Jeff Pearlman recently wrote a column for CNN about why Penn State should keep the Joe Paterno statue. I generally enjoy Pearlman's writing. I have read three of Jeff Pearlman's books and have enjoyed all of them. What I find interesting about Pearlman, and I've noticed this following him on Twitter, is that he comes off as a very self-conscious writer. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. It could just be me, but I feel like he demonstrates he cares what people write or say about him, which can't be said for many other writers who tend (pretend) to shake off criticism easily. Some people probably find this endearing in some fashion and others find it annoying, while I find it somewhat interesting because few writers will openly admit criticism has hurt him/her in some way.
So Jeff Pearlman thinks Penn State should keep the Joe Paterno statue in order for society to have a way of discussing child molestation. To tear down the statue, says Pearlman, would be to sweep the Paterno-Sandusky story under the rug. I don't think statues have very much to do at all with whether we continue to discuss child molestation in a public fashion. This Joe Paterno-Sandusky-Penn State saga is going to be widely discussed even if they tear down the entire university. That's just how it is, so whether the statue gets removed or not seems irrelevant to furthering the discussion on child molestation.
Over the past couple of days, I've listened with mounting frustration as people debate whether Penn State University should remove from its campus the 900-pound bronze statue of Joe Paterno, its once-legendary football coach.
I don't think the Joe Paterno statue looks that much like Paterno. The glasses look pretty accurate, but otherwise it looks way too much like my grandfather for my tastes...and he didn't look anything like Joe Paterno. My point is that this is a statue meant to honor Joe Paterno and may not serve a purpose to society outside of this.
It's as if, to the folks who demand action, taking away a metal JoePa would serve as another blow to the real JoePa; one last spear in the heart of the fallen hero
The folks who demand action aren't trying to serve another blow to Joe Paterno, they want to remove a monument to Paterno that stands on the campus. A statue at a university has unspoken meaning to people. It says, "This person is important, served this university well, and he/she should be honored for their contributions to the university." So those demanding action don't want to serve as a blow to JoePa, they just don't want to continue viewing a monument that seems to celebrate him and his legacy. His silence towards child molestation is now a part of his legacy that some people do not want celebrated.
Sadly, it just doesn't work that way.
It very well could work that way if Penn State decides to take the statue down.
As much as I have come to abhor Joe Paterno's indifference and arrogance and self-serving loyalty (to himself and his image and his stupid little football program), I fail to see how digging out a statue does anything but conflict with (what should be) one of the most important elements of higher education:
Not honoring people with statues when this person has a hand in allowing the molestation of multiple children over a multi-year span?
Open and honest and intelligent dialogue.
The Joe Paterno statue doesn't have anything to do with the open and honest and intelligent dialogue about child molestation. This dialogue can start and continue with or without the Joe Paterno statue. The statue serves as a reminder of the greatness of Joe Paterno, and it is not a symbol that allows open dialogue to continue. If Penn State tore down the Paterno statue the world wouldn't immediately forget about child molestation and the dialogue would continue and even continue to prosper. The statue is a symbol, not a dialogue-starter.
Were I in command of this decision, not only would I make certain the statue stays, I'd surround it with flood lights and fireworks and hire Flavor Flav to hype its very presence. "Come one, come all! Camp out! Bring classmates! Observe the bronze Joe Paterno! Debate away!"
Using the idea that a statue, or a symbol such as a statue, is the best way to start and further a discussion on important social issues, wouldn't it make sense to build a statue of other people who have perpetuated atrocities throughout time? We want to talk about prejudice and the horrors of genocide? Let's build a statue of Adolf Hitler in Washington, D.C.! We want to talk about child molestation? Then build a statue of Jerry Sandusky and have nightly discussions around it. It sounds absurd, because it is absurd.
My point is these discussions can happen without a statue. That's why the idea of removing the Joe Paterno statue would in some way also inhibit the child molestation discussion seems ridiculous to me.
Truth be told, the last thing we (and Penn State) should be doing right now is trying to hide and forget what happened.
This is not the point of removing the statue. The point of removing the statue is to no longer honor Joe Paterno with a statue that stands for the greatness of Joe Paterno. That is what intrinsic meaning statues have and it doesn't stand for mistakes that Joe Paterno has made. When you see a statue of Ty Cobb, you know it is there to celebrate his career as a baseball player and the benefits of playing at a time when he didn't have to face Negro League pitchers (ok, I added that last part). That statue intrinsically doesn't make a representation about Cobb's personal life and what a huge asshole he seemed to be. The same thing goes for a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. When we see a statue of him it is for the Civil Rights Movement and his fight against racial discrimination, it doesn't also serve as a reminder that even the greatest men and leaders are prone to adultery.
You get my point. A statue is there to honor, not create a discussion. The discussion will happen without the statue.
Bronze Joe Paterno needs to remain, because we need to talk about this. We need to discuss ways to stop child abuse. We need to discuss the courage it takes to step forward, especially when it's significantly easier to remain silent.
Then we can discuss it. No statue is needed for this discussion. I'm also not sure how much we need to discuss child molestation. Child molestation is wrong and right-minded people should do anything and everything in their power to stop or prevent it from happening. I guess the how and specific ways to stop child abuse are important, but the legacy of what happens when people keep their mouth shut is a lesson learned from the Sandusky saga and is not taught by the presence of the Joe Paterno statute. His statue reminds us he was a successful football coach.
Mostly, we need to discuss statues themselves -- and what they reflect.
It reflects Joe Paterno made Penn State a lot of money by winning football games and they built a statue as a thank you for making the football team so successful.
The reason Jerry Sandusky was able to perpetrate his evil is because at Penn State (as at hundreds of other Division I schools across America) sports have exceeded academics in importance.
While this statement is true, the reason Jerry Sandusky was able to perpetuate his evil is because Penn State coaches and administration valued the football team over the lives of innocent children. This situation didn't have much to do with academics. It had to do with Penn State protecting their football program and Paterno's legacy. Jeff Pearlman seems upset sports have exceeded academics in importance, so I would think the tearing down of Paterno's statue would be something he would favor. The tearing down the statue would show the importance of social responsibility over the importance of academics at Penn State.
The athletic programs are responsible for large dollars; for large enrollments; for national attention; for eternal glory. They are not to be stopped or interfered with or questioned.
Again, while this is true, this isn't a case of sports exceeding the value of academics in the eyes of the Penn State administration. It's about the football program exceeding the value of children's lives in the eyes of the Penn State administration.
Joe Paterno has a statue for the same reason Auburn University built one for former quarterback Cam Newton (a non-graduate who attended the school for one year) -- because football (literally, the launching of a synthetic oval contraption through the air) exceeds all else.
In terms of making money, it probably does. This is sad, but true.
