charity work for the Nationals.
posted by BornIcon at 01:20 PM on April 20, 2009
Here's one story that says the event Dukes was at was not sponsored by the Nationals. Dukes has an agent. He should've gotten him to clear the event beforehand with the Nats so his lateness would not be an issue. That's why you pay them.
posted by rcade at 02:12 PM on April 20, 2009
One story says that it was charity work for the Nats and another says it's not. Which is it?
posted by BornIcon at 02:20 PM on April 20, 2009
The blogger you are quoting linked to the story stating it was not approved by the team. I think it's more likely he got it wrong, since he's just summarizing the reporting done by others.
posted by rcade at 02:29 PM on April 20, 2009
Here is the story from the official Nationals website. It says it was not sponsored by the Nationals.
posted by WolfpackMD at 02:57 PM on April 20, 2009
And the hits keep coming (not FOR the Nats, unfortunately for their win/loss column). What a public relations debacle. Clearly Nationals' management has been pretty clueless on this up 'til now. Maybe this will wake them up to their insane handling of this.
posted by littleLebowski at 11:09 AM on April 21, 2009
That's great. The little leaguers paying his fine for him. It couldn't make the Nats look any worse.
posted by bperk at 12:22 PM on April 21, 2009
After this fiasco, why would anyone admit to being a Nats' fan?
My opinion (as DC resident), after Kasten said the Nats wouldn't pay rent on the stadium that DC paid to build for him, why would anyone be a Nats' fan?
posted by inigo2 at 04:50 PM on April 22, 2009
And btw, Dukes was paid (albeit only $500) for his appearance at the little league opening.
posted by inigo2 at 04:52 PM on April 22, 2009
pretty bush league for a majors team.
posted by irunfromclones at 03:01 PM on April 23, 2009
And btw, Dukes was paid (albeit only $500) for his appearance at the little league opening.
I sure wish I could get paid for doing charity work.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 03:30 PM on April 23, 2009
And btw, Dukes was paid (albeit only $500) for his appearance at the little league opening.
Am I missing something? Where has anything said he was paid? (Unless you are saying that because the LL team is paying his fine, then I understand what you mean.)
posted by BoKnows at 06:09 PM on April 23, 2009
"Dukes was paid $500 for the appearance, according to Mraz, and his primary duties were to sign autographs, pose for photos and stand at home plate slapping five with the 500 or so Little Leaguers who paraded past," according to the Washington Post.
posted by bender at 09:29 AM on April 24, 2009
The Little League is wrong to make a public spectacle out of paying Dukes' fine. It's teaching those kids that following the rules is optional.
Dukes has managed this whole situation poorly, and it makes me wonder if he's a good clubhouse guy. First, his agent should have made sure the paid event was OK to schedule right before a game. Second, after this hit the press, he or his agent should have asked the Little League not to publicly embarrass his team. Dukes is not being helped by the Little League team's public F-U to his manager and GM.
posted by rcade at 09:36 AM on April 24, 2009
The Little League is wrong to make a public spectacle out of paying Dukes' fine. It's teaching those kids that following the rules is optional.
I think it is teaching them to help out someone who helped them out. Kids hear all day that they must follow rules. Sometimes I think that is what they learn the most in schools. Occasionally, it is okay to show them that some rules are harsh and seem unfair even for adults, but life is unfair. Presumably, they aren't trying to raise a bunch of hard-asses.
Dukes has managed this whole situation poorly, and it makes me wonder if he's a good clubhouse guy.
How do you know that the Nats didn't ask him not to say anything? They are completely tone deaf for PR purposes. Metro is struggling to cover it's budget and keep service, but Metro gets stuck eating an extra $27,000 to keep Metro open every time a Nats game runs past the closing of Metro. Every other organization that asks Metro to stay open late has to pay for it, but not the Nats. They drained the cash-strapped city to pay for their stadium, and they haven't done anything to put a good team on the field, or make games and the team likable, fun, or entertaining. But, the team gets grief about Lastings Milledge and has to send a message by levying a ridiculously large penalty for Dukes being 5 minutes late to a day game after a night game. A season is too long, traffic and life are too unpredictable to be that harsh about someone being 5 minutes one time. At least folks in DC like at least one player now, that is more than could be said before this controversy.
posted by bperk at 10:29 AM on April 24, 2009
Every other organization that asks Metro to stay open late has to pay for it, but not the Nats.
The city of Washington made a commitment to baseball. Part of that commitment is recognizing that its public transit will be getting thousands of riders after 10 p.m. 70-80 times a year. I don't think the Nats should be expected to pay extra because the public transit budget didn't account for an extremely foreseeable circumstance. If Washington has changed its mind and doesn't want a baseball team after all, please send them to Jacksonville.
Also, a $500 fine amounts to less than half a day's pay for Dukes. How is that ridiculously large?
I don't follow the Nats too closely, but it seems like yesterday that the team was opening a new stadium and the local fans there were over the moon. Aren't you turning on them a bit too quickly?
posted by rcade at 11:25 AM on April 24, 2009
I don't think the Nats should be expected to pay extra because the public transit budget didn't account for an extremely foreseeable circumstance.
Well, we don't know what was agreed to initially, and that's the question. Lots of events are planned, and are foreseeable; doesn't mean the people running those events shouldn't have to pay for them. The Redskins, for one, pay the fees if their games are late.
If Washington has changed its mind and doesn't want a baseball team after all, please send them to Jacksonville.
Take 'em :)
I don't follow the Nats too closely, but it seems like yesterday that the team was opening a new stadium and the local fans there were over the moon. Aren't you turning on them a bit too quickly?
For what it's worth, I never wanted them. Or rather, I never though DC should pay for their stadium; if they had paid their own way, I'd be a lot more lenient on their screwups.
posted by inigo2 at 11:38 AM on April 24, 2009
I can't blame people for disliking a local team that picked the pockets of the local government to build a stadium or achieve other amenities. They all do it these days.
As for me, though, I enjoy the sports that are funded in part by public money. That's more than I can say for a lot of the stuff my taxes fund.
posted by rcade at 01:01 PM on April 24, 2009
Also, a $500 fine amounts to less than half a day's pay for Dukes. How is that ridiculously large?
Half a day pay, benched, and threatened to be sent down as punishment for being five minutes late one time. The half a day by itself is pretty outrageous in my world. I couldn't imagine being happy with a company that docked me more than $100 for being five minutes late.
DC wanted baseball so badly that they have allowed themselves to be bled dry by the Lerners. And, in return we get the worst team in baseball. I haven't been to a game yet this season. I always felt like my pocket is being picked when I'm there.
posted by bperk at 01:20 PM on April 24, 2009
I can't blame people for disliking a local team that picked the pockets of the local government to build a stadium or achieve other amenities. They all do it these days.
My initial reaction was to dislike DC for giving them the money, and ambivalence towards the Nats. But then the Nats stopped paying rent b/c a conference room wasn't 100% finished, and my ambivalence turned to dislike.
posted by inigo2 at 02:34 PM on April 24, 2009
All the talk in baseball circles has been about the Florida Marlins' awesome 11-1 start. "How are they doing it?" they ask. And yet not once does one of these analysts note, "Ya know, they have played half of their games against the Nationals." This would mean that they are 5-1 against major league teams, which might be a generous statement about the Braves given their early offensive ineptitude.
Oh yeah, the actual subject of this thread...does this story make anyone else think that the Nationals management might want to worry more about winning games that worrying about fairly benign stuff like this? If Dukes had been hung over or something, that would be one thing, but if he's at a charity event which might help draw 3 or 4 more fans (thus doubling their attendance), you might ease off a bit.