The Sad Spiezio Scenario & Tony

by Urban Pawnee on Mar 8, 2008 11:16 AM EST Comment 21 comments

This from Edmonds, reflecting on Spiezio in '07:

"We saw it last year. It was bad. And it turned real ugly. I'm not going to go into the details, but you saw the signs in person. ... Once he started, he just couldn't slow down. He was staying up all night, all day, all night, all day, and then (he'd) come in and couldn't play. He was missing a bunch of games for stupid reasons.

"You try to straighten him out. But if they don't want to be straightened out, you've got to let it ride itself out, knowing something good or bad was going to happen."

Living in Chicago, admittedly in the heart of an anti-Card bias, I catch a significant and persistent sports media buzz regarding Tony running a permissively "toxic" clubhouse ... citing his defense of McGwire (and Bonds!), the Canseco-led Oakland A's swelling biceps, Ankiel, the most names on the Mitchell Report, the Josh Hancock saga, his own DUI, etc.

And now we're digesting the gruesome details, as they leak out, of the personal disintegration of Scott S., which far from being an isolated incident, was a long, steady slide into darkness, witnessed by many. Was Tony one of them? Or is it a case of the manager just keeping his blinders on, and respecting the personal freedoms of "grown men", even though, in Spiezio's case, his inability to play the damn game on any given day affects the whole team - and the whole season. Yeah, I know, they got him into rehab in August. Too little too late?

I don't pretend to know what the answer is here. But I do sense that part of Tony's legacy will be this perception, fair or not, that all this happened on his watch. For someone who wears the mantle of micro-manager/control freak, it seems ironic.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Good points

Let's also not forget Tony's push for Ponson, Bonds, Clemens, and others. Do I think Tony wants a chemical clubhouse, not necessarily. However, I believe he is a win-at-all-costs kind of guy and if he thinks the player will help put a few wins in the column, he will look the other way at the baggage. I would not be shocked at all if part of Rolen's issues with Tony stem from this. Scott is a dead serious player and one that is all business and fair, hard play. Those other elements in the clubhouse likely irked him.

Tony is a great manager and in the end, managers are judged by wins and losses. Tony knows this and he also believes he can help some of these lost souls. I am torn because I hate cheating and anyone who cheated during this era. However, I also know that alot of good people make mistakes and deserve another chance. And baseball itself is most at fault for the steriod era because they turned their backs on it. If they had reacted like they should have, the vast majority would not have ever tried the stuff, but when the league allows it, the others do it to keep up.

How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Mar 8, 2008 12:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

a relative story, maybe

since it is a non-baseball analogy, I will try to be brief.
A story in my neck of the woods is circulating recently about Edgar Sosa, the sometime point guard for the Univ of Louisville basketball team... coached by Rick Pitino.
Reckless and uncontrolled last year as a freshman (launching contested three-point tries; dribbling fiercely into the paint smack into two or three defenders with no 'exit strategy') he got worse this year.
It's reported that Pitino had 15 one-on-one 'conversations' with Sosa. The first 14 of the smooth, coddling, sugar-pleading variety. The 15th and last one totally different... sharp, detailed criticism, culminating with Pitino saying words to the effect, "this team is going so good right now, I don't even need you."

THAT worked. Sosa, altho some time ago having lost his role as a starter, is now allegedly playing team basketball.

How or when a coach or manager confronts (in a tete-a-tete, heart to heart fashion) a player is a crap shoot. A wide parameter of possibilities, including benign neglect.

Am I praising, above, Pitino over LaRussa? Not necessarily. I rather think that 15th conversation should have been the second or third one, but I am not wearing his shoes.