Why, in 2007, five Penn State scientists (Richard Alley, William Easterling, Klaus Keller, Michael Mann, Anne Thompson) shared the Nobel Peace Prize for their work on climate change issues. None of them have statues (rest assured, had any committed Sandusky-like acts, they would have been turned over to the authorities in minutes). None of them will have statues. Ever.
What if Penn State tore down the Joe Paterno statue and built a statue for these five Nobel Peace Prize-winning scientists? Problem solved.
Bronze Joe Paterno needs to stay because, deep within his metallic eyeballs, there is a story to be told.
Does that story happen to be a story about how he coached for a long time and won a lot of football games? If so, that's the story the statue is telling me too.
Years and years from now, when most of us are gone and this scandal is merely a blip in history, he will hopefully serve as the essential reminder that, once upon a time, we deified people for their ability to win ultimately meaningless and trivial games.
Yes, he probably will serve as this reminder and we don't need a statue of Joe Paterno on the Penn State campus to help serve as the reminder. I don't care if the statue comes or goes, but if it stays then it won't represent a beacon of knowledge about what happens when people keep their mouth shut about crimes committed against children. It will serve as a reminder of there being a statue on Penn State's campus because Joe Paterno won a lot of games as a football coach.
And we paid a dear price for doing so.
Wouldn't you think removing the statue would show that no matter how many wins Joe Paterno has, his silence in the face of knowledge concerning crimes against children is now part of his overall legacy and he no longer deserves a statue on the Penn State campus?
It's weird because Jeff Pearlman rails against colleges favoring athletics over everything else, but then he favors the Joe Paterno statue remaining standing when this statue is a reminder of Penn State choosing to honor Joe Paterno's success in athletics over his actions as a human being. I don't care if the statue stays up or goes down, but if it stays up then it isn't going to further the discussion of child abuse and how we can prevent further child abuse. That statue will serve to show what a great football coach Joe Paterno was at Penn State.
Showing posts with label Jeff Pearlman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeff Pearlman. Show all posts
Monday, July 23, 2012
Saturday, June 5, 2010
2 comments Four Issues For Saturday
There has been a lot happening in sports over the past couple of days and some issues have arisen that I wanted to talk about here. Of course, since this is a blog about bad sports journalism I will cover these topics through the articles written by sports journalists (how novel of a concept). I also feel like I have to cover Peter King's last mailbag until late July since I will miss it so much.
1. Peter King's mailbag brings up the question of whether Pat Tillman should be voted into the Hall of Fame or not in his mailbag.
So one of the controversies of the day Monday, via e-mails and Twitter, centered on Pat Tillman and whether his valiant life, tragic death and turning down NFL millions to join the Army Rangers in the war in Afghanistan merits a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
He absolutely does not deserve to be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was a good player, but the Pro Football Hall of Fame is for players who excelled ON THE FIELD, not for players who did great deeds off the field. Character is a part of the judgment process (knowingly or unknowingly used in some respects I am sure by the committee), but is used in conjunction with what a player did on the field.
Cris Collinsworth has advanced this cause often since Tillman's death in 2004, and it has gained some traction. The Tillman story is truly an amazing one. He was a seventh-round pick of the Arizona Cardinals in 1998, worked his way into their starting lineup, made Dr. Z's all-pro team in 2000, played four years, and, on the verge of earning a $3.6-million free-agent contract in 2002, quit football to serve his country.
I am pretty sure Cris Collinsworth's opinion being in favor of it, being a late round pick and eventually starting for an NFL team, making Dr. Z's All-Pro team, and giving up a million dollar contract are not criteria to be in the Hall of Fame. So the fact Tillman has been awarded these honors does not sway me.
I couldn't feel more strongly about this. If you put Tillman in the Hall of Fame, every other NFL player who served in the military deserves an opportunity to have his name heard for enshrinement as well...or at least consideration for enshrinement.
Peter actually agrees with me on this issue, which makes me reassess my opinion. Of course, Peter does bring up some valid points.
The Pro Football Hall of Fame is for what men do on the football field.
In the 90-year history of the NFL, 24 young men who played in the league died serving the U.S. Google Bob Kalsu, the Bills lineman who died in Vietnam. If Tillman goes in, should the other 23 also be enshrined?
Do selectors (I'm one of the 44 with a Hall of Fame vote) stop at only military heroes, or do we enshrine other footballers who go on to do great things in life? Byron "Whizzer'' White went from running back to the Supreme Court. Should he get in? Jack Kemp, the great quarterback-turned-politician?
All very good points. I actually haven't even heard a good argument from someone who says Tillman should be in the Hall of Fame. Cris Collinsworth is absolutely wrong to encourage the enshrinement of Tillman. Not only would enshrining Tillman put a player in the Pro Football Hall of Fame for non-football reasons, it is also a somewhat slap in the fact to other NFL players who have served in the military. Why is Tillman more important than they are? Was his death more important for some reason than the other NFL players who have died in combat?
Let's leave it at the fact Tillman was a great guy, a great football player and a war hero. That should be enough.
MOSS WILL BE MOSS. "What do you make of the latest news regarding Randy Moss cutting ties with his agent? Is this a sign he wants out of New England after next season?''
--Jeb, Bath, Maine
PK: As far as the agent change, Moss told Ian Rapoport of the Boston Herald that he feels he's been short-changed in the endorsement department. I doubt he did that with an eye on breaking the bank in 2011, though I'm sure in eight months that will be his focus.
I can't believe Randy Moss would actually feel like he has been shortchanged in the endorsement department because of his agent. What a fucking crock. If anyone shortchanged his endorsement possibilities it was Randy Moss himself...by hitting a police officer with a car, his statement of "I play when I want to play," the general feeling that he actually does only play when he wants to, his history of marijuana use and when he pretended to moon the Lambeau Field crowd. Those events all affected how he was perceived by the public and probably hurt his endorsement opportunities. The guy he looks like in the mirror affected his endorsements, not his agent.
"Peter, regarding the New York/New Jersey 2014 Super Bowl, you state that you're against it because people will pay ridiculously high prices to sit in the cold and possible inclement weather for over 5 hours. My response -- then don't come to the game!! For too long, we have complained that at least 50 percent of those people who go to the Super Bowl have no idea what's going on. Maybe a Super Bowl out in the cold will only attract real football fans who have some knowledge of the sport and actually want to be there to see the game.
--Brad, New York
1. Peter King's mailbag brings up the question of whether Pat Tillman should be voted into the Hall of Fame or not in his mailbag.
So one of the controversies of the day Monday, via e-mails and Twitter, centered on Pat Tillman and whether his valiant life, tragic death and turning down NFL millions to join the Army Rangers in the war in Afghanistan merits a spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
He absolutely does not deserve to be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was a good player, but the Pro Football Hall of Fame is for players who excelled ON THE FIELD, not for players who did great deeds off the field. Character is a part of the judgment process (knowingly or unknowingly used in some respects I am sure by the committee), but is used in conjunction with what a player did on the field.
