UPDATE: See the bottom of the post for what the original line may have said…
I don’t want to engage in irresponsible speculation based on a few comments about something that doesn’t appear in a Toronto Sun article that can be found on another blog, but… uh… here goes! (What, would you rather I write about Ryan Langerhans?)
Over the weekend, as I explained in Tuesday’s Daily Duce, Bob Elliott wrote about “the departure from the organization of Tom Burns, a respected long-time scout who recently left the Jays for the Padres, reportedly upset at how scouts have been treated since Brian Parker took over as scouting director last year, and also with the fact that he’d been moved from the amateur side to the pro side. He’s the twelfth scout to leave under Parker’s watch– two others left on their own, while nine were fired.”
It certainly seems curious that there has been so much turnover in that department– though maybe to be expected under a new scouting director– and might have been an interesting subject for a full post over here, if information on the internal comings and goings down at 1 Blue Jays Way weren’t so scarce.
In other words, there wouldn’t have been a lot for me to say.
At least, not based on the version of the article that I saw– which you can see from the image above, has been updated since originally having been posted. That’s not terribly unusual, though. I wouldn’t be shocked if somebody told me that the majority of articles you see posted online in places like the Toronto Sun have updates to them at some point, and that the majority of those are probably for tiny things, like a bit of copy editing, or a small update in information.
Some folks in the comments over at Bluebird Banter, however, claim that they saw something quite noticeably different in the article in question. Here’s a transcript of the relevant comments– you can find the full thread at the bottom of the BBB post, or in a screengrab here.
e&n4e: Maybe I’m going crazy but when I first read the article, I swear there was some clear implication of internal turf war between Parker and LaCava.
MjwW: Oh there definitely was. Not Parker and LaCava, but LaCava and Dana Brown. I’m guessing a more than a few people at One Blue Jays Way didn’t like seeing that, and it sounds like there was some major pushback.
junior_felix_jr: The implication that LaCava wanted to shakeup scouting by letting these guys go and Brown was opposed? Or vice versa?
MjwW: Nothing that direct. See below.
. . .
ClintB: Clearly I’m missing something here. There was more to this article originally?
e&n4e: Yes. It was edited (you can see in the headline that it was “updated” 4 hours later).
MjwW: There was a paragraph, or paragraphs, about how one of Elliott’s sources had said he heard from someone inside Toronto’s org that there was a turf war/power struggle between Dana Brown and LaCava, who are two of the few who actually have AA’s ear, and that may be the reason for some scouts leaving.
Now, no offence to commenters in general, or to the guys who are quoted above, but we’re not exactly working with a reliable bunch of sources here.
Even if they’re correct that the sort of paragraph they’re referring to did once appear in the piece, they’re certainly taking liberties with their suggestion that some kind of sinister pushback from the Jays P.R. department necessarily must have been behind the removal of what they claim they saw.
Information that the alleged statements were incorrect could have come to light from any number of sources, the Sun could have become uncomfortable that what was printed wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny if the Jays disputed it, or… there are any number of possibilities, really. If, again, the supposed paragraph was even in there.
I’ve checked Google’s cache and the internet wayback machine and a few other ways to see if I can find the document as it was originally posted, but have so far come up empty. Even if I– or some intrepid member of the Monkey Army (hint, hint)– did find it, I’m not sure what it would even mean. The information was excised, so as far as we know it’s simply not true and wasn’t fit to print. At least, not after it was originally printed. Y’know, if it originally even was!
Would we be surprised, though, if there was internal strife among the Jays’ front office staff after a season as difficult and as disappointing and dispiriting as this one? Hells naw! You’d probably be worried if they weren’t all bristling about what a complete and total fucking disasterfuck they presided over this year. Still, what it possibly portends for the future, and whether the shakeup in the scouting department may be just the first signs to some other restructuring among the suits, is interesting, even if it all obviously remains to be seen– and may well not be remotely true in the slightest!
Intrigue-ish! Though it’s all baseless and irresponsible speculation, of course.
A reader emails and says that there was a cached copy of the original piece downloaded to his RSS reader, and the line in question read as follows:
We’re not sure it’s fair to blame Parker for all the changes. Opposing scouts say they hear out on the road a behind the scenes battle is waging between the Dana Brown and Tony LaCava camps. Brown, is an assistant to Anthopoulos, LaCava, an assistant GM, two of the few the GM listens to.
Again, we’re dealing in uncertainties as to the authenticity of the line and what it says. If that’s it, though, it’s beyond entirely plausible that the comments were removed specifically because they’re not correct. And the fact that it’s not anything coming from the Jays very possibly makes it more dubious. Intriguing, though!