-- also, of note... I recall one LaRussa success story, re, ironically, another Edgar -- Renteria. I remember reading where Tony had a lay it on the line session with Renteria and convinced him to abandon his playboy, lackadaisical ways and become the star that he could be. This was some seven or eight years ago.

by the Tewk on Mar 8, 2008 3:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

You must read the C-J, as do I....a decent sports page, a liberal rag otherwise but I digress

I read the same story, follow the same team(s)....who knows, maybe we are next door neighbors

Pitino, TLR and all college/pro coaches managers walk a fine line in using sports to rescue troubled youngsters (anyone under 35)and protect them from what awaits them if cut loose. I admire them for caring - and I suspect most of them do - but when they bet wrong, it's ugly

If you can believe the paper, the Spiezio scenario was allowed to play out far too long.

And let's be honest.....these coaches and players spend way too much time together in a somewhat protected environment. They know what's going on.....or they certainly should.

by Hinkster on Mar 8, 2008 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the Sosa story

was also used by the TV network announcers during U of L's game with Georgetown today... and I basically had the same thought: why did it take 15 conversations?

I am loosely objective, I think. Not a great fan of college basketball, period, and certainly not a fan of U of L. I live on the 'sunnyside' of the river and thus a Hoosier -- but only luke-warm re Indiana either, despite being an IU grad.

One of my grander essays is that even tho baseball has endured some subtle and unfortunate changes (in my view) over the years, it has still relatively speaking retained its purity far more than has basketball. Rule-book be damned, Hoops are far more physical (rough) and infraction-ridden FAST than ever before.

by the Tewk on Mar 8, 2008 9:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

I agree on your baseball/basketball perspective......these basketball players thrust into the spotlight are only 18-19 years old and often knuckleheads from challenging environments....some don't get after 15 one on one sessions.........

by Hinkster on Mar 9, 2008 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another key difference

is that college basketball players are not "paid" -- at least in theory. (In practice, well, let's not go there.) At the very least, their compensation is nothing that they are guaranteed for any great length of time. Screw up badly enough and they're not only off the team, they're booted out of the university and on the street. Now. Not at the end of the school year, or even the season.

By contrast, Speez didn't have his contract voided; he just got released. He'll still make out financially (for one year) because of the buyout. That provides a serious buffer against reality, i.e., the need to take responsibility for one's actions. And when your head is as screwed up as Speez's seems to be, thinking long-term is durn near impossible anyway.

by StanTheManFan on Mar 9, 2008 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What I don't like about the "toxic" idea

...is that it equates performance enhancing drugs with abusive narcotics and alcoholism. Regardless of LaRussa's stance on players who have been accused of taking steroids or HGH, I seriously doubt it's the same stance for a player who is destroying his life with a hard lifestyle. I think that's a leap of logic that appears easy to make, but doesn't make much sense when you really think about the different mindsets usually needed to start down those separate paths.

In respect to the Speizio issue...we only know what the papers tell us. Are we to assume that because the USA Today story didn't mention the other players on the Cardinals that they weren't concerned for what Speizio was doing and tried to help? Goold's blog entry, in which he mentions that several players said the story only confirmed their worries for Scott, says otherwise.

LaRussa has been historically tight-lipped when discussing the private lives of his players. I don't think its an accident that it was Mo who was quoted in the story--which should be taken as the organization's stance (including LaRussa's) on Speizio and his issues. In addition, LaRussa's own management style has been to rely on several respected veterans to keep tabs on the other players outside of the clubhouse, and Edmonds was one of those. Personally, I think he was aware of Speizio's problems, tried to get his teammates to reach and help him, and when that failed, joined the organization in getting the guy to rehab.

In the end, these players are adults, some of them older than you and me. I'm really big on personal responsibility, and just because the clubhouse environment grants that to a bunch of guys in their late 20s and 30s does not mean its' a toxic atmosphere. This is the same organization that didn't bring Ronnie Belliard back shortly after his domestic abuse charge was made public, after all.

by Forsch31 on Mar 8, 2008 4:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

exactly...