Cris Collinsworth has advanced this cause often since Tillman's death in 2004, and it has gained some traction. The Tillman story is truly an amazing one. He was a seventh-round pick of the Arizona Cardinals in 1998, worked his way into their starting lineup, made Dr. Z's all-pro team in 2000, played four years, and, on the verge of earning a $3.6-million free-agent contract in 2002, quit football to serve his country.
I am pretty sure Cris Collinsworth's opinion being in favor of it, being a late round pick and eventually starting for an NFL team, making Dr. Z's All-Pro team, and giving up a million dollar contract are not criteria to be in the Hall of Fame. So the fact Tillman has been awarded these honors does not sway me.
I couldn't feel more strongly about this. If you put Tillman in the Hall of Fame, every other NFL player who served in the military deserves an opportunity to have his name heard for enshrinement as well...or at least consideration for enshrinement.
Peter actually agrees with me on this issue, which makes me reassess my opinion. Of course, Peter does bring up some valid points.
The Pro Football Hall of Fame is for what men do on the football field.
In the 90-year history of the NFL, 24 young men who played in the league died serving the U.S. Google Bob Kalsu, the Bills lineman who died in Vietnam. If Tillman goes in, should the other 23 also be enshrined?
Do selectors (I'm one of the 44 with a Hall of Fame vote) stop at only military heroes, or do we enshrine other footballers who go on to do great things in life? Byron "Whizzer'' White went from running back to the Supreme Court. Should he get in? Jack Kemp, the great quarterback-turned-politician?
All very good points. I actually haven't even heard a good argument from someone who says Tillman should be in the Hall of Fame. Cris Collinsworth is absolutely wrong to encourage the enshrinement of Tillman. Not only would enshrining Tillman put a player in the Pro Football Hall of Fame for non-football reasons, it is also a somewhat slap in the fact to other NFL players who have served in the military. Why is Tillman more important than they are? Was his death more important for some reason than the other NFL players who have died in combat?
Let's leave it at the fact Tillman was a great guy, a great football player and a war hero. That should be enough.
MOSS WILL BE MOSS. "What do you make of the latest news regarding Randy Moss cutting ties with his agent? Is this a sign he wants out of New England after next season?''
--Jeb, Bath, Maine
PK: As far as the agent change, Moss told Ian Rapoport of the Boston Herald that he feels he's been short-changed in the endorsement department. I doubt he did that with an eye on breaking the bank in 2011, though I'm sure in eight months that will be his focus.
I can't believe Randy Moss would actually feel like he has been shortchanged in the endorsement department because of his agent. What a fucking crock. If anyone shortchanged his endorsement possibilities it was Randy Moss himself...by hitting a police officer with a car, his statement of "I play when I want to play," the general feeling that he actually does only play when he wants to, his history of marijuana use and when he pretended to moon the Lambeau Field crowd. Those events all affected how he was perceived by the public and probably hurt his endorsement opportunities. The guy he looks like in the mirror affected his endorsements, not his agent.
"Peter, regarding the New York/New Jersey 2014 Super Bowl, you state that you're against it because people will pay ridiculously high prices to sit in the cold and possible inclement weather for over 5 hours. My response -- then don't come to the game!! For too long, we have complained that at least 50 percent of those people who go to the Super Bowl have no idea what's going on. Maybe a Super Bowl out in the cold will only attract real football fans who have some knowledge of the sport and actually want to be there to see the game.
--Brad, New York
PK: I got your point loud and clear. But the one thing you must remember is the coat-and-tie set will be coming to this game -- or scalping their seats for $5,000 or $6,000 apiece.
Again, this is simple economics. The coat-and-tie set won't be able to get $5,000 or $6,000 for a seat if there is no one willing to pay that amount. It is not a given that scalpers will be able to get their asking price for the seats. If prices are lowered maybe other fans will be able to come to the game. It is a possibility.
When/If the coat-and-tie set don't like the look of the weather, they will either give the tickets away or sell them to someone. Assuming the Super Bowl is not as an attractive ticket due to the weather, this would presumably cause the price of the tickets to go down. Under the assumption the Super Bowl isn't a hot ticket, $5,000-$6,000 for a seat may an overestimate.
Will the average Joe pay that much to see a football game, albeit a historic one? I doubt it.
The average Joe may not have to pay that much. That's the point of the question. If no one wants to attend the game because of the threat of sleet, snow, or the fact it is in New Jersey, then the demand for tickets will go down and the price will go down as well. The point of the question was that if the lure of a Super Bowl ticket in bad weather causes fewer people to want tickets, wouldn't this lower the ticket price so that they would be more affordable to the "average" NFL fan and not guys like Gregg Easterbrook?
I'm not saying the price for tickets will go down no matter what, but one of the major concerns I don't have about the Super Bowl in New Jersey is ensuring the price of the tickets are high enough or ensuring the stadium is as full as possible. I don't care how high the ticket prices are and if the concern is whether those who can afford expensive tickets will make it to the game or not...well that is a concern I don't share. Many, many more people watch the game on television anyway and enjoy it, so it is not like the entire Super Bowl experience would be ruined if the stadium isn't completely full or there is some snow on the field.
Again, this is simple economics. The coat-and-tie set won't be able to get $5,000 or $6,000 for a seat if there is no one willing to pay that amount. It is not a given that scalpers will be able to get their asking price for the seats. If prices are lowered maybe other fans will be able to come to the game. It is a possibility.
When/If the coat-and-tie set don't like the look of the weather, they will either give the tickets away or sell them to someone. Assuming the Super Bowl is not as an attractive ticket due to the weather, this would presumably cause the price of the tickets to go down. Under the assumption the Super Bowl isn't a hot ticket, $5,000-$6,000 for a seat may an overestimate.
Will the average Joe pay that much to see a football game, albeit a historic one? I doubt it.
The average Joe may not have to pay that much. That's the point of the question. If no one wants to attend the game because of the threat of sleet, snow, or the fact it is in New Jersey, then the demand for tickets will go down and the price will go down as well. The point of the question was that if the lure of a Super Bowl ticket in bad weather causes fewer people to want tickets, wouldn't this lower the ticket price so that they would be more affordable to the "average" NFL fan and not guys like Gregg Easterbrook?
I'm not saying the price for tickets will go down no matter what, but one of the major concerns I don't have about the Super Bowl in New Jersey is ensuring the price of the tickets are high enough or ensuring the stadium is as full as possible. I don't care how high the ticket prices are and if the concern is whether those who can afford expensive tickets will make it to the game or not...well that is a concern I don't share. Many, many more people watch the game on television anyway and enjoy it, so it is not like the entire Super Bowl experience would be ruined if the stadium isn't completely full or there is some snow on the field.
2. I have always felt a little bit odd about Jay Glazer's MMA training of NFL players and his job as an NFL reporter. It just seems like a conflict of interest to me.
Jeff Pearlman does too.
When he’s not reporting on NFL players and teams, Glazer, ahem, works for NFL players and teams.
I have absolutely nothing against Jay Glazer and love how he scoops ESPN for stories, but I see a natural conflict of interest in Glazer being employed by NFL teams to train players in MMA and working in a field where he reports NFL-related stories. It just feels like a conflict of interest to me.
I know there are conflicts of interest throughout sports in regard to writers co-authoring books with athletes. It's not like Jay Glazer is the only one to do this. So it is not like Glazer is the only one who does this.
SportsbyBrooks makes this very point in this well-written article. I think there is a difference in writing a book with a manager or athlete and having a business relationship with an entire team of athletes. I also understand the teams in the NFL may not have a problem with Glazer's arrangement. That's fine, whether NFL teams think Glazer's relationship between his MMA business and teams in the NFL really doesn't have an effect on my opinion of this situation, nor should it.
SportsbyBrooks makes the point that Jeff Pearlman is essentially a hypocrite because Rick Reilly has written books with athletes and he used to work for SI. I know Pearlman mentioned in his post the policy at SI about accepting gifts from athletes or teams, but I don't think he was holding SI up as the moral center of sports web sites or magazines. I don't think the fact Rick Reilly has a close relationship with athletes when he was working for SI makes Jeff Pearlman a hypocrite or cause him to have any less of a point simply because he just happens to work for SI now. That's a weak point. Because Rick Reilly happened to share the same employer has Jeff Pearlman did doesn't mean Pearlman is wrong or SI didn't have the majority of their writers follow the policy they had. Reilly plays by his own rules. We have seen that from the self-plagiarized columns he puts out.
So I do get the opposite view of this and I know everyone doesn't have a problem with Glazer's duties for FOX and his MMA business. I don't have a huge problem, I just think it does bring up questions about stories that Glazer may not report and the fact he has a relationship with players and NFL teams where they can be his client and the subject of a news story by him.
He is a mixed martial arts trainer whose clients include two franchises (the Falcons and Rams) and, apparently, dozens of players, ranging from Ryan Grant to Patrick Willis to Matt Leinart. As in, they pay him for his services.
I know Jay Glazer is merely a reporter, but it feels wrong that he reports on the very same people who pay him to train them in MMA. I have always felt this way since I heard he was mixing his MMA with his relationships with NFL players. How can his reporting not be affected by the fact the Falcons pay him to work with their players on MMA?
This, journalistically, is a joke. An embarrassing, pathetic, worst-of-its-kind joke.
I wouldn't go this far. Anytime Jay Mariotti is still writing, he takes the cake as the biggest journalistic joke, but I would definitely agree that Jay Glazer has a conflict of interest. Perhaps if he didn't work directly with the NFL players and it was just his company that did the MMA training I would feel differently. That's not the case though. He is very hands-on and trains the players himself.
As clients, these players certainly expect—and receive—a high level of confidentiality. To work out under someone’s watch is to provide him with incredible access; access you don’t want displayed to the public.
It is not even the working out part of it as much for me, but more the fact these players pay him for a service and in spending so much time with them he probably does learn some stuff about them that the public doesn't know, but an NFL reporter would usually report.
So what if Glazer hears Leinart calling a hooker? What if he sees Cushing (funny example) poppin ‘roids? What if he doesn’t think Grant is an especially hard worker? Does he sleep on the information, or does he ruin his ties with the players by reporting it?
My question, and this is where the conflict of interest lies, is when is Glazer not a reporter and a MMA trainer and when is he a MMA trainer and not a reporter? The line is blurred to me. If he asks Brian Cushing how the team is looking and Cushing says terrible and gives a specific example about why, shouldn't Glazer report this? This is NFL news.
Glazer's answer to this is they don't discuss football. How can they not talk about football? Because I don't believe it would be possible. That's the biggest thing Glazer and his NFL clients have in common. It just seems like it would be a natural discussion.
The answer is obvious: He sleeps on it.
We don't know this for sure, but we could guess Glazer cares more about the Glazer MMA brand than his standing as an NFL reporter for FOX.
On his Twitter page, Glazer was bragging about attending Jared Allen’s recent wedding. A. If you’re covering the NFL, you don’t befriend (closely) a player, and you sure as hell don’t attend his wedding. Again, what if Jared Allen gets drunk and vomits all over the cake?
That's not really NFL news anyway.
What if he punches Brett Favre?
Then I want pictures.
This violates more journalistic standards than one can count. Even if Glazer is completely unbiased (a human impossibility), perception outweighs reality. How can anyone take his reporting seriously? How can anyone believe they’re getting the full story? All the details?
Therein lies my problem. I have always liked Glazer as the incredibly competent antidote to the ESPN NFL reporters. He is sort of a one-man wrecking crew when it comes to getting stories, but there isn't any way his two gigs don't overlap and don't eventually become a conflict.
Glazer did report over Twitter on Thursday the Falcons were suspending Quinn Ojinnaka, but this was going to be reported anyway and I am concerned with the stories that Glazer finds out about and aren't or won't be public knowledge at some point.
Glazer told the Times he’s not trying to be a regular NFL reporter; that he’s trying to “build a brand.”
This annoys the shit out of me even more. Then quit your gig as the FOX NFL reporter and start doing MMA training full-time. He is essentially using his job as the FOX reporter to get new clients for his business, which isn't an issue, except for the fact he very well could be violating some of the integrity of journalism when these two jobs overlap. I like Jay Glazer and I like to hear him report stories, but he is blurring some lines in my opinion.
How can FOX not care about this? I know they like the fact he scoops ESPN, but there will come a time when he has to report honestly on a player/team he is training. Even if he reports the entire story honestly, there will still be the feeling he hasn't done so completely because many people will think he knows more or is holding something back. The perception is the issue. That's the problem I see.
3. Now for the most controversial umpire call in many, many years. Yes, I am talking about Jim Joyce blowing the perfect game for Armando Galarraga with a terrible "safe" call at first base. It was a horrible call and I am amazed an umpire as good as Jim Joyce missed the call.
There has already been a web site dedicated to getting Jim Joyce fired, though I think the guy who writes there means it purely tongue-in-cheek.
I've been watching baseball for a long time and that isn't the worst call I have ever seen. I have seen worse, but it certainly is one of the most historic bad-calls I have ever heard. I am not going to tear Jim Joyce a new asshole simply because he has been a man and admitted he was wrong. I am beyond impressed with how Galarraga, the Tigers, and the Tigers fans took the bad call. There were fans who cheered when Joyce came on the field on Thursday, Galarraga didn't choke Joyce to death ( which I would most likely do), and the Tigers even were pretty calm about it in the clubhouse after the game. That's probably better than I could have done.
Joyce made a terrible call and he ruined history. The fact he came out and publicly admitted he missed the call and obviously felt incredibly bad about it, doesn't make up for it, but it at least shows he isn't the ego-driven type of umpire we have seen make bad calls recently.
Because we live in a 24/7 news cycle this has brought up a whole new set of questions about instant replay. I am in favor of expanding replay, just not to balls and strikes. I think each manager should have the ability to challenge one umpire call per game that doesn't have to do with balls and strikes. It doesn't take long to check on the instant replay for home runs and I really don't think this would slow the game up too much. I am not in favor of expanding replay much more than that.
Balls and strikes shouldn't be reviewable and I am not sure how it would be handled if catch was called in the outfield when it wasn't a catch. It doesn't seem fair that a runner may have been able to advance more than one base if a catch was originally called by the umpire on a fly ball, but it ends up being a hit on instant replay. I think in this case, the runners should get to move ahead one base. Baseball rules award the baserunner two bases on a ground rule double when many times if the ball had stayed in play a runner on 1st base would have scored. So there is a precedent in baseball for just awarding a certain amount of bases to a runner, even though he could have conceivably advanced further.
I am glad there hasn't been a huge outcry against Joyce, because he didn't mean to such a bad call and obviously feels terrible about it. I am glad MLB and Bud Selig didn't overturn the call and make it a perfect game for Galarraga. It's done already and I don't think baseball should set a precedent of overturning bad calls. Galarraga pitched a perfect game in my mind and changing a bad call by an umpire in a game is a slippery slope. Why is that game more important than a game in July between the Cardinals-Dodgers that may be decided by a bad call? MLB can't go back and change all the bad calls. It's better to just know Galarraga threw a perfect game, even though the record books don't show it. The record books also show Barry Bonds is the all-time home run king and we know that isn't true either.
4. Tom Brady seems to have a sort of disconnect with Patriots management over his training in California instead of being with the team. At least that is what Mike Silver is reporting.
Remember the MMQB from May 10, when Peter King painted Tom Brady as dedicated to the team even though he wasn't around the team for most of the summer? A player has a right to be away from his team if the mini-camps are optional, but Peter didn't really mention what the Patriots may have thought about Brady staying away from optional practices. Brady seemed pretty standoff-ish that people may think he isn't dedicated to the team, but I wonder what he thinks about the fact the Patriots may be a group that is concerned about his dedication?
New England’s most beloved sports hero will be a fixture at the Pats’ training facility in Foxborough, planning to hang around at least through the team’s June 15-17 minicamp.
Then Brady will likely return to Los Angeles, where he has spent the bulk of his time since the Pats’ 33-14 playoff defeat to the Baltimore Ravens last January, and where he and his wife, supermodel Gisele Bundchen, are having a sizeable home built.
This story, at least from my point of view, isn't that Brady is not in New England with the Patriots. Brady will still have a great year no matter where he trains, so there may be no problem on that end. The story is that Peter King painted a rosy picture (surprise, surprise) of Brady just wanting to be with this family and didn't mention the Patriots were fine with this or not.
This is one of the biggest problems I have with Peter King. He is supposed to be an NFL insider, doesn't he or shouldn't he know the Patriots aren't exactly thrilled Brady isn't staying in town with the team? Wouldn't that be a phone call Peter would make to find out what the Patriots think about this? Maybe he tried, but since Peter is so well-connected how did Mike Silver report this story, but Peter King wasn't able to? I know Peter King loves his puff pieces, but I feel like if he is going to report on Brady being in California, he should throw in some information about how the Patriots feel about it. He wouldn't have to make it a big expose or anything, but if Mike Silver can find out stuff like the following...
Make no mistake – there has been a cool distance between Brady, who turns 33 in August, and the organization over the past few months, and not just of the physical variety.
Conversely, the Patriots’ brass, now experiencing a third consecutive offseason in which their California-raised quarterback has spent a sizeable chunk of time away from the team’s facility, would probably welcome some assurances that the quarterback is content to remain on the East Coast.
To Brady’s credit, he is highly motivated by a desire to be close to his elder son, even though Kraft told ESPNBoston.com in March he’d prefer that Brady “be here the whole offseason” and it’s reasonable to conclude that coach Bill Belichick feels similarly.
These are the sorts of thoughts and quotes that Peter King should be bringing up, not necessarily to Tom Brady's face or drilling him with quotes from the Patriots. In an article when he is talking about Brady training for most of the summer in California, the point of view of Brady's employer would seem fairly important to know. I know Peter likes to write puff pieces about athletes and be everyone's friend, but my biggest complaint about him is that he does write puff pieces on athletes and teams he likes, and doesn't delve into other parts of the story that may slightly irritate someone. Maybe there is no issue with Brady and the front office, but if Mike Silver can bring this issue up, I think Peter King should do so as well when discussing at length the very subject that could cause the divide between the Patriots and Tom Brady.
Jeff Pearlman does too.
When he’s not reporting on NFL players and teams, Glazer, ahem, works for NFL players and teams.
I have absolutely nothing against Jay Glazer and love how he scoops ESPN for stories, but I see a natural conflict of interest in Glazer being employed by NFL teams to train players in MMA and working in a field where he reports NFL-related stories. It just feels like a conflict of interest to me.
I know there are conflicts of interest throughout sports in regard to writers co-authoring books with athletes. It's not like Jay Glazer is the only one to do this. So it is not like Glazer is the only one who does this.
SportsbyBrooks makes this very point in this well-written article. I think there is a difference in writing a book with a manager or athlete and having a business relationship with an entire team of athletes. I also understand the teams in the NFL may not have a problem with Glazer's arrangement. That's fine, whether NFL teams think Glazer's relationship between his MMA business and teams in the NFL really doesn't have an effect on my opinion of this situation, nor should it.
SportsbyBrooks makes the point that Jeff Pearlman is essentially a hypocrite because Rick Reilly has written books with athletes and he used to work for SI. I know Pearlman mentioned in his post the policy at SI about accepting gifts from athletes or teams, but I don't think he was holding SI up as the moral center of sports web sites or magazines. I don't think the fact Rick Reilly has a close relationship with athletes when he was working for SI makes Jeff Pearlman a hypocrite or cause him to have any less of a point simply because he just happens to work for SI now. That's a weak point. Because Rick Reilly happened to share the same employer has Jeff Pearlman did doesn't mean Pearlman is wrong or SI didn't have the majority of their writers follow the policy they had. Reilly plays by his own rules. We have seen that from the self-plagiarized columns he puts out.
So I do get the opposite view of this and I know everyone doesn't have a problem with Glazer's duties for FOX and his MMA business. I don't have a huge problem, I just think it does bring up questions about stories that Glazer may not report and the fact he has a relationship with players and NFL teams where they can be his client and the subject of a news story by him.
He is a mixed martial arts trainer whose clients include two franchises (the Falcons and Rams) and, apparently, dozens of players, ranging from Ryan Grant to Patrick Willis to Matt Leinart. As in, they pay him for his services.
