Rift between Girardi and Eiland shot down

Football Open Thread
Christian lighting it up in winter ball

You may have seen this report yesterday, indicating that former pitching coach Dave Eiland felt his opinions were “de-emphasized” after his return from a month-long personal leave of absence this past June. Well, Mark Feinsand spoke to Eiland himself, who said the report was “absolutely ridiculous and simply not true.” Glad he cleared that up. He also declined to speak about the circumstances of his dismissal, which should come as no surprise.

Even if the the relationship between Girardi and Eiland did deteriorate after the leave of absence, it’s still pretty much a non-story. When established big leaguers like A.J. Burnett and Javy Vazquez pitch as poorly as they did down the stretch, they’re to blame. Not the coaching staff.

email
Football Open Thread
Christian lighting it up in winter ball
  • Dave the Ox

    There goes muckraking ESPNNY Marchand again. Anything for more clicks and comments.

  • Hughesus Christo

    Eiland’s comments to the media do absolutely nothing to confirm or deny that report–you know, presuming he wants to ever work in baseball again.

    • http://www.twitter.com/deanezag Zack

      And the original report does nothing to confirm or deny the story’s credibility either.

      • Hughesus Christo

        A reporter for a “reputable” newspaper has to work under the reporting guidelines of that publication. Take that as you will.

        Eiland’s response, however, is completely meaningless.

        • http://www.twitter.com/tomzig Tom Zig

          “absolutely ridiculous and simply not true.”

          I don’t know about you, but to me that sounds like it’s pretty meaningful.

        • http://www.twitter.com/deanezag Zack

          In other words, there is nothing Eiland can do to defend himself from faceless claims?

        • mbonzo

          Not picking on you, but you’re the reason there is sensationalist media. If you think ESPN wouldn’t trade a bit of their “reputability” for viewers you’re crazy. There job is not to gain readers trust, it is to gain readers. After the whole Lebron fiasco and stupid stff like Girardi wanting to leave the Yankees for the Cubs, how can you take them so seriously. Honestly, there is no answer out there to why Eiland was let go, but you’re probably still thinking he’s fired if you trust ESPN.

          • Hughesus Christo

            ESPN and the Daily News, for example, have a brand to maintain. They can also be sued for libel. I have no doubt that incorrect information gets reported, but that’s because someone/multiple people lied to a reporter. When a story is fabricated it gets turned into 2 books and a major motion picture. The media conspiracists are a thousand times worse than any media sheep.

          • Hughesus Christo

            And your examples are horrible.

            • mbonzo

              At least I provided some examples. If there was one example of ESPN defending some sort of media honor you would have posted it. I don’t believe in some media conspiracy to try to make people sheep or something, but the media is not here to grace the world with honesty, they exist as a business. Their job is to make money, and a story about the Yankees pitching coach not having his contract renewed for personal matters isn’t going to sell as much as him being fired for fighting with the manager. All media in Americans like this, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ESPN, etc.; if they weren’t trying to break the most obscure stories, they would not be in business. And laws regarding libel in America are nearly impossible to enforce since you need to prove there was malicious intent. The people involved don’t want to have their characters defamed in a legal pursuit for something so minimal as an ESPN article.

              Again, if you can’t think of the crazy stories ESPN comes up with to try to sell its brand you don’t know enough about ESPN.

              http://bleacherreport.com/arti.....each-story

              http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com.....f-context/

              http://bleacherreport.com/arti.....lous-point

          • http://twitter.com/JoeRo23 The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

            “Honestly, there is no answer out there to why Eiland was let go, but you’re probably still thinking he’s fired if you trust ESPN.”

            Cashman said it was his (Cashman’s) decision to let Eiland go. He didn’t use the word “fired,” but it’s the same thing. Eiland was let go by Cashman.

            You’re right that we don’t know why he was let go, because Cashman said he considered that a private matter, but you’re not right that he wasn’t fired. He was.

            • mbonzo

              So when Damon and Matsui didn’t have their contracts renewed they were fired? Its the same situation, both players wanted to return but the Yankees ended up going with other players.

              • http://twitter.com/JoeRo23 The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

                Whatever, you can call it whatever you want. At the very least, the Yankees declined to bring back Eiland. In a world in which guys work on fixed-length contracts, that’s not a termination, but it’s a parting-of-the-ways that was caused by one of the parties, and that party happens to be the employer. I don’t think it’s such a stretch to call that a firing.

                • http://twitter.com/JoeRo23 The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

                  And, just as a PS… It’s not really the same as the situation with free agent players. Coaches don’t hit the market and play the market the way free agent players do. Yeah, technically all 3 of those guys had their contracts expire, but it’s a very different situation with Eiland than it was with Damon and Matsui. Cashman even said Damon and Matsui were his choices A and B to bring back as DH in 2010, while Eiland is not even in the running to be the pitching coach since he’s been ruled out before any other options have even been considered. It’s different.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cecala Joseph Cecala

    ESPN has horrible writers, they are only valuable when it comes to football.

  • MikeD

    I agree with others above. Eiland saying it’s not true means nothing. No way he would confirm it it it was true since it would reflect negatively on him. The last thing he wants is a story in the media about how he had a personality conflict with his former employer since that won’t help him land another job.

    • MikeD

      …but I should add, it also doesn’t mean Eiland is not telling the truth. We can’t assume anything from the original story or from Eiland’s denial.

      • http://www.twitter.com/deanezag Zack

        Which means it’s he-he said, no proof on either side, therefore it’s a non-story.

        • MikeD

          Yes, exactly.

        • Eric Young

          Not to nitpick (i.e., I’m about to), but it’s “No One Said/Media Suggests”…fairly standard stuff.

    • Pasqua

      Well, the other option would have been to decline comment / say nothing. Doing this (to me) would have suggested that there was truth behind the rumor. That he vehemently refuted the claim suggests (again, to me) otherwise.

      But, if you (2nd person “you,” not you specifically) think his denial equals an admission, why bother having the discussion?

  • http://twitter.com/kschmidt2 Kiersten

    I’m not sure when it became OK for a “credible” news source to publish stories without any sources or proof.

    • http://www.twitter.com/deanezag Zack

      The only accountability in the media is when you say something racist/sexist and the sponsors care enough to pressure your company to fire you.
      Other than that you just blame it on your anonymous sources.

    • Thomas

      Fact: The less facts a story has the more factual it is.

      • David

        Agreed, it’s not the truth but the truthiness that matters

        /Colbert’d

    • Poopy Pants

      Eiland is a white male so that rule doesn’t apply.

    • Hughesus Christo

      If there were no sources or proof, it wouldn’t be a story, and Eiland would be suing.

      • Betty Lizard

        LOL! If that were the case, the courts would be so busy hearing libel actions they wouldn’t be able to handle anything else.

        If you’re a public figure, the burden of proof is almost impossibly high and public figure or no, the costs of a defamation action in the US usually outweigh, many times over, any possible benefit to the injured person.

      • http://www.twitter.com/deanezag Zack

        It’s not about having no source, it’s about a faceless accusation. How the hell is Eiland suppose to defend himself? he says it’s not true, and you say “well of course he’s going to say that.”
        If you want to ruin a guy’s reputation then stand up and put your name next to a quote, and show evidence. Don’t act like you’re blowing the whistle on insider trading so your identity has to be protected.

        • Hughesus Christo

          I would assume it’s another Yankee employee(s) who doesn’t want to get fired.

          • http://www.twitter.com/deanezag Zack

            That makes it ok? If you feel that telling what you feel is so important (with or without proof) that it’s worth violating team policies, then put your name to the quote so people can ask you follow up questions.

            Did Eiland tell you this? Did you overhear a conversation?
            Did a player tell you this? Did a coach tell you this? When did you find out? What context was it in? Was it after a 15-2 loss when people are mad or was it water cooler gossip?

            • Hughesus Christo

              Anonymous sourcing is a legitimate concern, but I want to be very clear: Anonymous source does not mean no source. Absolutely nothing runs in the News, Post, Times, Journal, ESPN, SI, etc with NO source.

              • http://www.twitter.com/deanezag Zack

                That’s fine.
                But an anonymous source with zero tanigble proof is a half step higher than no source, IMO. The source says whatever he wants, Eiland says his opinion, and people believe the source because people say “oh course Eiland will defend himself.”

      • http://twitter.com/kschmidt2 Kiersten

        No, because he’s a public figure.

        • Hughesus Christo

          Being a public figure doesn’t open you up to be lied about by the (mainstream) media. That’s something public figures claim to tamp down stories they don’t want you to believe.

          • http://www.twitter.com/deanezag Zack

            When someone has 0 evidence, you deny the faceless accusation and move on.
            Instead of spending hundred of thousands of dollars and 3-5 years fighting ESPN’s legal team, when in the end it will just be blamed on a source.

          • Hughesus Christo

            It doesn’t matter if it was blamed on a source or not. ESPN has to know it is verifiable information, particularly if its is potentially damaging to someone in a high-earning profession.

            These things get printed because they are true. That you assume ESPN is regularly making stories up is proof that the “deny deny deny” tactic works. Even most of the garbage printed in the shittiest celebrity rags is true.

            • Betty Lizard

              These things get printed because they are true someone hopes they are at least partially true and meanwhile they make for a good story and generate income or other benefit to the writer.

              FTFY

          • Betty Lizard

            Being a public figure doesn’t open you up to be lied about by the (mainstream) media.

            Of course it opens you up to being lied about. Public figures are lied about every day. But they don’t go around suing, because the burden of proof is NOT that it was in fact a liebut rather that the propagator of the lie KNEW that the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. That’s a very difficult standard to meet.

    • jim p

      William Randolph Hearst, 1898.

  • Ed

    When Cashman announced that Eiland wasn’t coming back, he said that there was nothing Girardi could have said to change that decision. I don’t think Cashman would have said that if the problem was between Girardi and Eiland.

  • http://danielslifka.wordpress.com Jerome S

    Truthfully though, who cares?

    • Dave the Ox

      It’s not a matter of caring or not. It’s the possibility–or probability–that this was an untruthy non-story being put out there for public consumption. Just like Girardi to the Cubs.

      I call for a boycott of ESPN: New York. For baseball at least.

  • bonestock94

    Has anything besides pure garbage ever come out of ESPN: New York?

    • http://youcantpredictbaseball.wordpress.com/ bexarama

      Wally Matthews actually wrote a really good, reasonable article on what the Yankees should try to do before 2011. It was SHOCKING.

  • Januz

    The reality of the matter is this. With the meltdown of Burnett & Vazquez, and the disappearance of Eiland for a month during the season, someone was going to take the fall if they did not make the World Series, and you do not have to be “Castle” or “Sherlock Holmes” to figure out Eiland was the leading suspect.

    • JerseyDutch

      Sounds like Eiland was done even if they went to the WS. Cashman said something to the effect that the decision had been made weeks previous to the playoffs.

    • http://twitter.com/JoeRo23 The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

      I just love that Castle is one of the great detectives Januz chose to name-check, there. Awesome.

  • Big Daddy

    Bottom line: Dave Eiland was a TERRIBLE pitching coach.

  • Neil

    Whatever Eiland said or the scouting report said about pitching to the Rangers in almost every key spot other than Pettitte in game 3 very few Yankee pitchers made a good pitch to get out of a jam. Every batter can be pitched too but Yankee pitching was not very good in that series.