... Spiezio is in his mid-30s, and TLR isn't his daddy. what's he supposed to do? some of Spiezio's best friends were staying up at night trying to help, and he was threatening to beat them up. the only thing TLR and the Card mgmt could do is what they did: send him to rehab and hope he got his head straight. he didn't, so they did they only other thing they could do: kick him off the team, even though it cost them $3mn bucks.

TLR is old school. he believes that adults are responsible for themselves, and he's right to do so. and, in baseball, old school includes boozing and partying, so long as you can get this job done. it seems kind of like the military: you're away from your families with a bunch of other dudes. you've got a job to do, yeah, but in the downtime you kick back and have fun. generally, things don't get out of control. unfortunately for the Cards, in the past year or so things definitely got out of control.

another thing not usually not mentioned: if the partying is affecting these guys' ability to play, then the leaders of the team need to step in and self-police the clubhouse. but a lot of the team's leaders weren't in a good position to do so. Edmonds is a noted party-boy, and he had a horrible year last year. Carp is pretty mute, and Rolen was too pissed off at the Cards organization to fulfill that role even if he were inclined to do so (and he probably isn't). Eckstein isn't the right guy for the job, and Pujols seems to have more influence over the Latin players. so it fell to guys like Percival, who didn't even join the team until the middle of the year, when this behavior had already been going on for a while.

these things happen sometimes, and it's too bad when they do, but i don't think it's an indictment of TLR or the Cards organization.

by kindred on Mar 8, 2008 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agree and disagree

players are adults
no one can control behavioral episodes of adults
PED and recreational substance abuse are two different issues
TLR should allow veteran leadership within clubhouse
I respect the private approach to inner-clubhouse affairs
I do not trust the beat writers or bloggers for the total truth of what goes on in heads and behind closed doors
TLR is not their daddy

but

I'm not sure we know the accuracy of your individual player characterizations listed above
TLR is Captain of the ship and should take responsibility for the ultimate results. You can't have it both ways as in "I'm in charge but boys will be boys".
Long term (more than once or twice) behavioral issues are clearly obvious (don't take us for fools) and should be monitored and addressed sternly
Clubhouse privacy stance does not hold water when you line up the events of the last few years. However isolated those events are, the Captain should stand up and take a strong public stance - even it involves him and no matter how "minor". If not for the good of his team and the game, then certainly for the statement it makes to the youngsters who follow their heroes.

There's alot of smoke coming from behind those clubhouse doors - and I don't think it's steam from the jacuzzi.

by Hinkster on Mar 8, 2008 9:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Well stated, Hink.

Rasmus or bust.

by Zoop on Mar 8, 2008 9:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Responses

"TLR is Captain of the ship and should take responsibility for the ultimate results. You can't have it both ways as in "I'm in charge but boys will be boys".

Long term (more than once or twice) behavioral issues are clearly obvious (don't take us for fools) and should be monitored and addressed sternly

Clubhouse privacy stance does not hold water when you line up the events of the last few years. However isolated those events are, the Captain should stand up and take a strong public stance - even it involves him and no matter how "minor". If not for the good of his team and the game, then certainly for the statement it makes to the youngsters who follow their heroes."

A baseball manager is responsible for what goes on in his clubhouse. Outside of that...it gets legally and ethically gray. It's the same problem that companies have with dealing with employee issues--they can only step in and take action when an employee's personal and private life begins interfering with their work. They are not allowed to take action beyond that. Same goes for professional sports teams. Unless Speizio was drinking in the lockerroom or showing up drunk, the Cardinals could not do anything, even release him, otherwise they'd have the Player's Association down their throats.

And no, behavior issues are not obvious. That's naive. I got accused of taking drugs once because I showed up to work for a time in an overly exhausted and dazed state for a few weeks. I was actually suffering from insomnia. Behavior issues could be related to anything; even the guys in that article who knew something was wrong had little idea what Spiezio was doing until it got really bad.