I know Jay Glazer is merely a reporter, but it feels wrong that he reports on the very same people who pay him to train them in MMA. I have always felt this way since I heard he was mixing his MMA with his relationships with NFL players. How can his reporting not be affected by the fact the Falcons pay him to work with their players on MMA?
This, journalistically, is a joke. An embarrassing, pathetic, worst-of-its-kind joke.
I wouldn't go this far. Anytime Jay Mariotti is still writing, he takes the cake as the biggest journalistic joke, but I would definitely agree that Jay Glazer has a conflict of interest. Perhaps if he didn't work directly with the NFL players and it was just his company that did the MMA training I would feel differently. That's not the case though. He is very hands-on and trains the players himself.
As clients, these players certainly expect—and receive—a high level of confidentiality. To work out under someone’s watch is to provide him with incredible access; access you don’t want displayed to the public.
It is not even the working out part of it as much for me, but more the fact these players pay him for a service and in spending so much time with them he probably does learn some stuff about them that the public doesn't know, but an NFL reporter would usually report.
So what if Glazer hears Leinart calling a hooker? What if he sees Cushing (funny example) poppin ‘roids? What if he doesn’t think Grant is an especially hard worker? Does he sleep on the information, or does he ruin his ties with the players by reporting it?
My question, and this is where the conflict of interest lies, is when is Glazer not a reporter and a MMA trainer and when is he a MMA trainer and not a reporter? The line is blurred to me. If he asks Brian Cushing how the team is looking and Cushing says terrible and gives a specific example about why, shouldn't Glazer report this? This is NFL news.
Glazer's answer to this is they don't discuss football. How can they not talk about football? Because I don't believe it would be possible. That's the biggest thing Glazer and his NFL clients have in common. It just seems like it would be a natural discussion.
The answer is obvious: He sleeps on it.
We don't know this for sure, but we could guess Glazer cares more about the Glazer MMA brand than his standing as an NFL reporter for FOX.
On his Twitter page, Glazer was bragging about attending Jared Allen’s recent wedding. A. If you’re covering the NFL, you don’t befriend (closely) a player, and you sure as hell don’t attend his wedding. Again, what if Jared Allen gets drunk and vomits all over the cake?
That's not really NFL news anyway.
What if he punches Brett Favre?
Then I want pictures.
This violates more journalistic standards than one can count. Even if Glazer is completely unbiased (a human impossibility), perception outweighs reality. How can anyone take his reporting seriously? How can anyone believe they’re getting the full story? All the details?
Therein lies my problem. I have always liked Glazer as the incredibly competent antidote to the ESPN NFL reporters. He is sort of a one-man wrecking crew when it comes to getting stories, but there isn't any way his two gigs don't overlap and don't eventually become a conflict.
Glazer did report over Twitter on Thursday the Falcons were suspending Quinn Ojinnaka, but this was going to be reported anyway and I am concerned with the stories that Glazer finds out about and aren't or won't be public knowledge at some point.
Glazer told the Times he’s not trying to be a regular NFL reporter; that he’s trying to “build a brand.”
This annoys the shit out of me even more. Then quit your gig as the FOX NFL reporter and start doing MMA training full-time. He is essentially using his job as the FOX reporter to get new clients for his business, which isn't an issue, except for the fact he very well could be violating some of the integrity of journalism when these two jobs overlap. I like Jay Glazer and I like to hear him report stories, but he is blurring some lines in my opinion.
How can FOX not care about this? I know they like the fact he scoops ESPN, but there will come a time when he has to report honestly on a player/team he is training. Even if he reports the entire story honestly, there will still be the feeling he hasn't done so completely because many people will think he knows more or is holding something back. The perception is the issue. That's the problem I see.
3. Now for the most controversial umpire call in many, many years. Yes, I am talking about Jim Joyce blowing the perfect game for Armando Galarraga with a terrible "safe" call at first base. It was a horrible call and I am amazed an umpire as good as Jim Joyce missed the call.
There has already been a web site dedicated to getting Jim Joyce fired, though I think the guy who writes there means it purely tongue-in-cheek.
I've been watching baseball for a long time and that isn't the worst call I have ever seen. I have seen worse, but it certainly is one of the most historic bad-calls I have ever heard. I am not going to tear Jim Joyce a new asshole simply because he has been a man and admitted he was wrong. I am beyond impressed with how Galarraga, the Tigers, and the Tigers fans took the bad call. There were fans who cheered when Joyce came on the field on Thursday, Galarraga didn't choke Joyce to death ( which I would most likely do), and the Tigers even were pretty calm about it in the clubhouse after the game. That's probably better than I could have done.
Joyce made a terrible call and he ruined history. The fact he came out and publicly admitted he missed the call and obviously felt incredibly bad about it, doesn't make up for it, but it at least shows he isn't the ego-driven type of umpire we have seen make bad calls recently.
Because we live in a 24/7 news cycle this has brought up a whole new set of questions about instant replay. I am in favor of expanding replay, just not to balls and strikes. I think each manager should have the ability to challenge one umpire call per game that doesn't have to do with balls and strikes. It doesn't take long to check on the instant replay for home runs and I really don't think this would slow the game up too much. I am not in favor of expanding replay much more than that.
Balls and strikes shouldn't be reviewable and I am not sure how it would be handled if catch was called in the outfield when it wasn't a catch. It doesn't seem fair that a runner may have been able to advance more than one base if a catch was originally called by the umpire on a fly ball, but it ends up being a hit on instant replay. I think in this case, the runners should get to move ahead one base. Baseball rules award the baserunner two bases on a ground rule double when many times if the ball had stayed in play a runner on 1st base would have scored. So there is a precedent in baseball for just awarding a certain amount of bases to a runner, even though he could have conceivably advanced further.
I am glad there hasn't been a huge outcry against Joyce, because he didn't mean to such a bad call and obviously feels terrible about it. I am glad MLB and Bud Selig didn't overturn the call and make it a perfect game for Galarraga. It's done already and I don't think baseball should set a precedent of overturning bad calls. Galarraga pitched a perfect game in my mind and changing a bad call by an umpire in a game is a slippery slope. Why is that game more important than a game in July between the Cardinals-Dodgers that may be decided by a bad call? MLB can't go back and change all the bad calls. It's better to just know Galarraga threw a perfect game, even though the record books don't show it. The record books also show Barry Bonds is the all-time home run king and we know that isn't true either.
4. Tom Brady seems to have a sort of disconnect with Patriots management over his training in California instead of being with the team. At least that is what Mike Silver is reporting.
Remember the MMQB from May 10, when Peter King painted Tom Brady as dedicated to the team even though he wasn't around the team for most of the summer? A player has a right to be away from his team if the mini-camps are optional, but Peter didn't really mention what the Patriots may have thought about Brady staying away from optional practices. Brady seemed pretty standoff-ish that people may think he isn't dedicated to the team, but I wonder what he thinks about the fact the Patriots may be a group that is concerned about his dedication?
New England’s most beloved sports hero will be a fixture at the Pats’ training facility in Foxborough, planning to hang around at least through the team’s June 15-17 minicamp.
Then Brady will likely return to Los Angeles, where he has spent the bulk of his time since the Pats’ 33-14 playoff defeat to the Baltimore Ravens last January, and where he and his wife, supermodel Gisele Bundchen, are having a sizeable home built.
This story, at least from my point of view, isn't that Brady is not in New England with the Patriots. Brady will still have a great year no matter where he trains, so there may be no problem on that end. The story is that Peter King painted a rosy picture (surprise, surprise) of Brady just wanting to be with this family and didn't mention the Patriots were fine with this or not.
This is one of the biggest problems I have with Peter King. He is supposed to be an NFL insider, doesn't he or shouldn't he know the Patriots aren't exactly thrilled Brady isn't staying in town with the team? Wouldn't that be a phone call Peter would make to find out what the Patriots think about this? Maybe he tried, but since Peter is so well-connected how did Mike Silver report this story, but Peter King wasn't able to? I know Peter King loves his puff pieces, but I feel like if he is going to report on Brady being in California, he should throw in some information about how the Patriots feel about it. He wouldn't have to make it a big expose or anything, but if Mike Silver can find out stuff like the following...
Make no mistake – there has been a cool distance between Brady, who turns 33 in August, and the organization over the past few months, and not just of the physical variety.
Conversely, the Patriots’ brass, now experiencing a third consecutive offseason in which their California-raised quarterback has spent a sizeable chunk of time away from the team’s facility, would probably welcome some assurances that the quarterback is content to remain on the East Coast.
To Brady’s credit, he is highly motivated by a desire to be close to his elder son, even though Kraft told ESPNBoston.com in March he’d prefer that Brady “be here the whole offseason” and it’s reasonable to conclude that coach Bill Belichick feels similarly.
These are the sorts of thoughts and quotes that Peter King should be bringing up, not necessarily to Tom Brady's face or drilling him with quotes from the Patriots. In an article when he is talking about Brady training for most of the summer in California, the point of view of Brady's employer would seem fairly important to know. I know Peter likes to write puff pieces about athletes and be everyone's friend, but my biggest complaint about him is that he does write puff pieces on athletes and teams he likes, and doesn't delve into other parts of the story that may slightly irritate someone. Maybe there is no issue with Brady and the front office, but if Mike Silver can bring this issue up, I think Peter King should do so as well when discussing at length the very subject that could cause the divide between the Patriots and Tom Brady.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
5 comments Going Fishing
We have had some visitors come to this blog to defend themselves. Jeff Pearlman, Cliff Corcoran, The Professor, and a Grizzlies fan. So today, on this wonderful Saturday, I think I'm just going to try to bait people and see if they come to defend themselves. Why? Well, heck, why the hell not?
First up, we have Jeff Pearlman and his HOF ballot for this year.
Roberto Alomar—Yes. Absolutely. Without question.
No arguments with this one. Alomar is one of the greatest 2nd baseman of all time, both defensively and offensively.
Kevin Appier—Nice pitcher. But a big NO.
Harold Baines—Very good player. But not great.
Again, no arguments from me.
Bert Blyleven—Yes. Was a better pitcher than Don Sutton, but lacks the magic 300. Deserves a spot.
I'm very impressed that Pearlman included Bert here. Most writers cite his lack of a Cy Young and hold it against him. I'm glad Jeff didnt do that here.
Fred McGriff—No. But a case can be made: Nobody I know thinks McGriff used PEDs. He was a dominant power hitter in an era of cheats and frauds. He carried Toronto and, for a brief time, Atlanta and San Diego.
Nobody I knew thought AROD did steroids, but we all know how that turned out. We dont know who did and didnt take steroids, I hate when people just assume that because someone is skinny they never took anything. A) Not all steroids make you bigger. B) Again, look at the list of people that did actually take them. Not everyone looked like a freaking bodybuilder.
On a side note: I would give anything if it was found out that Derek Jeter took a banned substance. I think the world might end from all the sportwriters around the States heads exploding simutaneously. I dont have anything against Captain Calm Eyes, I just think it would be funny because no one would know what to do with themselves. It would be like when a little kid finds out Santa doesnt exist.
Mark McGwire—N.F.W.
Guilty until proven innoncent. Man, ever since that day in 2005, you would think that Mark McGwire molested little kids for a living. Why all the hate for Big Mac? He only saved the sport, along with Sammy Sosa.
Jack Morris—Yes, yes, yes. Should have made it eons ago.
No, no, no. NO, he should not have. His argument is based around one game. Other than that one game, he really didnt have a very impressive postseason resume. At least he voted for Morris and Blyleven, and not just for Morris like so many idiot sportswriters do.
Dave Parker—Sans the drug problems and weight gains, woulda had a chance. Side note: A female reporter who covered the Pirates back in the day told me Parker was a real pig. Once, he went up to her in the clubhouse, butt naked, and said, “I bet you want some of this.” while pointing to his penis. Reporter replied, “First I’d have to find it under all your fat.”
heh. Well, she didnt say no, did she?
Tim Raines—Without question. He and Rickey were the two most dominant table setters the game ever saw. And yes, that includes Lou Brock. Brock was a first-ballot enshrinee, Raines has better numbers.
This is absolutely correct. If there is no Rickey Henderson, Rock is in the HOF already.
Alan Trammell
He said no, but I think its criminal that Trammell and Sweet Lou get no love from Hall voters. I mean, Lou fell off after only one year. Thats messed up.
There was a recent post up over at our friends website Respect Jeters Gangster that asks the question of would you trade Robinson Cano for Felix Hernandez? Straight up. Guys, I love you but A)That would never happen and B) The yankees would have to be idiots of the highest level not to pull the trigger on that deal. Cmon, really? You would have to think about making that deal? Shit, I wouldnt even think twice about giving them Pedroia straight up for King Felix.
Oh my god, I am going to hell for this one. I was just clicking around the internet and came upon this article written by a then 16 year old kid. Ah, fuck it, I wont be that hard on it. Its from 2002, so its a little old, but I figure "why not?", I dont have anything better to do today since its shitty out.
A week ago, the Baseball Union set a strike date for the end of the month. The baseball players have shown that they're not playing around when they vow to strike, because there have been eight strikes in baseball in the past 30 years.
When the players have gone on strike, it has been for a good reason. It usually involves the owners crying poor and trying to implement a salary cap. Which is, of course, ridiculous, being as all the owners are billionaires.
This has to do with, of course, money. A new economic system is being proposed for Major League Baseball, but the players are worried about their salaries being cut if this system is put in place. Presto, the automatic solution is to quit working.
Right, because thats the only kind of leverage the players have against the owners.
Sadly, the game has come from a time where players were loyal to their managers, teams and teammates, to a day and age of greed – and it has nearly come to a point where money is the only tangible factor that comes into play when players makes decisions on which team to play.
Is anyone else perplexed that the owners get all the sympathy from the fans, while the players are looked upon as being greedy? In what other industry is everyone anti union? Certainly people dont sympathize with presidents of large corporations. What is it about sports that puts people on the owners side?
The blessings that they have received are all from the baseball fans. Therefore, they owe it to the fans to do whatever it takes to prevent a strike. But money is everything to these guys.
Okay, kid. I know your about 23 now, but think back to when you were 16. If you parents were getting shortchanged at work and threatening to go on strike would you just tell them to give in and take a pay cut? Its basically the same thing with ballplayers. Yes, they make a shit ton of money, but who in their right mind would ever just agree to take a paycut? You would have to be stupid. And then if you do agree to said paycut, where does it end? Once you give in, people are only going to try and take more, its human nature.
Greed has taken over the game and it's a sad sight.
Greed has always been a part of the game. It used to be the players that got the shortend of the stick, but now it has changed to the owners. Jimmy Foxx won the triple crown one year and they tried to cut his salary because he didnt hit as many home runs as the previous year. He ended up holding out just to get paid the same amount as the previous year. Are players greedy? Sure. But so arent the owners.
Well, thats about it. I guess I didnt really bait anyone since I wasnt really feeling snarky or drinking haterade today. Oh well, what can you do?
First up, we have Jeff Pearlman and his HOF ballot for this year.
Roberto Alomar—Yes. Absolutely. Without question.
No arguments with this one. Alomar is one of the greatest 2nd baseman of all time, both defensively and offensively.
Kevin Appier—Nice pitcher. But a big NO.
Harold Baines—Very good player. But not great.
Again, no arguments from me.
Bert Blyleven—Yes. Was a better pitcher than Don Sutton, but lacks the magic 300. Deserves a spot.
I'm very impressed that Pearlman included Bert here. Most writers cite his lack of a Cy Young and hold it against him. I'm glad Jeff didnt do that here.
Fred McGriff—No. But a case can be made: Nobody I know thinks McGriff used PEDs. He was a dominant power hitter in an era of cheats and frauds. He carried Toronto and, for a brief time, Atlanta and San Diego.
Nobody I knew thought AROD did steroids, but we all know how that turned out. We dont know who did and didnt take steroids, I hate when people just assume that because someone is skinny they never took anything. A) Not all steroids make you bigger. B) Again, look at the list of people that did actually take them. Not everyone looked like a freaking bodybuilder.
On a side note: I would give anything if it was found out that Derek Jeter took a banned substance. I think the world might end from all the sportwriters around the States heads exploding simutaneously. I dont have anything against Captain Calm Eyes, I just think it would be funny because no one would know what to do with themselves. It would be like when a little kid finds out Santa doesnt exist.
Mark McGwire—N.F.W.
Guilty until proven innoncent. Man, ever since that day in 2005, you would think that Mark McGwire molested little kids for a living. Why all the hate for Big Mac? He only saved the sport, along with Sammy Sosa.
Jack Morris—Yes, yes, yes. Should have made it eons ago.
No, no, no. NO, he should not have. His argument is based around one game. Other than that one game, he really didnt have a very impressive postseason resume. At least he voted for Morris and Blyleven, and not just for Morris like so many idiot sportswriters do.
Dave Parker—Sans the drug problems and weight gains, woulda had a chance. Side note: A female reporter who covered the Pirates back in the day told me Parker was a real pig. Once, he went up to her in the clubhouse, butt naked, and said, “I bet you want some of this.” while pointing to his penis. Reporter replied, “First I’d have to find it under all your fat.”
heh. Well, she didnt say no, did she?
Tim Raines—Without question. He and Rickey were the two most dominant table setters the game ever saw. And yes, that includes Lou Brock. Brock was a first-ballot enshrinee, Raines has better numbers.
This is absolutely correct. If there is no Rickey Henderson, Rock is in the HOF already.
Alan Trammell
He said no, but I think its criminal that Trammell and Sweet Lou get no love from Hall voters. I mean, Lou fell off after only one year. Thats messed up.
There was a recent post up over at our friends website Respect Jeters Gangster that asks the question of would you trade Robinson Cano for Felix Hernandez? Straight up. Guys, I love you but A)That would never happen and B) The yankees would have to be idiots of the highest level not to pull the trigger on that deal. Cmon, really? You would have to think about making that deal? Shit, I wouldnt even think twice about giving them Pedroia straight up for King Felix.
Oh my god, I am going to hell for this one. I was just clicking around the internet and came upon this article written by a then 16 year old kid. Ah, fuck it, I wont be that hard on it. Its from 2002, so its a little old, but I figure "why not?", I dont have anything better to do today since its shitty out.
A week ago, the Baseball Union set a strike date for the end of the month. The baseball players have shown that they're not playing around when they vow to strike, because there have been eight strikes in baseball in the past 30 years.
When the players have gone on strike, it has been for a good reason. It usually involves the owners crying poor and trying to implement a salary cap. Which is, of course, ridiculous, being as all the owners are billionaires.
This has to do with, of course, money. A new economic system is being proposed for Major League Baseball, but the players are worried about their salaries being cut if this system is put in place. Presto, the automatic solution is to quit working.
Right, because thats the only kind of leverage the players have against the owners.
Sadly, the game has come from a time where players were loyal to their managers, teams and teammates, to a day and age of greed – and it has nearly come to a point where money is the only tangible factor that comes into play when players makes decisions on which team to play.
Is anyone else perplexed that the owners get all the sympathy from the fans, while the players are looked upon as being greedy? In what other industry is everyone anti union? Certainly people dont sympathize with presidents of large corporations. What is it about sports that puts people on the owners side?
The blessings that they have received are all from the baseball fans. Therefore, they owe it to the fans to do whatever it takes to prevent a strike. But money is everything to these guys.
Okay, kid. I know your about 23 now, but think back to when you were 16. If you parents were getting shortchanged at work and threatening to go on strike would you just tell them to give in and take a pay cut? Its basically the same thing with ballplayers. Yes, they make a shit ton of money, but who in their right mind would ever just agree to take a paycut? You would have to be stupid. And then if you do agree to said paycut, where does it end? Once you give in, people are only going to try and take more, its human nature.
Greed has taken over the game and it's a sad sight.
Greed has always been a part of the game. It used to be the players that got the shortend of the stick, but now it has changed to the owners. Jimmy Foxx won the triple crown one year and they tried to cut his salary because he didnt hit as many home runs as the previous year. He ended up holding out just to get paid the same amount as the previous year. Are players greedy? Sure. But so arent the owners.
Well, thats about it. I guess I didnt really bait anyone since I wasnt really feeling snarky or drinking haterade today. Oh well, what can you do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)