Lenny Dykstra says he blackmailed umps
- Thread starter Pilgrim
- Start date
threecy said:
Define crooked.
Do I believe that umps favor certain players? That's an every day occurrence. Do I believe that umps are fixing games? That's laughable.
threecy said:
Yes and no. I wouldn't be surprised if there were crooked umpires (there were some crooked refs in the NBA -- which every completely forgets about), but I believe that all umpires are biased. Whether intentionally so or not, that's human nature. But that's not the point of this discussion.
The point of this discussion is whether Len Dykstra bribed enough umpires (through him hiring a PI to dig up dirt on all of them) that his walk totals rose because they were afraid of him. What was the mechanics of him bribing the ump? Did he say it when he walked up to the plate? Did he send them a note written in crayon? Did he spit a bribe on the Veteran's Stadium carpet? Did he ever have to make good on his threats? If so, how?
There's a lot to this story and some of it might add up and a bunch probably doesn't. Mainly because Lenny Dykstra is a liar and an over-exaggerator.
Did he ever have $500K to pay those private investigators? His big contract, as noted, was 3/$7.3 million, and his spending and gambling habits were well-known and notorious. I seriously doubt he had, during his playing days, 1/2 a million freely available to hire PIs to dig up dirt about umps.
I mean, read this about his efforts to start up that high-end magazine and tell me if you'd ever believe anything he had to say about anything ever again.
I mean, read this about his efforts to start up that high-end magazine and tell me if you'd ever believe anything he had to say about anything ever again.
I would hope that any subsequent sports "journalists" who interview him pursue this subject. Obviously he was wrong (whether lying or being a meathead) about his claim of leading the league in walks for multiple years. Even if the rest of the claim is somehow true, it doesn't make him any less of a repugnant individual. That said, crooks are often taken down by other crooks.
If pressed, will he name some umpires? If umpires are named, will any other players corroborate? If umpires are named, can any proof be uncovered, especially considering this was two decades ago?
If pressed, will he name some umpires? If umpires are named, will any other players corroborate? If umpires are named, can any proof be uncovered, especially considering this was two decades ago?
threecy said:
What you don't seem to be grasping is that Lenny Dykstra is not a crook looking to take down other crooks. He is a convicted con artist who will say and do anything for money. So if the factual underpinnings of his story are shown to be false, it's a pretty good indication that he has fabricated everything.
Pointing that out is not the same as arguing that all umps are clean. It simply means that no one should believe Lenny Dykstra without independent corroboration.
A big +1.Average Reds said:
When looking at accusations, one has to consider the credibility of the accuser (zero in this case for obvious reasons), and the credibility of the story the accuser paints. And we know that story already has some blatant untruths in it.
There may or may not be dirty umpires in MLB. Personally, if they do exist, they are likely far and few between. But the chances that Dykstra's rantings will uncover any facts about corruption among MLB umpires appears to be about as close to zero as you can get. Comparing Dykstra to Canseco is comparing apples and oranges.
This statement could be changed to Jose Canseco and steroids.Average Reds said:
The last sentence is what a sports journalist should jump on; either get some actionable information out of the guy or prove that he's a complete liar on this issue.
Jesus H Christ on a Popsicle stick, just because Canseco told partial and exaggerated truths about steroid use doesn't mean that Lenny Dykstra, who makes Canseco seem like the Pope in comparison, should be believed at all.
Canseco has NOTHING to do with this. Dykstra is talking about his own supposed actions, not relating a wider tale of major league baseball behavior.
Canseco has NOTHING to do with this. Dykstra is talking about his own supposed actions, not relating a wider tale of major league baseball behavior.
My wife used to edit a magazine, and the design firm they used also did Lenny's deluxe, high-end magazine, for the couple of issues it lasted: http://www.gq.com/story/lenny-dykstra-magazine, if you missed it.
She met him a couple of times when they both happened to be there on the same day.
We still have a copy of the issue with Danica Patrick on the cover somewhere. It was the size of a phone book, on all thick, glossy paper, and it looked gorgeous. It was also insanely, unsustainably expensive to print.
She confirms that he is a sleazy, unctuous asshole.
She met him a couple of times when they both happened to be there on the same day.
We still have a copy of the issue with Danica Patrick on the cover somewhere. It was the size of a phone book, on all thick, glossy paper, and it looked gorgeous. It was also insanely, unsustainably expensive to print.
She confirms that he is a sleazy, unctuous asshole.
threecy said:
No, it could not.
Dykstra isn't just some run of the mill hustler/slimeball like Canseco. He's a grifter. Telling lies for money isn't something he does out of desperation; he does it for the adrenaline rush.
To paraphrase Mary McCarthy, every word he says is a lie, including "and" and "the."
Sure but all he said was that he lost respect for all 3 of them, not assert a moral equivalence among all 3. Schilling's comments certainly fall for me in the "I've lost respect for him based on what he said" category.lexrageorge said:
Sorry, but I don't understand how this separates out Dykstra from Canseco.Average Reds said:
Both were liars and cheaters, with a huge ego driven to win at all costs. In my experience, the best testimony about graft and corruption comes from those who practice, well, graft and corruprion.
Where exactly is the line drawn between hustler/slimeball and grifter?
Buzzkill Pauley said:
I'm not sure where the line is exactly but there is a line between Canseco, a shady character with anger issues, and Dykstra, a con man, pathological liar, criminal, and thief.
Both absolutely fall onto the scumbag spectrum. Somehow, Dykstra has managed to make himself worse than Canseco, and thats saying something.threecy said:
I think being convicted of and serving prison time for fraud is a good place to put that line. ..johnmd20 said:
It's been a week, yet no follow ups on this. The sports media was happy to propagate the original story, yet there have been no follow ups?
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Canseco was universally assumed to be full of shit back before 2005.
Then, after a while, he wasn't. Turns out that even though he was a total scumbag, steroids were actually a problem in baseball that baseball had to act to address.
Dykstra may or may not have attempted to blackmail umps. If he did, I'm sure he's not the only person in history who ever did so. Those others might have been other millionaire players, or they might have been mobsters, or Vegas bookies, or corporate fat-cats, or whoever else has money and power, plus the burning desire to "nudge" a baseball event to go a certain way and the ruthlessness to act without regard for the law.
Look, I'm not trying to say either one of these guys is more than a lying sack of shit. So was Canseco. But what Dykstra was a lying sack of shit about led to him eventually being prosecuted. Just because Canseco didn't get caught doesn't make me think more highly of him.
Now I admit, that I personally hope Dykstra is telling enough of the truth so that MLB has to investigate the umpires named in his book, after which Manfred and the teams should gain enough bargaining power against the umpires' union to institute robots for balls and strikes.
Which, like steroid testing appears to be doing, should also lead to an end result for the eventual betterment of the game.