Also, my point was that we don't know how LaRussa dealt with this. We don't know if LaRussa pulled Spiezio into his office for a "get straight" talk. We don't know if he had his player captains--one of whom was Edmonds--try to get him help. We don't know because LaRussa is not one to talk about it. Talk about the "Captain of the Ship" all you want, but until you actually know what the Captain did, you should stop assuming that he did nothing.

You've had two incidents from two players who's first season with the Cardinals was 2006. The first had little warning--the first and only one was three days before, when he missed a game because he overslept. With Spiezio, his behavior started to take a serious turn only at the end of August before the 2006 season ended (according to the USA Today story). It wasn't until the 2007 season when things, according to Edmonds and Springer, started getting noticiable and they started hearing rumors. The Cardinals tried to help him when it happened, and that did work, they got him to rehab. I'm not exactly sure what more you could expect to be done. Anything else would be something less than that.

by Forsch31 on Mar 9, 2008 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's a pattern

Good point in the gray area but The Captain of the Ship is responsible - ultimately. Period. If not he then who?

Behavior issues, over time, are very obvious. Neither Hancock and Spiezio were one time partiers. I think the main point we are making here is not a manager can prevent a bad event - it's the pattern that concerns me.

TLR is not necessarily responsible for Spiezio specifically - and you are correct in that we don't know what TLR attempted - but, yes, he is responsible for leading this bunch - and patterns of jail, embarrassment and worse. It's called accountability - and there is some involved for everyone involved but especially the leader making millions of dollars and in charge of a somewhat public trust.

So we all just shrug our shoulders and say that (the pattern) is just the way it is? We can do better. And we should.

by Hinkster on Mar 9, 2008 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Q. "If not he then who?"

A. easy. Scott Spiezio.

we're talking about professional baseball players here, not nuns. those of us who mostly see StL media are somewhat insulated from this, but in NY and other cities, these guys are in the gossip pages every day. they are seen at strip clubs and nightspots at all hours of the night. this is the way that professional athletes behave, with few exceptions.

in fact, to some extent, this is just the way that younger men behave in general, especially celebrities and those with money. this is not unusual behavior for people in that age group, and i guarantee you that there are a ton of other guys on a ton of other teams who are much bigger partiers than the Cards (the BoSox come immediately to mind).

but even if there weren't... the only thing TLR could do is bench Spiezio. he doesn't have the authority to suspend him, or revoke his contract, or send him to rehab, or release him, or do anything else. he's the field manager, which means that his authority starts and stops on the field.

and, as mentioned previously, if the team tried to suspend Spiezio in Aug., 2006, the MLBPA would've had something to say.

i'm sorry, but i can't buy any argument that tries to put the blame anywhere but on Spiezio. again, we're talking about a 35 year old man here, whose been around the block more than a few times. it's not like he was some 19 year old kid who is in the bigs for the first time and gets in over his head.

by kindred on Mar 9, 2008 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

again

not blaming TLR for Spiezio..........asking him to be accountable for an overall failure of culture

by Hinkster on Mar 10, 2008 6:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thought about this more, for some reason.....and concluded that we agree more than we disagree

I asked myself the question, "Well, Hinkster, what would you have wanted TLR to do?"

The answer is "He probably did all he could do". I'm just a little frustrated that this trend seems to continue - Hancock, TLR, Spiezio, heck I'm still not happy that they had a functioning alcoholic as hitting coach not long ago. And, btw, I try not to be a judgmental person as I am no angel myself.

But it is a bit frustrating to hear the TLR approach of "It's our personal business...don't worry about...we have it under control" only to find out they never did. This is my team dammit and I want them running a tight ship.

TLR probably does hold himself accountable and he probably does do alot more than we know. I just wish it would stop.

I'm probably frustrated at the core that TLR is still running the show but that's another argument.

My frustration officialy ends here. Have fun and behave boys. Let's win some games.

by Hinkster on Mar 10, 2008 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But ...

Why was Spiezio given that contract extension, if his problems were that obvious? What were Walt, Tony, and anyone else involved in that decision thinking?

They could have let him walk after 2006 with his WS ring and winner's share. Instead, they gave him a two-year, $4.5 million contract with a $100,000 buyout.

In what universe is a guy in his mid-30s with his problems and his reputation considered a good bet to provide value for that kind of money?

Whether the clubhouse was or wasn't permissive about PEDs and substance abuse, you have to wonder why such a generous contract went to a guy like that. That's an unforced error.

by Lou Schuler on Mar 9, 2008 11:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

well...

... for one thing, this stuff wasn't common knowledge back then, and the Cardinals fan base would've gone ballistic if Spiezio wasn't brought back. remember, he was considered the Season Savior for his triple against the Padres and his triple in the NLCS. and they couldn't've said that they weren't going to re-sign him because he drank too much. they could possibly get sued for that.

secondly, it's easy to look back in retrospect and say that Spiezio "got worse" in Aug., 2006. but how did anyone know that that bender would turn into a full-blown lifestyle? like i said, a lot of players on this team (and every pro sports team) are seen in public inebriated. it's a common thing. how can you predict which ones have a serious problem and which ones are just having fun? was Edmonds on the phone to Jock telling him that Spiezio was in big trouble? was Edmonds pulling TLR aside and talking to him about this? (i single Edmonds out because he was so forthright in the USA Today piece, saying that he was aware of Spiezio's downward spiral the whole time.) i doubt it. friends don't usually screw their friends out of multi-million dollar contracts. more likely, Edmonds (and the other players) kept his mouth shut and tried to talk to Spiezio one-on-one, to try to keep him out of trouble. i know that's probably what i would've done.

the fact remains that there is one person to blame for this: Scott Spiezio. it's easy to say "so-and-so could've done more to help," but there is no guarantee that anything else would've worked. everything everyone tried failed, so why would it have helped if TLR had sat Spiezio down (and, for all we know, he might have)? i mean, Spiezio lied his way through rehab, going to classes during the day and boozing at clubs at night. he threatened to beat up his friends for trying to help him, and in light of later events, this threat was credible. he was making his choices, and nobody was going to be able to stop him.

i know half of Cardinal nation despises TLR and the front office, but this is really unfair. Spiezio's problem is Spiezio's problem. the Cards did the right thing by sending him to rehab, and they did the right thing by kicking him off the team. they had no more authority to do anything else.

by kindred on Mar 9, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Nothing to add here, except: would you want to work for an outfit that exposed all of your personal shortcomings to the press? If you answer that "no" (and if you didn't, I wonder about your sanity), then cut the team some slack for trying to be protective on this one.

by StanTheManFan on Mar 9, 2008 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

with what we apparently now know....that is one heckuva good question

the "keep it in the clubhouse - protect and police your own" strategy sounds very mature.....problem is, it hasn't worked

by Hinkster on Mar 9, 2008 12:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

and walt is gone

a bad case of the devil you know rather than the one you don't

by sportsman on Mar 9, 2008 2:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I can't quite give Cardinal management

a "pass" on the whole situation. Yes, Mr. Spezio is an adult and ultimately in charge of his own behavior. And Mr. LaRussa is not his father, but he is his boss-and Mr. Spezio did end up on the disabled list a couple of times last year. He also was left behind in a hospital during a road trip to New York. That means the training/medical staff were treating him for his various "injuries" which were described at the time as an infection in his finger and stomach troubles. He also missed games for "food poisoning" When you are not able to perform your job, it's no longer just your business, it does become your employeers business. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that someone should have suspected and/or known that drug/alcohol abuse was part of his problem. HE was under the teams medical care, and he had been with the team long enough that the drastic change in his behavior should have been noticed as well.
In hindsight, they probably should have told him to finsih the rest of the season last year in re-hab, and we'll see you, hopefully ready to go, in the spring. It's obvious that the outpatient treatment didn't work.

She isn't crazy, she's just not impressed.

by jillsinmo on Mar 9, 2008 6:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs