Alex Rodriguez hit .250/.356/.486 this year with 33 home runs, which surprised the shit out of me. That's pretty damn good for a guy who is 40 years old. Of course, as soon as he starts hitting poorly next year the New York media will jump all over him again for the mistake of continuously getting older. Regardless of how good of a year A-Rod had at the plate, and regardless of how little controversy he stirred up, he still did many things wrong. He participated in an unfunny skit, he didn't increase YES ratings, he made his teammates like him, and most egregiously, he showed up early to Spring Training. Simply because the season is over doesn't mean that A-Rod still isn't doing things wrong. Of course. Now he was hired as an analyst for Fox during the playoffs and is ruining everything for "the kids," while poisoning their mind with the idea if they use steroids to enhance their performance then they may one day also be able to be a sports analyst. Christine Brennan has had enough of this and does a public service by finally speaking out about this travesty. In fact, Brennan says they (Fox) "swing and miss" (GET IT?????????) by hiring A-Rod as an analyst.
Of the thousands of baseball players and experts Fox Sports could have
selected to appear on its postseason shows, it picked the worst.
You mean the guy who has been banned from baseball permanently, Pete Rose?
It chose the most notorious, earnest and purposeful cheater to ever play
the game. It chose the man whose name is synonymous with
performance-enhancing drugs.
Barry Bonds? Roger Clemens? Mike Piazza's bacne?
It chose A-Rod.
Oh no, not A-Rod. His mere presence on the Yankees roster has caused steroid use among youth to be nearly tripled since April. Millions of kids are dying, with their last breath screaming, "I just wanted to be like A-Rod!" What about "the kids," doesn't Fox care about the kids at all?
Alex Rodriguez,
who admitted to using steroids from 2001-03 and then was suspended for
the entire 2014 season for his big role in the Biogenesis scandal, isn’t
just any old baseball steroids guy. He is the guy.
He's the guy unless you want to consider Mark McGwire "the guy," Barry Bonds "the guy" or Roger Clemens "the guy." It all depends on the type of article being written really. In this case, A-Rod is "the guy" but this could change if the column is about which current Hall of Fame eligible players should receive the honor of induction. When it comes to a Hall of Fame discussion, McGwire, Bonds and Clemens are the face of steroids. In fact, I would argue given all the government resources and the hysteria surrounding the breaking of Roger Maris' home run record that these three players will always be the face of the Steroid Era. I don't see A-Rod in that role.
Congratulations, Fox.
You're ruined the world's ability to prevent drug use among teens and driven thousands of young children away from the heroin they are using and into the arms of steroids by hiring A-Rod. Congrats.
What a terrible message this sends to children
WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING KIDS? DO "THE KIDS" KNOW ABOUT A-ROD BEING ON FOX? WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DOES IT SEND WHICH SAYS A BASEBALL PLAYER WHO CHEATED IS STILL CAPABLE OF DISCUSSING BASEBALL IN A NETWORK TELEVISION ENVIRONMENT?
if kids actually watched playoff baseball games anymore.
Oh, so it's not hurting the kids at all because they don't watch baseball? So disaster averted and we can all move on to other things. Though, if "the kids" did still watch baseball then A-Rod being on Fox would be a total disaster. Let's assume kids don't watch baseball, acknowledge nobody watches FS1 (yet...ever?), and still work under the assumption that A-Rod is singlehandedly poisoning today's youth. Sound like fun? Great, Christine Brennan will now continue.
Experts say the use of performance-enhancing drugs by kids in high school sports has reached epidemic proportions.
Experts also say kids in high school are increasingly getting addicted to heroin and other drugs such as that. I'm not going to downplay the impact of steroids, but the use of heroin among high school kids has also reached epidemic proportions. I really don't believe A-Rod being an analyst for Fox is going to drive more kids towards using steroids any more than his playing baseball for 162 games a year would drive them in that direction already.
Seeing superstars suspended or hauled before Congress can act an a deterrent to these kids.
This is the biggest crock of shit I have read in this column so far. Hauling these superstars before Congress can serve as a deterrent to these kids? I have quite a few issues with this statement.
1. How does Christine Brennan know this is true? Is there research she can cite that says seeing superstars hauled before Congress is a deterrent to drug use among kids? Is there anything she can use to show this as a true statement, outside of any anecdotal evidence or the idea this is what she WANTS to believe is true? I see nothing in this column confirming this statement isn't a lie.
2. If superstars being hauled before Congress or being suspended really served as a deterrent, then how come experts say the use of PED's by kids is reaching epidemic proportions? Using logic, which I know isn't something Christine is doing right now, wouldn't the stricter MLB drug policy after the Steroid Era where big name players (like A-Rod) have been suspended have served as a deterrent to using PED's?
3. Christine Brennan can't cite how A-Rod has been suspended twice, in an effort to expose his true villain tendencies, then explain that's why he shouldn't be working for Fox, and then claim seeing baseball players get suspended serves as a deterrent to kids. It doesn't work this way. So if seeing players get suspended did serve as a deterrent, then it wouldn't make a difference at all if A-Rod works for Fox during the postseason.
4. If seeing superstars hauled before Congress was a deterrent, then there should be a decrease in high school kids using PED's. These kids grew up seeing Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, and Clemens hauled in front of Congress and in court fighting accusations of PED use. Seeing this would cause a decrease in PED use among high school kids, if this statement by Brennan wasn't a crock of shit.
Seeing them propped up on pre-game shows as faux stars does not.
But A-Rod has been suspended! That's the deterrent for "the kids," right?
Perhaps next year, Fox can put together a panel featuring A-Rod, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens and Rafael Palmeiro.
Bonds has worked with Giants hitters during Spring Training and McGwire has been a hitting coach in the majors. I get how Christine Brennan is upset, but it's well-known in baseball that A-Rod is a student of the game and knows something about hitting. He's a cheat and has a huge ego, but he's also really good at hitting a baseball and analyzing the game.
Fox Sports’ baseball audience is minuscule compared with the NFL’s, but
that doesn’t make the network’s decision any less egregious. In fact,
that’s probably why Fox did it, to try to boost ratings.
Let's see...no one watches Fox, players like A-Rod who get suspended serve as a deterrent to kids and kids don't watch baseball anyway. So how are A-Rod and Fox ruining kids by having him show up on their postseason coverage again?
It’s not a coincidence that one of Rodriguez’s fellow studio analysts is Pete Rose.
It's not a coincidence. Fox wants ratings and they want guys on their postseason shows that have played in the postseason and played the game at a high level. They also want eyes on their show and Rose/A-Rod also serve that purpose. ESPN hired Tim Tebow, but is he more qualified to talk about college football because he's a good person, as compared to the qualifications of Rose/A-Rod to talk about baseball even though they haven't always been good people? I wouldn't think so.
Our senses are so dulled by the misbehavior of athletes these days that
most of us probably don’t give it a second thought when a bad guy like
Rodriguez shows up talking about the playoffs. Do we have any standards
anymore?
I bet Christine Brennan's editor asked this same question when reading this article.
Or maybe we still do. Could you imagine an Olympics telecast featuring Ben Johnson? Lance Armstrong hosting coverage of the Tour de France?
It feels different with A-Rod being on MLB's postseason coverage. Perhaps because he is still an active player and has served his suspension. I can't explain the difference honestly.
Tonya Harding on Olympic figure skating? Thankfully, I think we’re safe from all three, at least for a few more years.
If she knew enough about Olympic figure skating these days, then I would have no issue with Tonya Harding commenting on Olympic figure skating. The issue is there are more knowledgeable commentators available to discuss Olympic figure skating. A-Rod is a really knowledgeable source about baseball and knows today's players because he is still an active player himself.
For all baseball’s talk and action on the subject of PEDs, it has never
taken them as seriously as the Olympic world has, and it still does not.
But MLB takes PED's much more seriously than every other major sport. Sorry, but the NFL and the NBA have a PED problem (mostly the NFL) even if they don't know it yet. Human beings don't look like NFL players look and I don't believe some guys in the NBA get as strong as they are without some additional help. I'm not pointing a finger at any certain players, but MLB has a strong PED policy. It's not strong enough for some people, of course. It never will be.
That’s why the sport allows someone who has flaunted the rules as badly as A-Rod has to still be one of the faces of the game.
A-Rod is not one of the faces of MLB. He is not. He's never really even been the face of the Yankees either. A-Rod doing postseason work for Fox doesn't make him a face of baseball. Max Scherzer does postseason work for Fox too and I'm not sure he can be considered one of the faces of baseball (perhaps wrongly). Even on his own team, Bryce Harper, Jonathan Papelbon and Stephen Strasburg move the needle more than Scherzer tends to, even if Scherzer appears on Fox's postseason coverage.
This tells us that the game, and Fox Sports, will do anything to get attention.
"The game" had nothing to do with Fox hiring A-Rod. That was a decision by Fox. Trust me, if MLB really had an issue with Pete Rose and A-Rod being hired by Fox then neither of these individuals would be working on Fox's postseason coverage.
Anything.
What about "the kids?" What will the kids who don't watch baseball on Fox and who are already deterred from using PED's by A-Rod's suspension for PED use think about A-Rod being seen on Fox's postseason coverage? Will it drive them right back into the arms of PED's, seeing that they could also one day get a job as a studio analyst if they just use enough PED's to get there? What will happen if an entire generation of studio analysts use PED's in order to further their career and make an even playing field that much more uneven?
Showing posts with label Alex Rodriguez. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alex Rodriguez. Show all posts
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Monday, August 3, 2015
0 comments What A-Rod Has Wrong Today: He Participates in Unfunny Skits for ESPN
Lately A-Rod has made some serious missteps that the New York sports media has had a chance to jump all over. A-Rod hasn't helped the Yankees' ratings and then he failed to make the All-Star team. Those were two egregious errors that A-Rod made. Now Mike Lupica has made the vital discovery that A-Rod has in fact made another error in judgment. He participated in an unfunny skit at the ESPY's this year where he pretended to apologize for a variety of things. At this point, the New York media can't rip on A-Rod for his performance on the field, so they are having to reach in order to criticize him. Lupica says A-Rod "strikes out looking" (get it?) in taking part in the unfunny skit and takes joy in finally getting the chance to write about what an asshole A-Rod is. It's a glorious day for Mike Lupica. He's probably sitting on the edge of his seat talking over someone right now, gleefully happy that he finally can pile on A-Rod again.
Alex Rodriguez has made hardly any mistakes since he returned to the Yankees after serving a full-season suspension for Tony Bosch and for being up to his eyeballs in baseball’s case against Bosch’s Biogenesis clinic.
Ah, but now he has made a mistake that isn't really a mistake and Mike Lupica is all over it. He's on the edge of his seat, trying to seem as tall as possible and talking over anyone who dares to try to be in the same room as him.
Mostly Rodriguez has hit, and reminded everybody that if you can still produce in sports, fans will find so much forgiveness in their hearts they’re afraid sometimes those hearts might burst like frozen pipes.
Yes, fans are so good at finding forgiveness when a player hits well. Being that Mike Lupica is unable to focus on anything that doesn't involve him, I wonder if he knows that A-Rod has gotten more favorable coverage from sportswriters as the 2015 season progresses. Why? Because A-Rod is producing. But yeah, fans are the fickle ones.
He has said all the right things and attended charity events, and gotten himself straight, at least for the time being,
But the fuck up is coming. Mike Lupica knows it. If it doesn't come, then Mike Lupica will blow a small thing out of proportion to make it seem like A-Rod has not gotten himself straight.
and barring any future problems with baseball drugs, with the commissioner and with Yankee ownership. He has, by all accounts, been a bedrock of good behavior in the Yankee clubhouse, especially with young players.
I don't know how many times Mike Lupica can write "A-Rod has been on his best behavior...so far" in this column without it seeming more and more repetitive. Yeah, he hasn't screwed up. Get to your point.
the way he is covered these days, you can probably forgive him for wondering how Caitlyn Jenner beat him out for the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at the ESPY Awards — why he thought it was a good idea to stand in the spotlight at the ESPYs on Wednesday night and participate in a painfully lame and hideously unfunny apology skit with Joel McHale and Ken Jeong from “The Hangover” movies.
A-Rod screwed up because he participated in an unfunny skit at an awards show. This is where we are at now in trying to find things that A-Rod has done wrong. He was a part of a skit that wasn't funny, which apparently is the only reason needed for Mike Lupica to bring up the fact A-Rod used PED's again and criticize A-Rod for lacking funny. A-Rod didn't write the skit and he's not a comedian. He simply took part in the unfunny skit.
Because even Rodriguez has to know that what he was accused of doing with Bosch and convicted of doing by arbitrator Fredric Horowitz isn’t funny, with or without penis gags. And isn’t ever going to be funny.
PED's are a life and death situation to Mike Lupica. This shit is very serious. If a player uses PED's to gain an advantage, then he should not make jokes about it. Sure, he could casually mention he used amphetamines in an interview 30 years after he retired as if he was taking Flintstones vitamins and not amphetamines, but that's not big deal because those baseball players from the 60's and 70's are heroes and everyone was doing. So that makes it fine. Don't joke about PED's. It's a super-serious subject.
Just so you know: The set-up at the ESPYs was that Jeong would act as Rodriguez’s surrogate as he finally “apologized” to the whole wide world.
So Rodriguez stood there like a prop and kept handing pieces of paper to Jeong, while McHale stood on the other side of Jeong looking as flop-sweat desperate to get laughs as he had been since his opening monologue.
It wasn't funny. There's no doubt about that. Again, A-Rod didn't write the skit and this participation in the skit is just a way for Lupica to remind everyone that A-Rod is a cheater and find something to be angry with him over.
Nobody expects big yuks from award shows, at least when Tina Fey and Amy Poehler aren’t hosting them these days.
Mike Lupica: "A-Rod took place in an awards show skit that wasn't funny. How dare he do this while making the crowd uncomfortable with the lack of hilarity."
Mike Lupica: "Award show skits aren't ever funny, so nobody expected the ESPY's to be funny anyway."
But somebody thought this material was funny, and Alex Rodriguez clearly signed off on it, so on they went. And on.
Yes, I'm sure A-Rod spent a few days vetting the script and then re-writing portions of it to better capture his personality. After that, his agent signed off on it, but only after a few of A-Rod's demands were met.
There was some weird, nervous laughter from the crowd occasionally. There was even a shot of Derek Jeter laughing, though it was hard to tell whether he was doing that to be polite, or just reveling in Rodriguez making himself a part of the show like this on a night when Jeter received a Sports Icon Award.
The Jeter has to make an appearance as the anti-thesis of what A-Rod has become. The Jeter is the Batman to A-Rod's Joker, the Superman to A-Rod's Lex Luthor. The Jeter was not impressed with A-Rod's skit, merely only laughing at how Rodriguez was making an ass of himself. One would think the on-the-field performance comparison between The Jeter and A-Rod at the age of 40 might be made, but there's no need for that. Rest assured, if The Jeter had a line of .304/.363/.438 last year this would be something Lupica brings up. He didn't, so there's no need to compare the two hitters at the age of 40.
By the way: Here is a part of what Jeter said upon receiving that award:
This is especially relevant point in a column about A-Rod participating in an unfunny skit.
“I’ve had a special relationship with the fans and my teammates over the last 20 years, but in retirement I’ve come to realize that being a part of the larger community of sports is a gift — and more importantly it’s an honor. You’ve inspired me for years, and you continue to inspire me.”
(Bengoodfella wakes up because this was a boring and very cliched, yet kind, statement from The Jeter)
So Jeter took one route to the stage on this night and the guy who used to play to his right at Yankee Stadium took another.
It always comes back to a comparison between The Jeter and A-Rod...that is unless the comparison isn't flattering to The Jeter, in which case no comparison should be made. It's lazy writing, but nothing more should be expected from Lupica.
Maybe you could have given Rodriguez some props for being able to laugh at himself on this occasion, except there were no laughs here, about “Game of Thrones” or droughts or Greece or the Knicks or any of it.
Yeah well, as you just wrote, nobody expects big yucks from awards shows. So I'm not sure why you would expect this skit to be funny based on your own opinion of award show skits.
At the very end of it, after Jeong stopped reading, McHale asked Rodriguez if there was anything he wanted to say and Rodriguez said, “I’m good.” Before that, of course, we got this supposedly edgy material from Alex Rodriguez’s faux apology at the ESPYs:
It's not funny. Who cares? Why is this unfunny skit worthy of a column being written about it?
Yeah. These are the jokes. By the time it all ended, you felt as if you’d had to sit through one of those old four-hour Yankees-Red Sox games out of the past.
Brilliant writing by Lupica here. This is as opposed to one of those old four-hour Yankees-Red Sox games from the future or the present? Yeah, if those games are old then they must be out of the past. Mike Lupica is one of those old writers from the past who thinks his written word is the gospel and shall not be questioned. These are the things that happen when you've had an entire career of smoke being blown up your butt and choose to ignore any criticism others may have of you.
Maybe Rodriguez thinks he can be the kind of performer that we’ve found out Peyton Manning can be.
Yes, I'm sure at the age of 40 A-Rod has decided he's going to try and become the type of performer that Peyton Manning can be. More likely, A-Rod just took part in the skit without a long-term plan or a single thought of spring boarding a career off the skit.
Maybe he’s already thinking about a post-playing career in broadcasting, when his Yankee contract finally runs out sometime in the next century. But if he is considering a future career in show business, he might want to take a closer look at the material next time.
We all know Derek Jeter wouldn't take part in an unfunny skit for the ESPY's. He would never do that.
He has hit better than perhaps even he himself thought he ever would again. He’s said and done all the right things. Then came the ESPY Awards.
Yes, one unfunny skit at an awards show has ruined all of Alex Rodriguez's accomplishments over the 2015 season. This is a true and logical statement.
His arbitration hearing was funnier. This is the first dumb thing he’s done since Bosch.
Imagine how Mike Lupica would respond if A-Rod actually did anything worse than show bad taste in jokes made on an awards show. The fact that Mike Lupica actually took A-Rod's participation in this skit, managed to bring Derek Jeter into the discussion, and tried to make all of this into something more than bad comedy shows a dedication to the A-Rod hating craft that he may someday try to perfect...while sitting on the edge of his seat, trying to be as tall as possible and talking over others, of course.
Alex Rodriguez has made hardly any mistakes since he returned to the Yankees after serving a full-season suspension for Tony Bosch and for being up to his eyeballs in baseball’s case against Bosch’s Biogenesis clinic.
Ah, but now he has made a mistake that isn't really a mistake and Mike Lupica is all over it. He's on the edge of his seat, trying to seem as tall as possible and talking over anyone who dares to try to be in the same room as him.
Mostly Rodriguez has hit, and reminded everybody that if you can still produce in sports, fans will find so much forgiveness in their hearts they’re afraid sometimes those hearts might burst like frozen pipes.
Yes, fans are so good at finding forgiveness when a player hits well. Being that Mike Lupica is unable to focus on anything that doesn't involve him, I wonder if he knows that A-Rod has gotten more favorable coverage from sportswriters as the 2015 season progresses. Why? Because A-Rod is producing. But yeah, fans are the fickle ones.
He has said all the right things and attended charity events, and gotten himself straight, at least for the time being,
But the fuck up is coming. Mike Lupica knows it. If it doesn't come, then Mike Lupica will blow a small thing out of proportion to make it seem like A-Rod has not gotten himself straight.
and barring any future problems with baseball drugs, with the commissioner and with Yankee ownership. He has, by all accounts, been a bedrock of good behavior in the Yankee clubhouse, especially with young players.
I don't know how many times Mike Lupica can write "A-Rod has been on his best behavior...so far" in this column without it seeming more and more repetitive. Yeah, he hasn't screwed up. Get to your point.
the way he is covered these days, you can probably forgive him for wondering how Caitlyn Jenner beat him out for the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at the ESPY Awards — why he thought it was a good idea to stand in the spotlight at the ESPYs on Wednesday night and participate in a painfully lame and hideously unfunny apology skit with Joel McHale and Ken Jeong from “The Hangover” movies.
A-Rod screwed up because he participated in an unfunny skit at an awards show. This is where we are at now in trying to find things that A-Rod has done wrong. He was a part of a skit that wasn't funny, which apparently is the only reason needed for Mike Lupica to bring up the fact A-Rod used PED's again and criticize A-Rod for lacking funny. A-Rod didn't write the skit and he's not a comedian. He simply took part in the unfunny skit.
Because even Rodriguez has to know that what he was accused of doing with Bosch and convicted of doing by arbitrator Fredric Horowitz isn’t funny, with or without penis gags. And isn’t ever going to be funny.
PED's are a life and death situation to Mike Lupica. This shit is very serious. If a player uses PED's to gain an advantage, then he should not make jokes about it. Sure, he could casually mention he used amphetamines in an interview 30 years after he retired as if he was taking Flintstones vitamins and not amphetamines, but that's not big deal because those baseball players from the 60's and 70's are heroes and everyone was doing. So that makes it fine. Don't joke about PED's. It's a super-serious subject.
Just so you know: The set-up at the ESPYs was that Jeong would act as Rodriguez’s surrogate as he finally “apologized” to the whole wide world.
So Rodriguez stood there like a prop and kept handing pieces of paper to Jeong, while McHale stood on the other side of Jeong looking as flop-sweat desperate to get laughs as he had been since his opening monologue.
It wasn't funny. There's no doubt about that. Again, A-Rod didn't write the skit and this participation in the skit is just a way for Lupica to remind everyone that A-Rod is a cheater and find something to be angry with him over.
Nobody expects big yuks from award shows, at least when Tina Fey and Amy Poehler aren’t hosting them these days.
Mike Lupica: "A-Rod took place in an awards show skit that wasn't funny. How dare he do this while making the crowd uncomfortable with the lack of hilarity."
Mike Lupica: "Award show skits aren't ever funny, so nobody expected the ESPY's to be funny anyway."
But somebody thought this material was funny, and Alex Rodriguez clearly signed off on it, so on they went. And on.
Yes, I'm sure A-Rod spent a few days vetting the script and then re-writing portions of it to better capture his personality. After that, his agent signed off on it, but only after a few of A-Rod's demands were met.
There was some weird, nervous laughter from the crowd occasionally. There was even a shot of Derek Jeter laughing, though it was hard to tell whether he was doing that to be polite, or just reveling in Rodriguez making himself a part of the show like this on a night when Jeter received a Sports Icon Award.
The Jeter has to make an appearance as the anti-thesis of what A-Rod has become. The Jeter is the Batman to A-Rod's Joker, the Superman to A-Rod's Lex Luthor. The Jeter was not impressed with A-Rod's skit, merely only laughing at how Rodriguez was making an ass of himself. One would think the on-the-field performance comparison between The Jeter and A-Rod at the age of 40 might be made, but there's no need for that. Rest assured, if The Jeter had a line of .304/.363/.438 last year this would be something Lupica brings up. He didn't, so there's no need to compare the two hitters at the age of 40.
By the way: Here is a part of what Jeter said upon receiving that award:
This is especially relevant point in a column about A-Rod participating in an unfunny skit.
“I’ve had a special relationship with the fans and my teammates over the last 20 years, but in retirement I’ve come to realize that being a part of the larger community of sports is a gift — and more importantly it’s an honor. You’ve inspired me for years, and you continue to inspire me.”
(Bengoodfella wakes up because this was a boring and very cliched, yet kind, statement from The Jeter)
So Jeter took one route to the stage on this night and the guy who used to play to his right at Yankee Stadium took another.
It always comes back to a comparison between The Jeter and A-Rod...that is unless the comparison isn't flattering to The Jeter, in which case no comparison should be made. It's lazy writing, but nothing more should be expected from Lupica.
Maybe you could have given Rodriguez some props for being able to laugh at himself on this occasion, except there were no laughs here, about “Game of Thrones” or droughts or Greece or the Knicks or any of it.
Yeah well, as you just wrote, nobody expects big yucks from awards shows. So I'm not sure why you would expect this skit to be funny based on your own opinion of award show skits.
At the very end of it, after Jeong stopped reading, McHale asked Rodriguez if there was anything he wanted to say and Rodriguez said, “I’m good.” Before that, of course, we got this supposedly edgy material from Alex Rodriguez’s faux apology at the ESPYs:
It's not funny. Who cares? Why is this unfunny skit worthy of a column being written about it?
Yeah. These are the jokes. By the time it all ended, you felt as if you’d had to sit through one of those old four-hour Yankees-Red Sox games out of the past.
Brilliant writing by Lupica here. This is as opposed to one of those old four-hour Yankees-Red Sox games from the future or the present? Yeah, if those games are old then they must be out of the past. Mike Lupica is one of those old writers from the past who thinks his written word is the gospel and shall not be questioned. These are the things that happen when you've had an entire career of smoke being blown up your butt and choose to ignore any criticism others may have of you.
Maybe Rodriguez thinks he can be the kind of performer that we’ve found out Peyton Manning can be.
Yes, I'm sure at the age of 40 A-Rod has decided he's going to try and become the type of performer that Peyton Manning can be. More likely, A-Rod just took part in the skit without a long-term plan or a single thought of spring boarding a career off the skit.
Maybe he’s already thinking about a post-playing career in broadcasting, when his Yankee contract finally runs out sometime in the next century. But if he is considering a future career in show business, he might want to take a closer look at the material next time.
We all know Derek Jeter wouldn't take part in an unfunny skit for the ESPY's. He would never do that.
He has hit better than perhaps even he himself thought he ever would again. He’s said and done all the right things. Then came the ESPY Awards.
Yes, one unfunny skit at an awards show has ruined all of Alex Rodriguez's accomplishments over the 2015 season. This is a true and logical statement.
His arbitration hearing was funnier. This is the first dumb thing he’s done since Bosch.
Imagine how Mike Lupica would respond if A-Rod actually did anything worse than show bad taste in jokes made on an awards show. The fact that Mike Lupica actually took A-Rod's participation in this skit, managed to bring Derek Jeter into the discussion, and tried to make all of this into something more than bad comedy shows a dedication to the A-Rod hating craft that he may someday try to perfect...while sitting on the edge of his seat, trying to be as tall as possible and talking over others, of course.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
0 comments What A-Rod Has Done Wrong Today: He Isn't Increasing Ratings and He Didn't Make the All-Star Team
It's time for the New York media to relay what A-Rod has done wrong lately. The New York media previously gnashed their teeth that A-Rod wanted the full bonus the Yankees had promised him in his contract, and he wanted the full amount even if the Yankees gave the bonus to charity rather than A-Rod. Also, A-Rod wouldn't create controversy on demand, which frustrated Bill Madden. Now A-Rod isn't doing anything to increase the ratings at YES (because A-Rod is singlehandedly responsible for these ratings) and he didn't get voted on to the All-Star team. What a bunch of serious missteps by A-Rod.
I'll start off first with Bob Raissman, who says that A-Rod has played well on the field, but he still isn't helping the Yankees with television ratings. Because A-Rod's job is to make sure ratings increase, not perform well on the field, and it is A-Rod's job and only A-Rod's job to increase Yankees' television ratings.
Is there a Yankeeography on the Yankees Entertainment & Sports Network in Alex Rodriguez’s future?
Judging by pinstriped suits’ (Hal, Hankenstein, etc.) positive reaction to A-Rod’s “Summer of Love Tour,” we would have to say (Only On) YES. Rodriguez has done all the right things upon his return from a year-long sentence for his role in the Biogenesis caper.
The New York media is still a little bitter they can not bash A-Rod for underachieving this year, so resorting to being cutesy and sarcastic about A-Rod coming back from his year-long suspension and contributing to the team is the attitude of choice.
Since he embarked on this comeback, during which he’s posted the kind of numbers even know-it-all Analytics Aliens could not have predicted,
The media continuously has no idea what Sabermetrics are or how these statistics are supposed to be used. Using Sabermetrics isn't like being a psychic where they are trying to predict the future as if they know it all. It's the use of statistics to make predictions based on past information and A-Rod's age. It's less know-it-all and more let's-use-data-to-try-and-predict-but-this-isn't-guaranteed-to-be-right. Sabermetricians don't claim to be psychics.
much of the media has gifted him the kind of supernatural powers performance-enhancing drugs cannot produce.
Yes, the media is making A-Rod into a better player than he truly is. Why is the media always on A-Rod's side? Sure, it's really impressive he's putting up such numbers at the age of 40 (while apparently clean) after taking an entire year off from baseball, after suffering injuries prior to his year off from baseball, but stop talking about him like he's good at the sport. The media is always overrating A-Rod's abilities.
This is a much higher power — like the ability to jack up television ratings, which influence the rates networks can charge advertisers to buy time.
Sure A-Rod's doing a good job of hitting the baseball, but the real test of his baseball skill is his ability to increase television ratings. This is A-Rod's job and only A-Rod's job. If YES ratings are low, it's because A-Rod can't draw a viewing crowd. These ratings are a direct reflection on A-Rod and it's not at all possible ratings would be even lower if A-Rod wasn't drawing more viewers to YES Yankees broadcasts.
Part of the debate over whether Rodriguez deserves to be a member of the American League All-Star team Tuesday night in Cincinnati includes a perception he can draw eyeballs to the Foxies’ party.
But this perception is wrong because the Yankees don't have great ratings. This is just like the perception Paul Goldschmidt could help a contending team who trades for him is wrong because the Diamondbacks aren't very good. The D-Backs suck and that means so does Goldschmidt.
Kay admits Rodriguez does not belong on the AL All-Stars. “Just tell me who he replaces?” Kay asked. But on his ESPN-98.7 gabfest, Kay added: “I think it would be great for Fox (if A-Rod was on the team). I think it (the game) will get higher ratings with Alex there.”
Kay, and the many others who share his opinion, never quantify it. If they did, they couldn’t back up their words.
It concerns me that Bob Raissman gets paid to write about television broadcasts and ratings when he uses the logic he is about to use in order to justify his point. The big issue here is that there is no telling what the ratings would be this year if A-Rod wasn't playing, so it's almost impossible to say the effect he has on ratings. The Yankees are also not expected to be competing for the World Series, which also affects the ratings.
Through July 7, Yankees TV ratings on YES were averaging a 2.55 rating, down a hefty 15% from the same point in the 2014 season, according to The Nielsen Co. And average total viewership on YES’ Yankees cablecasts is 237,000, down 17% from the same point in 2014.
This is concerning for me. Bob Raissman uses ratings from the 2014 season, which could easily be skewed based on it being Derek Jeter's last season as a Yankee. Ratings could have been higher for 2014 than 2013, which would mean the ratings for the Yankees this season are normal. It's concerning to me that Raissman uses a potentially outlier year to prove his point without using any other data from previous seasons to compare 2014 to. Maybe he could learn something from the Analytics Aliens.
So, if A-Rod can’t put the Yankees ahead in the ratings department on YES, where the majority of peepers have forgot about his PED past and mostly have forgiven him (as long as he continues being productive) for past “sins,” there is no shot — absolutely none — that extraneous eyeballs from sea to shining sea are going to go out of their way to tune into Fox’s All-Star telecast to see A-Rod.
Who says A-Rod isn't helping YES ratings? Aren't there are other reasonable explanations for the decline in YES ratings? It's possible A-Rod is helping ratings, but the other factors that go into how many Yankees fans watch the games are hurting the ratings more.
Why waste time watching a guy they still despise?
This is the only obvious conclusion. Fans who will watch the All-Star game hate A-Rod because the ratings for Yankees games are down from the 2014 season.
Understand?
Yes, I understand you are making assumptions and using rating data from one year, a year that very well could be an outlier, in order to make the point you want to make. I understand you are assuming A-Rod is personally responsible for the ratings decline on YES and you are willfully ignoring all other factors that could affect ratings. I understand you get paid to do this job and I understand that makes me sad and embarrassed for you.
Rodriguez would have zero impact on All-Star TV ratings. And even if A-Rod were on the team, viewers would see him only during the opening introductions and likely in a pinch-hitting role.
How Bob Raissman knows that Rodriguez would have zero impact on All-Star TV ratings is beyond me. He seems to really lack the ability to think three dimensionally about this topic.
Maybe, MAYBE, ESPN would enjoy a ratings boost from A-Rod if he were added to the Home Run Derby. In that freak show, an oddity of A-Rod’s proportion could be a ratings difference maker.
Maybe, MAYBE, Bob Raissman has very little evidence anything he is writing is fact-based.
That said, it’s surprising that A-Rod is not driving ratings higher on Yankees telecasts. Think about it: The numbers were better at this point last season WITHOUT him.
True, but the ratings could have been higher last season due to one of the greatest Yankees ever playing his last season. I'm sure the 2014 ratings had less to do with The Jeter retiring and more to do with Yankees fans watching games again now that they were rid of A-Rod.
Rodriguez brings controversy, legitimate star power and a possible comeback of the year storyline to a team with little marquee value to sell, unless you believe Chase Headley, Brett Gardner, Mark Teixeira or Didi Gregorius are all major attractions.
Bob Raissman a few paragraphs ago: "The Yankees had better ratings WITHOUT A-Rod. How come the ratings for Yankees games on YES are so low and A-Rod can't pull them up? What else could explain the decreased ratings?"
Bob Raissman now: "The Yankees have no star power and the team is a tough sell. Here is a list of players who don't provide marquee value."
Think perhaps the lack of other players on the roster with marquee value affects the ratings of Yankees games? Perhaps the ratings would be even worse without A-Rod on the team, which means he would have an impact on the All-Star games' ratings.
Maybe this can be attributed to boring baseball (played by both teams in this city) and a lack of offense. Has this caused viewers to tune out?
Absolutely not. Do not entertain this wild idea. I'm sure A-Rod has more to do with the decreased ratings from 2014 than the fact it was The Jeter's last season, as well as the perception the 2015 Yankees lack marquee value and don't seem like they would be competitive. It's A-Rod, not the boring (supposedly) team that causes viewers to tune out.
Anyway, even though he has proven not to be a ratings magnet, A-Rod sure ain’t boring.
This has provided plenty of material for use inside the Valley of the Stupid and other media precincts. The Gasbags wonder why. Or they ask who really is keeping A-Rod out? Is it players who can’t stand him?
Yes, it is the players who can't stand A-Rod. His not being selected is not a result of other players being more deserving, but instead is the result of the players not liking A-Rod and getting their revenge by choosing to put more deserving players on the team.
“I’m not going to make it (A-Rod not being an All-Star) like it’s the crime of the century because it isn’t,” Mike Greenberg said on ESPN Radio.
Just enough of a “crime” to float across many media platforms where opinions can be delivered between commercial messages. Consider it a gift delivered by A-Rod.
Yes, it is definitely A-Rod's fault that many media platforms are discussing his not being in the All-Star game. A-Rod specifically tells ESPN what to talk about and when to talk about it. The network will immediately do as they are told.
Just don’t ask him to deliver any ratings. He doesn’t have that kind of juice.
Maybe he doesn't, maybe he does. The ratings on YES aren't simply a by-product of A-Rod's presence on the Yankee roster. Bob Raissman admits the Yankees lack marquee stars, yet he isn't capable of connecting the dots and seeing that could be part of the reason in the ratings dip. He also doesn't compare the 2015 ratings to any other year for further perspective, outside of 2014 when The Jeter was making his farewell tour. It's Raissman's job to talk about ratings and the media, yet he fails at this job.
Now John Harper thinks the fact A-Rod didn't make the All-Star team shows that the people really hate A-Rod. Because, you know, it's so embarrassing to hate A-Rod that people who don't like him have to do it in private and through passive-aggressiveness acts rather than just admit how they feel about him. No one has the guts to hate A-Rod publicly, so the fact he didn't make the All-Star team proves what John Harper chooses to believe. Weird how that works. Harper has a belief and tries hard to fit reality into that belief.
Nope, for all of the stature A-Rod has regained in baseball this season with his bat and his contrite demeanor, his peers wouldn't let him slip past the velvet rope to mingle with the best of the best, as he once did every summer.
It's the result of a vendetta against A-Rod, not a snub based on A-Rod's merit compared to the merit of other AL hitters.
Does that have anything to do with the many bridges A-Rod torched when he was at war with every facet of Major League Baseball — including the Players Association — in 2013 while trying in vain to avoid a PED suspension?
It’s a fair question, though one to which there is no obvious answer.
This is a fair question. It is also a question that makes more assumptions than is required when the easy and more obvious answer is that A-Rod's exclusion on the AL All-Star roster was based on his merit versus the merit of other AL hitters. But why would John Harper go with the easy answer when he can come up with an answer more elaborate that helps him to write a column about how this All-Star exclusion means everyone hates A-Rod?
A-Rod had the numbers to warrant a DH spot on the AL All-Star team, but after the fans voted Nelson Cruz as the starter, the Yankee star was not named among the reserves that are chosen by player vote and manager Ned Yost’s preference.
Perhaps, and I know this doesn't fit the story that John Harper wants to push, the players just thought there were more deserving candidates to represent the AL in the All-Star game and A-Rod's exclusion wasn't because they don't personally like him. I know, that would be a logical conclusion, but what's the fun in logic when Harper can shoehorn his beliefs into this (lack of a) story?
Prince Fielder earned the back-up DH nod, and it’s tough to argue with his selection, considering that he’s hitting .347 with 13 home runs, 50 RBI and a .943 OPS.
John Harper a few paragraphs ago: "Was A-Rod left off the All-Star roster because the MLB players hate him for suing the union? It's possible!"
John Harper now: "Here is a player who took A-Rod's roster spot that was more deserving than A-Rod."
I think we have our answer on why A-Rod didn't make the All-Star team.
Had Yost somehow finagled Kendrys Morales, his Royals DH, onto the team, then you could have made the case that A-Rod got snubbed.
But you are the one making the case A-Rod was left off for reasons other than merit. You are the one suggesting it was a conspiracy among the players that ended with A-Rod not being on the All-Star roster. Now you are refuting your own theory, but only refuting it after trying to make the case that everyone hates A-Rod. It's important to put that line of thought out in the universe before refuting it.
But Fielder certainly was deserving.
So, there we go. It wasn't about whether A-Rod was hated or not by his fellow players, but about Prince Fielder being more deserving than A-Rod.
In truth, Brett Gardner is the Yankee who had a right to feel he got jobbed.
Gardner is clearly having an All-Star season, and in many ways he has become the heart and soul of these Yankees, his hustle and aggressiveness setting a tone at the top of the lineup for a team that has exceeded expectations so far.
So does this exclusion mean that John Harper thinks the AL players hate Gardner like he believes A-Rod's exclusion was the result of the players passive-aggressively telling A-Rod how they feel? Of course not! That's silly. The "he got snubbed because everyone hates him" logic is only used for A-Rod.
As for A-Rod, Yost made the case on the ESPN All-Star selection show that much discussion went into his candidacy, but ultimately the need for position players outweighed whatever desire there was to include him.
“We wanted to try to find a way to get Alex Rodriguez on there,” Yost said. “We couldn’t.”
How hard they tried is anybody’s guess.
PROBABLY NOT HARD AT ALL!
In fact, I bet AL pitchers threw Prince Fielder fastballs straight down the plate in order to ensure he made the All-Star team over A-Rod. How could this not be true? It's a fair assessment with no obvious answer.
A-Rod would have added some sizzle to an event that remains mostly a spectacle, no matter how determined MLB is to cling to this silly idea that the game should decide home-field advantage in the World Series.
It’s not likely that a pitcher would have thrown A-Rod the “pipe-shot” that Adam Wainwright served up for Derek Jeter last year.
It's not likely. In fact, I wouldn't have been surprised if A-Rod had made the team, and the second he stepped in the batter's box, the NL catcher would have pulled out a switchblade and knifed him to death. It could happen. Would the NL catcher murder A-Rod in the All-Star game? It's a fair question with no obvious answer.
Nor would you think someone might pull a Ryan Dempster and drill him on such a big stage as some sort of statement on behalf of the union members who were included in the suit Rodriguez temporarily brought against the Players Association — at least until he seemed to come to his senses.
It could happen since the only assumption that is being worked under right now is that everyone hates A-Rod. Sure, there's no evidence this is true, but who needs evidence when John Harper has a fancy computer and inclination to believe this conclusion?
On the surface, at least, all seems to have been forgiven this year as A-Rod has made his return from his 2014 suspension. He has long since won over Yankee fans with his rather stunning offensive production, to the point that he was practically given the Jeter treatment, curtain call and all, when he hit a home run for his 3,000th hit.
He almost got "the Jeter treatment," which apparently is what a curtain call will now be referred to as being.
And while he was never the outcast in the Yankee clubhouse he was sometimes portrayed as,
Gee, I wonder who sometimes portrayed A-Rod as the outcast in the clubhouse? I'm sure it wasn't John Harper and his fellow media members.
all indications are that he is admired now more than ever by teammates for his work ethic, his superstar status and his singular talk of winning as a team.
But fuck indications, let's make some shit up. Sure, A-Rod isn't an outcast like the media portrays him as being, and sure, he probably didn't make the All-Star team based on merit and not based on some long-held grudge, but where's the fun in coming to this conclusion?
Everybody loves A-Rod? Well, not enough to give him a Jeter-like All-Star sendoff, even with a deserving resume. Perhaps forgiveness only goes so far.
Wait, "a Jeter-like All-Star sendoff"? Is Alex Rodriguez retiring after this season? I think all indications are that A-Rod will be back next year, so why would his presence in the All-Star game this season have been a "sendoff"? It's likely that John Harper is doing what every boring, predictable New York sportswriter does, which is compare A-Rod to Derek Jeter, and therefore lazily assumes this is A-Rod's last season or chance to the make the All-Star team. Everything always comes back to Derek Jeter for sportswriters. Always.
I'll start off first with Bob Raissman, who says that A-Rod has played well on the field, but he still isn't helping the Yankees with television ratings. Because A-Rod's job is to make sure ratings increase, not perform well on the field, and it is A-Rod's job and only A-Rod's job to increase Yankees' television ratings.
Is there a Yankeeography on the Yankees Entertainment & Sports Network in Alex Rodriguez’s future?
Judging by pinstriped suits’ (Hal, Hankenstein, etc.) positive reaction to A-Rod’s “Summer of Love Tour,” we would have to say (Only On) YES. Rodriguez has done all the right things upon his return from a year-long sentence for his role in the Biogenesis caper.
The New York media is still a little bitter they can not bash A-Rod for underachieving this year, so resorting to being cutesy and sarcastic about A-Rod coming back from his year-long suspension and contributing to the team is the attitude of choice.
Since he embarked on this comeback, during which he’s posted the kind of numbers even know-it-all Analytics Aliens could not have predicted,
The media continuously has no idea what Sabermetrics are or how these statistics are supposed to be used. Using Sabermetrics isn't like being a psychic where they are trying to predict the future as if they know it all. It's the use of statistics to make predictions based on past information and A-Rod's age. It's less know-it-all and more let's-use-data-to-try-and-predict-but-this-isn't-guaranteed-to-be-right. Sabermetricians don't claim to be psychics.
much of the media has gifted him the kind of supernatural powers performance-enhancing drugs cannot produce.
Yes, the media is making A-Rod into a better player than he truly is. Why is the media always on A-Rod's side? Sure, it's really impressive he's putting up such numbers at the age of 40 (while apparently clean) after taking an entire year off from baseball, after suffering injuries prior to his year off from baseball, but stop talking about him like he's good at the sport. The media is always overrating A-Rod's abilities.
This is a much higher power — like the ability to jack up television ratings, which influence the rates networks can charge advertisers to buy time.
Sure A-Rod's doing a good job of hitting the baseball, but the real test of his baseball skill is his ability to increase television ratings. This is A-Rod's job and only A-Rod's job. If YES ratings are low, it's because A-Rod can't draw a viewing crowd. These ratings are a direct reflection on A-Rod and it's not at all possible ratings would be even lower if A-Rod wasn't drawing more viewers to YES Yankees broadcasts.
Part of the debate over whether Rodriguez deserves to be a member of the American League All-Star team Tuesday night in Cincinnati includes a perception he can draw eyeballs to the Foxies’ party.
But this perception is wrong because the Yankees don't have great ratings. This is just like the perception Paul Goldschmidt could help a contending team who trades for him is wrong because the Diamondbacks aren't very good. The D-Backs suck and that means so does Goldschmidt.
Kay admits Rodriguez does not belong on the AL All-Stars. “Just tell me who he replaces?” Kay asked. But on his ESPN-98.7 gabfest, Kay added: “I think it would be great for Fox (if A-Rod was on the team). I think it (the game) will get higher ratings with Alex there.”
Kay, and the many others who share his opinion, never quantify it. If they did, they couldn’t back up their words.
It concerns me that Bob Raissman gets paid to write about television broadcasts and ratings when he uses the logic he is about to use in order to justify his point. The big issue here is that there is no telling what the ratings would be this year if A-Rod wasn't playing, so it's almost impossible to say the effect he has on ratings. The Yankees are also not expected to be competing for the World Series, which also affects the ratings.
Through July 7, Yankees TV ratings on YES were averaging a 2.55 rating, down a hefty 15% from the same point in the 2014 season, according to The Nielsen Co. And average total viewership on YES’ Yankees cablecasts is 237,000, down 17% from the same point in 2014.
This is concerning for me. Bob Raissman uses ratings from the 2014 season, which could easily be skewed based on it being Derek Jeter's last season as a Yankee. Ratings could have been higher for 2014 than 2013, which would mean the ratings for the Yankees this season are normal. It's concerning to me that Raissman uses a potentially outlier year to prove his point without using any other data from previous seasons to compare 2014 to. Maybe he could learn something from the Analytics Aliens.
So, if A-Rod can’t put the Yankees ahead in the ratings department on YES, where the majority of peepers have forgot about his PED past and mostly have forgiven him (as long as he continues being productive) for past “sins,” there is no shot — absolutely none — that extraneous eyeballs from sea to shining sea are going to go out of their way to tune into Fox’s All-Star telecast to see A-Rod.
Who says A-Rod isn't helping YES ratings? Aren't there are other reasonable explanations for the decline in YES ratings? It's possible A-Rod is helping ratings, but the other factors that go into how many Yankees fans watch the games are hurting the ratings more.
Why waste time watching a guy they still despise?
This is the only obvious conclusion. Fans who will watch the All-Star game hate A-Rod because the ratings for Yankees games are down from the 2014 season.
Understand?
Yes, I understand you are making assumptions and using rating data from one year, a year that very well could be an outlier, in order to make the point you want to make. I understand you are assuming A-Rod is personally responsible for the ratings decline on YES and you are willfully ignoring all other factors that could affect ratings. I understand you get paid to do this job and I understand that makes me sad and embarrassed for you.
Rodriguez would have zero impact on All-Star TV ratings. And even if A-Rod were on the team, viewers would see him only during the opening introductions and likely in a pinch-hitting role.
How Bob Raissman knows that Rodriguez would have zero impact on All-Star TV ratings is beyond me. He seems to really lack the ability to think three dimensionally about this topic.
Maybe, MAYBE, ESPN would enjoy a ratings boost from A-Rod if he were added to the Home Run Derby. In that freak show, an oddity of A-Rod’s proportion could be a ratings difference maker.
Maybe, MAYBE, Bob Raissman has very little evidence anything he is writing is fact-based.
That said, it’s surprising that A-Rod is not driving ratings higher on Yankees telecasts. Think about it: The numbers were better at this point last season WITHOUT him.
True, but the ratings could have been higher last season due to one of the greatest Yankees ever playing his last season. I'm sure the 2014 ratings had less to do with The Jeter retiring and more to do with Yankees fans watching games again now that they were rid of A-Rod.
Rodriguez brings controversy, legitimate star power and a possible comeback of the year storyline to a team with little marquee value to sell, unless you believe Chase Headley, Brett Gardner, Mark Teixeira or Didi Gregorius are all major attractions.
Bob Raissman a few paragraphs ago: "The Yankees had better ratings WITHOUT A-Rod. How come the ratings for Yankees games on YES are so low and A-Rod can't pull them up? What else could explain the decreased ratings?"
Bob Raissman now: "The Yankees have no star power and the team is a tough sell. Here is a list of players who don't provide marquee value."
Think perhaps the lack of other players on the roster with marquee value affects the ratings of Yankees games? Perhaps the ratings would be even worse without A-Rod on the team, which means he would have an impact on the All-Star games' ratings.
Maybe this can be attributed to boring baseball (played by both teams in this city) and a lack of offense. Has this caused viewers to tune out?
Absolutely not. Do not entertain this wild idea. I'm sure A-Rod has more to do with the decreased ratings from 2014 than the fact it was The Jeter's last season, as well as the perception the 2015 Yankees lack marquee value and don't seem like they would be competitive. It's A-Rod, not the boring (supposedly) team that causes viewers to tune out.
Anyway, even though he has proven not to be a ratings magnet, A-Rod sure ain’t boring.
This has provided plenty of material for use inside the Valley of the Stupid and other media precincts. The Gasbags wonder why. Or they ask who really is keeping A-Rod out? Is it players who can’t stand him?
Yes, it is the players who can't stand A-Rod. His not being selected is not a result of other players being more deserving, but instead is the result of the players not liking A-Rod and getting their revenge by choosing to put more deserving players on the team.
“I’m not going to make it (A-Rod not being an All-Star) like it’s the crime of the century because it isn’t,” Mike Greenberg said on ESPN Radio.
Just enough of a “crime” to float across many media platforms where opinions can be delivered between commercial messages. Consider it a gift delivered by A-Rod.
Yes, it is definitely A-Rod's fault that many media platforms are discussing his not being in the All-Star game. A-Rod specifically tells ESPN what to talk about and when to talk about it. The network will immediately do as they are told.
Just don’t ask him to deliver any ratings. He doesn’t have that kind of juice.
Maybe he doesn't, maybe he does. The ratings on YES aren't simply a by-product of A-Rod's presence on the Yankee roster. Bob Raissman admits the Yankees lack marquee stars, yet he isn't capable of connecting the dots and seeing that could be part of the reason in the ratings dip. He also doesn't compare the 2015 ratings to any other year for further perspective, outside of 2014 when The Jeter was making his farewell tour. It's Raissman's job to talk about ratings and the media, yet he fails at this job.
Now John Harper thinks the fact A-Rod didn't make the All-Star team shows that the people really hate A-Rod. Because, you know, it's so embarrassing to hate A-Rod that people who don't like him have to do it in private and through passive-aggressiveness acts rather than just admit how they feel about him. No one has the guts to hate A-Rod publicly, so the fact he didn't make the All-Star team proves what John Harper chooses to believe. Weird how that works. Harper has a belief and tries hard to fit reality into that belief.
Nope, for all of the stature A-Rod has regained in baseball this season with his bat and his contrite demeanor, his peers wouldn't let him slip past the velvet rope to mingle with the best of the best, as he once did every summer.
It's the result of a vendetta against A-Rod, not a snub based on A-Rod's merit compared to the merit of other AL hitters.
Does that have anything to do with the many bridges A-Rod torched when he was at war with every facet of Major League Baseball — including the Players Association — in 2013 while trying in vain to avoid a PED suspension?
It’s a fair question, though one to which there is no obvious answer.
This is a fair question. It is also a question that makes more assumptions than is required when the easy and more obvious answer is that A-Rod's exclusion on the AL All-Star roster was based on his merit versus the merit of other AL hitters. But why would John Harper go with the easy answer when he can come up with an answer more elaborate that helps him to write a column about how this All-Star exclusion means everyone hates A-Rod?
A-Rod had the numbers to warrant a DH spot on the AL All-Star team, but after the fans voted Nelson Cruz as the starter, the Yankee star was not named among the reserves that are chosen by player vote and manager Ned Yost’s preference.
Perhaps, and I know this doesn't fit the story that John Harper wants to push, the players just thought there were more deserving candidates to represent the AL in the All-Star game and A-Rod's exclusion wasn't because they don't personally like him. I know, that would be a logical conclusion, but what's the fun in logic when Harper can shoehorn his beliefs into this (lack of a) story?
Prince Fielder earned the back-up DH nod, and it’s tough to argue with his selection, considering that he’s hitting .347 with 13 home runs, 50 RBI and a .943 OPS.
John Harper a few paragraphs ago: "Was A-Rod left off the All-Star roster because the MLB players hate him for suing the union? It's possible!"
John Harper now: "Here is a player who took A-Rod's roster spot that was more deserving than A-Rod."
I think we have our answer on why A-Rod didn't make the All-Star team.
Had Yost somehow finagled Kendrys Morales, his Royals DH, onto the team, then you could have made the case that A-Rod got snubbed.
But you are the one making the case A-Rod was left off for reasons other than merit. You are the one suggesting it was a conspiracy among the players that ended with A-Rod not being on the All-Star roster. Now you are refuting your own theory, but only refuting it after trying to make the case that everyone hates A-Rod. It's important to put that line of thought out in the universe before refuting it.
But Fielder certainly was deserving.
So, there we go. It wasn't about whether A-Rod was hated or not by his fellow players, but about Prince Fielder being more deserving than A-Rod.
In truth, Brett Gardner is the Yankee who had a right to feel he got jobbed.
Gardner is clearly having an All-Star season, and in many ways he has become the heart and soul of these Yankees, his hustle and aggressiveness setting a tone at the top of the lineup for a team that has exceeded expectations so far.
So does this exclusion mean that John Harper thinks the AL players hate Gardner like he believes A-Rod's exclusion was the result of the players passive-aggressively telling A-Rod how they feel? Of course not! That's silly. The "he got snubbed because everyone hates him" logic is only used for A-Rod.
As for A-Rod, Yost made the case on the ESPN All-Star selection show that much discussion went into his candidacy, but ultimately the need for position players outweighed whatever desire there was to include him.
“We wanted to try to find a way to get Alex Rodriguez on there,” Yost said. “We couldn’t.”
How hard they tried is anybody’s guess.
PROBABLY NOT HARD AT ALL!
In fact, I bet AL pitchers threw Prince Fielder fastballs straight down the plate in order to ensure he made the All-Star team over A-Rod. How could this not be true? It's a fair assessment with no obvious answer.
A-Rod would have added some sizzle to an event that remains mostly a spectacle, no matter how determined MLB is to cling to this silly idea that the game should decide home-field advantage in the World Series.
It’s not likely that a pitcher would have thrown A-Rod the “pipe-shot” that Adam Wainwright served up for Derek Jeter last year.
It's not likely. In fact, I wouldn't have been surprised if A-Rod had made the team, and the second he stepped in the batter's box, the NL catcher would have pulled out a switchblade and knifed him to death. It could happen. Would the NL catcher murder A-Rod in the All-Star game? It's a fair question with no obvious answer.
Nor would you think someone might pull a Ryan Dempster and drill him on such a big stage as some sort of statement on behalf of the union members who were included in the suit Rodriguez temporarily brought against the Players Association — at least until he seemed to come to his senses.
It could happen since the only assumption that is being worked under right now is that everyone hates A-Rod. Sure, there's no evidence this is true, but who needs evidence when John Harper has a fancy computer and inclination to believe this conclusion?
On the surface, at least, all seems to have been forgiven this year as A-Rod has made his return from his 2014 suspension. He has long since won over Yankee fans with his rather stunning offensive production, to the point that he was practically given the Jeter treatment, curtain call and all, when he hit a home run for his 3,000th hit.
He almost got "the Jeter treatment," which apparently is what a curtain call will now be referred to as being.
And while he was never the outcast in the Yankee clubhouse he was sometimes portrayed as,
Gee, I wonder who sometimes portrayed A-Rod as the outcast in the clubhouse? I'm sure it wasn't John Harper and his fellow media members.
all indications are that he is admired now more than ever by teammates for his work ethic, his superstar status and his singular talk of winning as a team.
But fuck indications, let's make some shit up. Sure, A-Rod isn't an outcast like the media portrays him as being, and sure, he probably didn't make the All-Star team based on merit and not based on some long-held grudge, but where's the fun in coming to this conclusion?
Everybody loves A-Rod? Well, not enough to give him a Jeter-like All-Star sendoff, even with a deserving resume. Perhaps forgiveness only goes so far.
Wait, "a Jeter-like All-Star sendoff"? Is Alex Rodriguez retiring after this season? I think all indications are that A-Rod will be back next year, so why would his presence in the All-Star game this season have been a "sendoff"? It's likely that John Harper is doing what every boring, predictable New York sportswriter does, which is compare A-Rod to Derek Jeter, and therefore lazily assumes this is A-Rod's last season or chance to the make the All-Star team. Everything always comes back to Derek Jeter for sportswriters. Always.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
5 comments What A-Rod Has Done Wrong Today: He Hates Charities and Won't Create Controversy on Demand
It's been a long, tough summer for New York writers who were waiting to jump on the many mistakes A-Rod would make over the 2015 season. He really hasn't made many at all. He's hitting the baseball well and adapting to his job as the Yankees' designated hitter. He's caused no problems that I know of, and if he wasn't hated due to his cheating, the fact he's playing so well at an advanced age for a professional athlete would be celebrated. But that's not how it is. No one likes A-Rod, especially when there is no reason not to like A-Rod. When A-Rod doesn't give New York sportswriters a reason to dislike him, that's more annoying than anything else. So Bill Madden does what he can to drum up some controversy by pointing out that A-Rod will not drum up any controversy to respond to the Yankees' offer of donating $6 million to the charity of A-Rod's choice.
Why won't A-Rod say anything or respond publicly to the offer? Doesn't A-Rod realize it's more exciting for him to publicly reject this offer rather than privately reject the offer? Doesn't A-Rod realize the Yankees promising him $6 million if he met a milestone is the exact same thing as the Yankees giving $6 million to the charity of A-Rod's choice? If I promise you $10,000 to run a package from Philadelphia to Japan, but don't like the fact it took longer than I wanted it to, so I say I will give the $10,000 to your favorite charity instead, wouldn't that just please you? You are getting $10,000 to give to your favorite charity. That's better than having the money for yourself.
Can A-Rod not be satisfied? He was promised $6 million and the Yankees don't want to pay it to him. Why can't he just accept the Yankees giving this money to a charity? Does A-Rod hate charities that much? If A-Rod doesn't hate charities and hates the Yankees for not giving him $6 million, why can't he say it publicly so Bill Madden can write a story about A-Rod's quotes on this topic?
I like the "new" A-Rod. He's hitting the ball and he's not really saying much. He's letting this whole grievance of $6 million play out behind the scenes and not commenting. Of course, the New York media finds this unacceptable, so they have to find something wrong with A-Rod's approach to take the high ground.
In his ever-percolating home run milestone grievance with the Yankees — which was expected to come to a head Saturday but was pushed back until Monday — Alex Rodriguez’s silence is deafening.
"THE FACT A-ROD WON'T CAUSE A DISTRACTION HAS IN ITSELF NOW BECOME A DISTRACTION! WHEN WILL THIS MONSTER BE SATIATED WITH THE DAMAGE HE HAS CAUSED?"
A face-saving olive branch from the Yankees has been out there for a while, but A-Rod, on the advice of his attorneys and handlers, is having none of it.
I always throw this disclaimer in here it seems, but I'm not an A-Rod apologist. I really try not to be. The way the New York media frames anything that concerns A-Rod forces me to call them on their bullshit. Let's be clear here...the Yankees signed a contract saying they would give A-Rod $6 million when he passed Willie Mays on the all-time home run list. The Yankees don't like that A-Rod got busted for using steroids, which is their right to be horrified by this. A-Rod still wants the $6 million that was in the contract he signed for passing Willie Mays on the all-time home run list, which is his right as a person who signed the contract.
Bill Madden is framing this discussion in such an anti-Rodriguez way though. Look at the language he is using.
"A face-saving olive branch from the Yankees..." like the Yankees are the ones trying to make peace in this situation when the grievance Rodriguez has is that the Yankees won't give him the money promised in his contract. The Yankees are not living up to a contract they signed, but they get credit for offering the olive branch?
"but A-Rod, on the advice of his attorneys and handlers..." like A-Rod has no control over the decision. He's totally and completely at fault on his own for using PED's, but when it comes to anything else he's just a puppet on a string. It's silly to believe A-Rod isn't anything but 100% culpable for his errors, but when it comes to making decisions about $6 million, all of a sudden A-Rod can't make his own decisions.
"...is having none of it" like the Yankees aren't trying to violate a contract they signed with A-Rod, as if he is a villain forcing them to pay money they didn't contractually agree to pay him. Bill Madden is framing this like he himself wouldn't go after $6 million in this situation. It's ridiculous the way Madden writes about this situation.
Sunday marked the 45-day deadline for A-Rod to file a grievance against the Yankees for their refusal to recognize his tying Willie Mays on the all-time home run list as a milestone, which under a separate marketing deal from his contract would have required them to pay him a $6 million bonus.
That day came and went with no agreement and no grievance filed.
So not only is A-Rod a huge distraction, but he's also not filing a grievance at this point in an effort to get the situation resolved without ever having to file a grievance. Does it get more diabolical than a person quietly asserting what he believes to be his rights in a manner that is as non-confrontational and distracting as possible? What type of monster tries to see if an agreement can be worked out before filing a grievance? He thinks he's A-God, not merely A-Rod.
Rodgriguez, when asked following Sunday’s win in Baltimore about a possible grievance, said: “That stuff will work itself out. I don’t know much about those kind of things.”
Oh sure, now Rodgriguez (spelling, Bill, spelling) claims to have NO KNOWLEDGE about what is going on, just like Bill Madden claims he has no knowledge of what's going on. Bill Madden knows that he was wrong when he said A-Rod's handlers were taking care of the situation and making him hold out for more money, but he can't admit that. Bill can't believe that A-Rod is pretending not to know what Bill Madden claims A-Rod doesn't know when it's obvious that Bill Madden doesn't know what A-Rod knows but A-Rod knows enough to know he's playing coy about what he does know. This is very, very clear.
While the Yankees remain confident in their position that A-Rod’s admission to using steroids and his subsequent year-long suspension from baseball has made him and his accomplishments unmarketable, they suggested to the MLB Players Association months ago that the dispute possibly could be settled by the Yankees making a donation — less than the $6 million — to a charity of Rodriguez’s choice.
So to sum it up, the Yankees not only won't give A-Rod the $6 million he claims he's owed for passing Willie Mays on the all-time home run list, but they won't even give the charity of his choice the full $6 million instead of giving the money to A-Rod. The Yankees won't give A-Rod $6 million and have held out an olive branch of an offer to give a charity less than the $6 million A-Rod claims they owe him. But again, Rodriguez is the bad guy here, not the Yankees.
“If you guys are so interested in my charities, I’ll be at the Boys and Girls Club on Tuesday,” said a smiling Rodriguez Sunday.
Oh, you snide son of a bitch. Bill Madden would cut your throat if he could. Smiling while talking about the Boys and Girls Club, bragging about how involved you are.
“That’s a great organization and we welcome all you guys to come out and give the Boys and Girls Club some exposure.”
What a son of a bitch's son of a bitch. A-Rod knows the New York media has no intent on giving the Boys and Girls Club some exposure. That's not what they want to do at all, but he just HAS to be cocky about it and point out the New York media is only looking for controversy to stir up rather than having a genuine interest in a charity receiving the "less than $6 million" that was supposed to go to A-Rod. What kind of animal points out the media's fake concern that charities are receiving exposure?
Rodriguez, however, has given no indication to the union or the Yankees that he has any intentions other than trying to make them pay him the full $6 million bonus and additional $6 million bonuses should he tie Babe Ruth (714), Hank Aaron (755) and Barry Bonds (762) on the all-time homer list.
He's given no intention he's willing to accept less than $6 million, but of course he's also not filed a grievance yet. So A-Rod also hasn't given an indication he isn't willing to work something out with the Yankees. But yeah, stay negative.
Rodriguez is apparently willing to once again go before the same baseball arbitrator, Fredric Horowitz, who found him guilty on all counts — but reduced his sentence — in his appeal of his 211-game suspension for doping in 2013, to force the payments.
All of a sudden it's A-Rod, and not his handlers, who is at the controls of this scheme again. It's hard for me to keep up with when A-Rod is and is not in control of this situation. And yes, A-Rod seems to be willing to go to this arbitrator, but as I often say when it comes to Peter King discussing contract negotiations, this is all a part of the negotiation so who knows what really A-Rod is willing to do? It could all be posturing.
If Rodriguez should prevail — and all the parties are said to privately have agreed not to hold Monday as a firm deadline for A-Rod to file his grievance since it won’t be heard anyway until after the season — the Yankees would also be required to pay an additional $3 million in luxury taxes.
Rodriguez is basically a cartoonish Bond villain at this point. Not only is he insisting the Yankees pay him the amount they contractually agreed to, but the fact the Yankees won't pay A-Rod $6 million is now costing the team $3 million more in luxury taxes. When will Rodriguez finally stop his continuous reign of evil? He's forcing the Yankees to spend more money, thereby hurting the team, by winning a grievance he hasn't filed yet in a hearing that hasn't occurred yet. If Rodriguez would just let the Yankees cheat him out of money, the Yankees could save even more money. But nooooooooooo, his selfishness knows no end.
It would appear to be a difficult case for A-Rod to prove since there have been zero commercial/endorsement opportunities presented to either Rodriguez or the Yankees for his passing of Mays — or, for that matter, to Rodriguez for the 3,000-hit milestone he’s closing in on.
A player can be marketable even without getting commercial/endorsement opportunities. Go check out how much a signed A-Rod jersey bids for and see if he is still not marketable.
(By contrast, Derek Jeter had numerous commercial/endorsement deals after he reached 3,000 hits.)
Jeter also had numerous commercial/endorsement deals before he reached 3,000 hits as well. And of course Derek Jeter is going to be mentioned at some point, as if nearly any professional athlete can live up to the image Jeter crafted for himself on the field and as an endorser. Simply because A-Rod isn't as marketable as Derek Jeter doesn't mean he isn't marketable.
As one baseball official noted Sunday: “Alex can’t even make the case that he’s helped the Yankees this year with his comeback season as their attendance and TV ratings are both down.”
How do we know ratings and attendance wouldn't be further down if A-Rod wasn't playing? Perhaps ratings and attendance would have declined further if it weren't for Rodriguez. Plus, attendance and ratings are a sign that the Yankees team as a whole isn't as marketable as it once was and not a reflection simply on one player.
It is believed the only reason the Yankees made any suggestion to settle with a charity donation was because of the enormous cost of litigating the case —
It's also believed that a charity donation isn't what A-Rod thinks the contract he signed called for and a charity donation of less than $6 million isn't even the amount A-Rod was promised for passing Mays. But again, Bill Madden has to look at this issue from the point of view of the Yankees organization.
Regardless, if it’s war he wants with them again, the Yankees are said to be confident they will win it and prepared to spend whatever it takes to make their case.
One minute Madden is decrying how the Yankees will have to spend $3 million more in luxury taxes if A-Rod wins and talks about how ratings and attendance are down, then he paints the Yankees as an organization with deep pockets who are fighting a moral war to avoid having to pay money they contractually agreed to pay.
“I’m not going to get into that now. All that stuff is family business and will be handled privately,” said Rodriguez.
Congratulations A-Rod, you are now causing a distraction by refusing to cause a distraction. Now the whole team is upset with you (they aren't) and this will probably if all goes well affect your play (it won't) so that the New York media can then state you were too concerned about lining your pockets when you needed to be worried about helping the Yankees win games. Not causing a distraction is a distraction. Bill Madden is horrified that you refuse to comment on the grievance you haven't filed yet, thereby creating controversy when he has to write this column about how you aren't creating controversy.
Why won't A-Rod say anything or respond publicly to the offer? Doesn't A-Rod realize it's more exciting for him to publicly reject this offer rather than privately reject the offer? Doesn't A-Rod realize the Yankees promising him $6 million if he met a milestone is the exact same thing as the Yankees giving $6 million to the charity of A-Rod's choice? If I promise you $10,000 to run a package from Philadelphia to Japan, but don't like the fact it took longer than I wanted it to, so I say I will give the $10,000 to your favorite charity instead, wouldn't that just please you? You are getting $10,000 to give to your favorite charity. That's better than having the money for yourself.
Can A-Rod not be satisfied? He was promised $6 million and the Yankees don't want to pay it to him. Why can't he just accept the Yankees giving this money to a charity? Does A-Rod hate charities that much? If A-Rod doesn't hate charities and hates the Yankees for not giving him $6 million, why can't he say it publicly so Bill Madden can write a story about A-Rod's quotes on this topic?
I like the "new" A-Rod. He's hitting the ball and he's not really saying much. He's letting this whole grievance of $6 million play out behind the scenes and not commenting. Of course, the New York media finds this unacceptable, so they have to find something wrong with A-Rod's approach to take the high ground.
In his ever-percolating home run milestone grievance with the Yankees — which was expected to come to a head Saturday but was pushed back until Monday — Alex Rodriguez’s silence is deafening.
"THE FACT A-ROD WON'T CAUSE A DISTRACTION HAS IN ITSELF NOW BECOME A DISTRACTION! WHEN WILL THIS MONSTER BE SATIATED WITH THE DAMAGE HE HAS CAUSED?"
A face-saving olive branch from the Yankees has been out there for a while, but A-Rod, on the advice of his attorneys and handlers, is having none of it.
I always throw this disclaimer in here it seems, but I'm not an A-Rod apologist. I really try not to be. The way the New York media frames anything that concerns A-Rod forces me to call them on their bullshit. Let's be clear here...the Yankees signed a contract saying they would give A-Rod $6 million when he passed Willie Mays on the all-time home run list. The Yankees don't like that A-Rod got busted for using steroids, which is their right to be horrified by this. A-Rod still wants the $6 million that was in the contract he signed for passing Willie Mays on the all-time home run list, which is his right as a person who signed the contract.
Bill Madden is framing this discussion in such an anti-Rodriguez way though. Look at the language he is using.
"A face-saving olive branch from the Yankees..." like the Yankees are the ones trying to make peace in this situation when the grievance Rodriguez has is that the Yankees won't give him the money promised in his contract. The Yankees are not living up to a contract they signed, but they get credit for offering the olive branch?
"but A-Rod, on the advice of his attorneys and handlers..." like A-Rod has no control over the decision. He's totally and completely at fault on his own for using PED's, but when it comes to anything else he's just a puppet on a string. It's silly to believe A-Rod isn't anything but 100% culpable for his errors, but when it comes to making decisions about $6 million, all of a sudden A-Rod can't make his own decisions.
"...is having none of it" like the Yankees aren't trying to violate a contract they signed with A-Rod, as if he is a villain forcing them to pay money they didn't contractually agree to pay him. Bill Madden is framing this like he himself wouldn't go after $6 million in this situation. It's ridiculous the way Madden writes about this situation.
Sunday marked the 45-day deadline for A-Rod to file a grievance against the Yankees for their refusal to recognize his tying Willie Mays on the all-time home run list as a milestone, which under a separate marketing deal from his contract would have required them to pay him a $6 million bonus.
That day came and went with no agreement and no grievance filed.
So not only is A-Rod a huge distraction, but he's also not filing a grievance at this point in an effort to get the situation resolved without ever having to file a grievance. Does it get more diabolical than a person quietly asserting what he believes to be his rights in a manner that is as non-confrontational and distracting as possible? What type of monster tries to see if an agreement can be worked out before filing a grievance? He thinks he's A-God, not merely A-Rod.
Rodgriguez, when asked following Sunday’s win in Baltimore about a possible grievance, said: “That stuff will work itself out. I don’t know much about those kind of things.”
Oh sure, now Rodgriguez (spelling, Bill, spelling) claims to have NO KNOWLEDGE about what is going on, just like Bill Madden claims he has no knowledge of what's going on. Bill Madden knows that he was wrong when he said A-Rod's handlers were taking care of the situation and making him hold out for more money, but he can't admit that. Bill can't believe that A-Rod is pretending not to know what Bill Madden claims A-Rod doesn't know when it's obvious that Bill Madden doesn't know what A-Rod knows but A-Rod knows enough to know he's playing coy about what he does know. This is very, very clear.
While the Yankees remain confident in their position that A-Rod’s admission to using steroids and his subsequent year-long suspension from baseball has made him and his accomplishments unmarketable, they suggested to the MLB Players Association months ago that the dispute possibly could be settled by the Yankees making a donation — less than the $6 million — to a charity of Rodriguez’s choice.
So to sum it up, the Yankees not only won't give A-Rod the $6 million he claims he's owed for passing Willie Mays on the all-time home run list, but they won't even give the charity of his choice the full $6 million instead of giving the money to A-Rod. The Yankees won't give A-Rod $6 million and have held out an olive branch of an offer to give a charity less than the $6 million A-Rod claims they owe him. But again, Rodriguez is the bad guy here, not the Yankees.
“If you guys are so interested in my charities, I’ll be at the Boys and Girls Club on Tuesday,” said a smiling Rodriguez Sunday.
Oh, you snide son of a bitch. Bill Madden would cut your throat if he could. Smiling while talking about the Boys and Girls Club, bragging about how involved you are.
“That’s a great organization and we welcome all you guys to come out and give the Boys and Girls Club some exposure.”
What a son of a bitch's son of a bitch. A-Rod knows the New York media has no intent on giving the Boys and Girls Club some exposure. That's not what they want to do at all, but he just HAS to be cocky about it and point out the New York media is only looking for controversy to stir up rather than having a genuine interest in a charity receiving the "less than $6 million" that was supposed to go to A-Rod. What kind of animal points out the media's fake concern that charities are receiving exposure?
Rodriguez, however, has given no indication to the union or the Yankees that he has any intentions other than trying to make them pay him the full $6 million bonus and additional $6 million bonuses should he tie Babe Ruth (714), Hank Aaron (755) and Barry Bonds (762) on the all-time homer list.
He's given no intention he's willing to accept less than $6 million, but of course he's also not filed a grievance yet. So A-Rod also hasn't given an indication he isn't willing to work something out with the Yankees. But yeah, stay negative.
Rodriguez is apparently willing to once again go before the same baseball arbitrator, Fredric Horowitz, who found him guilty on all counts — but reduced his sentence — in his appeal of his 211-game suspension for doping in 2013, to force the payments.
All of a sudden it's A-Rod, and not his handlers, who is at the controls of this scheme again. It's hard for me to keep up with when A-Rod is and is not in control of this situation. And yes, A-Rod seems to be willing to go to this arbitrator, but as I often say when it comes to Peter King discussing contract negotiations, this is all a part of the negotiation so who knows what really A-Rod is willing to do? It could all be posturing.
If Rodriguez should prevail — and all the parties are said to privately have agreed not to hold Monday as a firm deadline for A-Rod to file his grievance since it won’t be heard anyway until after the season — the Yankees would also be required to pay an additional $3 million in luxury taxes.
Rodriguez is basically a cartoonish Bond villain at this point. Not only is he insisting the Yankees pay him the amount they contractually agreed to, but the fact the Yankees won't pay A-Rod $6 million is now costing the team $3 million more in luxury taxes. When will Rodriguez finally stop his continuous reign of evil? He's forcing the Yankees to spend more money, thereby hurting the team, by winning a grievance he hasn't filed yet in a hearing that hasn't occurred yet. If Rodriguez would just let the Yankees cheat him out of money, the Yankees could save even more money. But nooooooooooo, his selfishness knows no end.
It would appear to be a difficult case for A-Rod to prove since there have been zero commercial/endorsement opportunities presented to either Rodriguez or the Yankees for his passing of Mays — or, for that matter, to Rodriguez for the 3,000-hit milestone he’s closing in on.
A player can be marketable even without getting commercial/endorsement opportunities. Go check out how much a signed A-Rod jersey bids for and see if he is still not marketable.
(By contrast, Derek Jeter had numerous commercial/endorsement deals after he reached 3,000 hits.)
Jeter also had numerous commercial/endorsement deals before he reached 3,000 hits as well. And of course Derek Jeter is going to be mentioned at some point, as if nearly any professional athlete can live up to the image Jeter crafted for himself on the field and as an endorser. Simply because A-Rod isn't as marketable as Derek Jeter doesn't mean he isn't marketable.
As one baseball official noted Sunday: “Alex can’t even make the case that he’s helped the Yankees this year with his comeback season as their attendance and TV ratings are both down.”
How do we know ratings and attendance wouldn't be further down if A-Rod wasn't playing? Perhaps ratings and attendance would have declined further if it weren't for Rodriguez. Plus, attendance and ratings are a sign that the Yankees team as a whole isn't as marketable as it once was and not a reflection simply on one player.
It is believed the only reason the Yankees made any suggestion to settle with a charity donation was because of the enormous cost of litigating the case —
It's also believed that a charity donation isn't what A-Rod thinks the contract he signed called for and a charity donation of less than $6 million isn't even the amount A-Rod was promised for passing Mays. But again, Bill Madden has to look at this issue from the point of view of the Yankees organization.
Regardless, if it’s war he wants with them again, the Yankees are said to be confident they will win it and prepared to spend whatever it takes to make their case.
One minute Madden is decrying how the Yankees will have to spend $3 million more in luxury taxes if A-Rod wins and talks about how ratings and attendance are down, then he paints the Yankees as an organization with deep pockets who are fighting a moral war to avoid having to pay money they contractually agreed to pay.
“I’m not going to get into that now. All that stuff is family business and will be handled privately,” said Rodriguez.
Congratulations A-Rod, you are now causing a distraction by refusing to cause a distraction. Now the whole team is upset with you (they aren't) and this will probably if all goes well affect your play (it won't) so that the New York media can then state you were too concerned about lining your pockets when you needed to be worried about helping the Yankees win games. Not causing a distraction is a distraction. Bill Madden is horrified that you refuse to comment on the grievance you haven't filed yet, thereby creating controversy when he has to write this column about how you aren't creating controversy.
Monday, May 11, 2015
5 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Hasn't Thought Of: Ball Shrinking Edition
It's that time again. I have a bunch of links that I have bookmarked which don't deserve a full post, but would have a place on this blog. The links tend to pile up in my bookmarks and I just never get around to posting them. Instead of doing a short post, like a normal person would, I tend to throw them all together into one long post. I'm annoying that way. As usual, these are links from a variety of topics, so buckle up for the random change from one topic to another. I'll start with reactions to the Patriots deflating footballs, and yes, I refuse to call it Deflategate, and yes, I'm tired of talking about this subject. It makes for great hysterical sportswriting though.
My personal opinion is that Tom Brady knew what was going on, but it wasn't some vast conspiracy that requires a long suspension and public flogging. Bill Simmons' opinion on the subject can always push me over the edge to requesting the death penalty for Brady and the Patriots, simply because he has that effect on me, but I think I can stay non-emotional as long as I'm not listening to his nasally voice give his opinion. I'm tired of the subject, quite honestly.
1. You won't believe this, but "Mr. Non-Judgmental, Wait for the Facts, I Got Done Wrong by the Criminal Justice System" Jay Mariotti calls for the Patriots to vacate wins.
Lance Armstrong deliberately broke the rules and was stripped of his seven Tour de France victories. A generation of prominent baseball juicers knowingly broke the rules and have been rejected for Hall of Fame induction. You cheat on Wall Street, you go to jail.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "You cheat on Wall Street, you go to jail." That's hilarious. I love it when Jay makes jokes like this. You cheat on Wall Street, you MAY go to jail, but most likely you will be reprimanded and then allowed to make a ton of money again very soon.
You cheat in politics, you're run out of office.
I'm starting to wonder if Jay is joking or not. If you cheat in politics, you get elected. Isn't that the deal?
Precedent demands, then, that the New England Patriots — whose dynasty now has been tarnished by two scandals involving a deliberate and slimy circumvention of NFL rules — should return the Vince Lombardi Trophy won in February. Their fourth Super Bowl title must be vacated at once, glaringly evident as it is that star quarterback Tom Brady was a direct participant in a football-deflation scam and paid a co-conspirator to do his dirty deeds — all to gain an illegal competitive advantage — then lied and tried to cover up his role when league investigators interviewed him.
I'm not sure Jay knows understands the concept of "precedent" or not. I don't know if precedent counts in this situation since every example Jay just provided all were examples outside of football and the NFL. Precedent would be comparing a punishment for Brady to a punishment the NFL has handed out for a similar situation or an applicable situation. Jay does not provide a similar situation in the NFL, only situations not handled by the NFL. Wasn't it Jay a few months ago who suggested that all journalists take law classes so they know the law? Jay really should be the one attending these classes.
When the league announces penalties for Deflategate in coming days, Commissioner Roger Goodell must protect the sport's integrity and issue a robust punishment that sticks for the ages.
FOR THE AGES!
Perhaps change the NFL logo to an outline of Tom Brady's body with an "I cheated" sign hanging over his neck? That'll learn him.
Super Bowl XLIX — Championship vacated.
Come on Jay, you had to have spent five minutes coming up with a catchier line than that! It's not nearly hysterical enough.
Or, Super Bowl LIE.
There we go. You know what, since we want this to stick FOR THE AGES, just change Super Bowl XLIX to Super Bowl LIE from now until Roger Goodell runs the NFL into the ground (circa 2028 at this rate).
And much as it stunned the American public to discover that the once-beloved Armstrong masterminded a massive doping program,
There is a difference in considering Armstrong innocent until shown to be guilty and being stunned. I'm not sure anyone was stunned when Armstrong finally admitted all he had done in order to gain the upper hand. All that was left was for him to just admit he cheated.
He has the supermodel wife, the family, the good looks, the image as The Guy Every Other Guy Wants To Be. The other night, I looked up from my ringside seat at the Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao fight (also a sham, it turns out)
Do you like how Jay slipped having ring side seats to the fight in this column?
If you still believe that deflating a football below the league minimum (12.5 pounds per square inch) is an overblown story, consider that Brady benefited from violating the rules just as Armstrong, Alex Rodriguez and the other cheats did.
Like George Brett did with putting too much pine tar on the bat, like Whitey Ford did by scuffing the baseball, like Gaylord Perry did by throwing a spitball...should I continue to talk about cheats who didn't get kicked out of the Hall of Fame or have their legacy tarnished by minor cheating in other sports?
The difference: Whereas the juicers inflated their bodies for an edge, Brady shrunk the football so it would feel better in his hand.
I'm going to try and ignore the "shrunken balls so they fit better in his hand" joke for now. It's hard (boom!), but I'll try to do it. Maybe I'll write in to a Bill Simmons mailbag and talk about it. He seems to enjoy it when his readers talk about jerking off.
Referee Walt Anderson checked the balls before the game and determined that all but two were properly inflated. But when Anderson and his crew left their locker room to take the field, Anderson angrily wondered why the same game balls couldn't be located, according to Wells' report. That's because McNally — again, the attendant for the officials' locker room — had removed the balls from that room and taken them to a bathroom, where he "locked the door and remained in the bathroom with the game balls for approximately one minute and forty seconds." The timeline was based in part on a security camera in a Gillette Stadium hallway that captured McNally slipping into the bathroom with his needle and game balls. Could McNally do his handy work in 100 seconds?
Yes, could McNally do his handy work on balls in 100 seconds? Rick Pitino says that wouldn't be a problem at all.
Absolutely. He was an expert ball-shrinker, after all.
(Bengoodfella sits in stunned silence at how much Jay is setting him up for juvenile jokes, but also throwing him off the trail of the hysterical journalism)
Perhaps, McNally just put the balls in cold water. Though I don't think it works exactly that way, does it George Constanza?
A text exchange at the time between McNally and Jastremski indicated Brady was aware of their hanky-panky. It also was apparent McNally isn't a big fan of Brady, which is odd, given Brady's godlike status within the Patriots' realm.
Brady knew, so why vacate all of the team's wins? A-Rod didn't have all of his records vacated, neither did any of the other baseball juicers. Lance Armstrong still has the money from his Tour de France wins and sponsorships. Want precedent? There is precedent to not force the Patriots to vacate their wins.
What's bothersome is that Goodell is leaving the matter to Troy Vincent, the league's executive vice president of football operations. "As with other recent matters involving violations of competitive rules, [Vincent] and his team will consider what steps to take in light of this report," Goodell said in a statement.
He does this because Goodell is a weenie who wants to see public reaction before deciding on a punishment. He doesn't care to actually hand down punishment based on the violation committed, he only cares about what the public thinks the punishment should be, except when he shows a blatant disregard for public opinion that doesn't fit his agenda.
The only way to accomplish that is by throwing down the hammer. First Spygate, now Deflategate. First Belichick, now Brady.
Vacate.
It's a little hysterical to make the Patriots vacate their Super Bowl victory. There is no evidence the Patriots won the Super Bowl while using deflated footballs, so I think the punishment should be kept separate from the Super Bowl victory. Plus, the Patriots deflated footballs. It helped Brady or he wouldn't do it, but I feel there is a more appropriate and less hysterical punishment.
2. Nancy Armour thinks the Patriots deflating footballs puts the integrity of the NFL at risk. That's hilarious isn't it? How can something the NFL started losing a while ago, all of a sudden be at risk of being lost? The NFL's integrity problem started long before Tom Brady hired some dude to deflate footballs.
Four-time Super Bowl champion. Three-time Super Bowl MVP. Two-time NFL MVP. Without question, one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game.
A liar and a cheat, too.
BAM! Call the fire department, Tom Brady just got roasted.
Tom Brady, the NFL's Golden Boy and Madison Avenue's perfect pitchman, has proved to be little better than Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and everyone else who broke the rules in search of an edge.
It seems this comparison to PED use isn't going to go away. These three guys used Performance Enhancing Drugs, while Brady used Performance Enhancing Balls (PEB's). I don't like cheating or a team trying to gain an edge, but if the whole "using PED's is the same thing as deflating footballs and the punishment for the team should be vacating of titles" attitude prevails then any NFL team that has ever had a guy suspended for PED use would have to vacate their Super Bowl title (had they won one). Should MLB teams vacate their World Series titles if it turns out they had a PED user? After all, PED use is the exact same thing as PEB use.
The two New England Patriots employees who let the air out of the footballs did so with Brady's knowledge and, more likely, at his behest.
Or, in the simplest of terms, he cheated.
(Bengoodfella clutches his pearls and falls down backwards into his flowered upholstered chair)
But it's not a matter of liking, it's a matter of trusting.
And if you buy the stories told by McNally, Jastremski and Brady, let me know, I've got a bridge I've been trying to unload.
You have a bridge you are trying to unload? Bridges are generally built by and are the property of federal, state and local governments, paid for by taxpayers. So if you have stolen a bridge and are trying to re-sell it on the free market then you are a thief and probably should be in jail. I'll just say that I wouldn't go around bragging about the bridge you stole. How dare you comment on Tom Brady deflating footballs when you are stealing money from taxpayers! Have you no sense of decency, ma'am?
But that's missing the point. By tampering with the footballs – or having someone do it for him – Brady tampered with the integrity of the game.
This is the NFL, and if everybody isn't playing by the same rules, there's little point in playing at all.
Next we know, every team will be deflating footballs and the NFL will be helpless to stop this from happening. Eventually, the league will be forced to fold as football, Roger Goodell will be forced to become a lobbyist for the cigarette industry, NFL players will have to use their college degree and concussions will be dramatically decreased. No one wants this to happen and it will all be Tom Brady's fault.
Think about it. If Brady, or his minions,
Exclusive video of Brady's minions.
are playing fast and loose with the rules in their game, how is anyone supposed to believe the same thing isn't going on everywhere else? It's a question of credibility, and by sacrificing his, Brady put the entire NFL's at risk.
How are we supposed to believe it's not happening everywhere else? We don't, but Brady got caught, so that seems to be some indication that if other teams are cheating they will either (a) stop deflating footballs or (b) get caught.
But knowing he was willing to break the rules puts him in a different, far less-flattering light, and diminishes all that he's accomplished.
It diminishes "all" that Brady has accomplished. Come on, you know that's not true. Brady probably cheated, but it doesn't diminish everything he has accomplished because there's no proof he had been deflating footballs for longer than the 2015 season.
3. Skip Bayless thinks those who paid to watch the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight didn't get screwed because Pacquiao was hurt. Of course Skip thinks this. Skip hates the public, which is why he subjects them to his ridiculous hot takes on "First Take."
You thought from the start your man Floyd Mayweather dominated Saturday night's fight.
Not my man.
I thought my pick, Manny Pacquiao, ultimately won seven of the 12 rounds.
Heart over head? From the bottom of mine, I do not believe so. I scored the fight round by round on Twitter and had Pacquiao winning seven rounds to Mayweather's five --115-113, PacMan.
So far, Skip in his career at ESPN against reason, obvious fact, and reality. Now, he is arguing against math and the observation of those who are paid to judge a boxing match. OF COURSE Skip had Pacquiao winning seven rounds. Reality hasn't quite set in for Skip that his fighter lost and no amount of opinion, fact or reality will obscure what Skip wants to believe. Look no further than Skip's takes on LeBron James throughout the years for proof of this.
Yet now, Manny Pacquiao is being as unfairly vilified as any superstar athlete I can remember. Instead of being lauded and applauded for his courage, he's being sued by irate fans convinced he duped them into shelling out a hundred bucks for a letdown of a showdown.
I'm not mad about it, but it's a pretty bitch move for one fighter to be injured and then no one who paid $100 to see that fighter fight is aware of the injury. It's almost like the opposite of using PEB's. It's an injury which affects one party's ability to perform to his/her normal standard. Pacquiao had an injury which affected his ability to competitively fight Mayweather. I don't think he should be sued or anything like that, but it's just a reinforced lesson that paying money to watch boxing can be a shaky move for a variety of reasons.
If Pacquiao had taken an obvious dive in Round 1, no doubt he would deserve this class-action wrath.
Pacquiao even told reporters from his country, the Philippines, that Mayweather knew his shoulder was hurt and kept pulling on his arm!
As usual, Skip seems to miss the point. The point isn't that Pacquiao cheated or did something wrong, but the need to go through with the event and make sure he got the money provided to him for fighting took precedent over a fair, competitive fight. That's the perception and that's why some are angry. It's the idea that the consumer was duped and the fight was this unstoppable force that had to happen no matter what in order for each fighter to get their payday. The payday came before a competitive bout, that's the perception.
So what would you have done if you had been in Pacquiao's shoes about three weeks ago? He had campaigned for this fight for five years -- partly for the potential payday, but more so because he believed he could beat the man who calls himself TBE (The Best Ever) and who had accused Pacquiao of PED use and posted a racist rant about him.
It's impossible to say what I would have done, but if I believed I could beat Mayweather and finally got the opportunity to prove it, then I would be very, very sure I was in peak physical condition so that I could prove it. That's what I think I would do. If I campaigned for the fight and knew I wanted to prove I could beat Mayweather, I would ensure I was in the best condition to do so.
But according to a source in the Pacquiao camp, he injured his shoulder while sparring about two and a half weeks before the fight. A cortisone shot eased some of the inflammation and pain, but it appeared surgery ultimately would be required. So why not just let a surgeon show the media an MRI of the torn rotator cuff and ask for a postponement?
Skip's defense is ego and money, which aren't exactly the best defense for why Pacquiao fought injured. I get it and I wouldn't sue him, but these aren't good reasons to fight injured. It feels like those who paid got screwed just a little bit.
Because Pacquiao feared he would give Mayweather one last excuse -- that Mayweather would simply say no way he could wait an entire year and turn 39 before fighting Pacquiao. Postponing would be risking Mayweather would fight the final fight on his contract this September and retire undefeated.
I understand this. I'm talking perception here, not WHY Pacquiao did what he did. "I wanted to fight him because I was afraid he wouldn't fight me" is a logical reason to fight injured, but the idea of a boxing match taking place simply so it could take place is the problem with this reason in terms of perception.
Did Pacquiao risk perjury and suspension by instructing his representative to not disclose the shoulder injury on the Nevada State Athletic Commission form at Friday's weigh-in? Maybe. But my source says that was nothing but a blunder.
Just a blunder! That's all. I wonder if Skip would give the same amount of leeway to an athlete that he didn't like if a similar situation were to occur? I shouldn't have to ask the question because I know the answer.
For me, the biggest shock of the night was the way the three American judges judged the Filipino boxer. They treated Pacquiao as if he were an unknown underdog whose best (if not only) chance to win rounds was by knockdown or by drawing blood or by at least turning Mayweather into a punching bag.
I should've known: If Mayweather-Pacquiao was devoid of knockdowns and didn't end in a knockout, Pacquiao had no chance. If his fate in a 12-round fight fell to the judges, home-ring advantage would prevail.
I like how Skip is changing the subject from something that Pacquiao may have done that was a bit shady on to potential shading dealings by the judges. I'll stay on-point. If Pacquiao was 100% healthy could he have knocked Mayweather down or turned him into a punching bag? The answer to this question won't ever be known (until the inevitable rematch), but part of the reason Pacquiao is being sued is because the chances of his knocking Mayweather down or beating him bloody were diminished by his injury.
I predicted a seventh-round Pacquiao knockout in part because a month ago sources in Pacquiao's camp said Pacquiao was convinced he could take out the 38-year-old Mayweather "early" with his quickness and power. So of course I was stunned and disappointed when Pacquiao came out tentatively in Round 1. I did not know about the shoulder.
Skip admits Pacquiao's shoulder had an impact on the outcome of the fight, yet he can't figure out why there are those upset with the non-disclosure of the shoulder injury. Skip Bayless will play deaf, dumb and blind until the very bitter end.
Twice before the fight we had Roy on First Take. Both times he refused to make a pick because he was commentating on the pay-per-view telecast. But both times it became clear he's a Floyd fan and thought Floyd would win pretty easily. So his tone during the fight was "told you so," which surely influenced the perception of millions of casual fans or even nonfans who had been intrigued enough to pay a hundred bucks.
So logically, the outcome of the fight was all Roy Jones, Jr.'s fault. Obviously this makes sense.
I got lost in trying objectively to view the competition from round to round.
Because Skip Bayless is the king of objectivity and had picked a Pacquiao victory (mostly because Stephen A. Smith predicted a Mayweather victory, due to being so far up Mayweather's ass that he can taste what Floyd had for dinner last night), he wants his readers to believe he is being objective. The next day Skip Bayless is objective on anything will be the first day this has ever occurred.
Exactly. What Mayweather did best was act like he was winning easily. He shook his head "no" after Pacquiao flurries. He preened and posed and no doubt out-styled little Manny. He blinded judges and Floyd fans with his reputation.
But he did not win.
Except, you know, he did win.
Now the poor man is being sued as he has surgery. Only in America.
Skip Bayless admitting the bum shoulder affected Pacquiao's ability to win the fight, while also not understanding why those who paid to see the fight are angry, is absolutely vintage Skip Bayless. Reality has no recourse when Skip has reached the conclusion he wants to reach.
But I will. This time I'd pay double to see it. Pacquiao deserves a rematch. And he will win. Again.
I think Skip doesn't like Mayweather or picks against Mayweather partly because he feels threatened by someone else who does things solely for the sake of attention. Skip doesn't want the competition.
4. I've been holding this article from Terence Moore about the Braves being good for the inevitable losing streak(s), just so I could point out how ridiculous his crowing was. After the Braves started 3-0, Terence was all "LOOK! The hustle and grit worked out. These Braves are good." He was wrong of course.
The first Major League team to 3-0 this season wasn't the Dodgers, with their massive payroll and overwhelming talent.
It was the Braves. You know, the rebuilding Braves. We're talking about the Braves with so many new players after nine trades and seven free-agent signings before Spring Training that super closer Craig Kimbrel had T-shirts designed for everybody that said, "Hello my name is (fill in the blank)."
Yep, when a team trades all of their best players for prospects then that team is rebuilding. I love how Terence took a 3-0 and start proudly starts jumping to conclusions that, even though there are 159 games to be played, this Braves team is better than I think. I think they won't win 70 games, so he's possibly partly right, but that doesn't mean he's entirely right.
The early success of this makeover is just a fluke.
Or is it?
It is. A month after this article was posted the Braves were 14-14 with 16 of these games at home at suddenly spacious looking Turner Field. So yeah, it was a fluke.
Yes, Kimbrel is gone with his otherworldly numbers during his four years as baseball's best closer, but his replacement is Jason Grilli, a former All-Star closer with the Pirates. The rest of the bullpen includes Jim Johnson, a former All-Star closer with the Orioles.
I'm a "former" a lot of things and it doesn't mean I could do those things again. There's a reason Grilli and Johnson don't have "current" in front of "All-Star" and that's because they can't pitch at that level anymore.
The Braves are faster, too. Among their slew of trades, they acquired the speedy Eric Young Jr., who is their first true leadoff hitter since Michael Bourn left as a free agent after the 2012 season.
Does Terence get paid by Eric Young Jr. to call him a "true leadoff hitter"? If not, he should. Young was slashing .167/.236/.288 a month after this column was posted. If that's a "true" leadoff hitter then I'll take the "fake" leadoff hitter everyday of the week.
Then there are newcomers such as Nick Markakis, Jonny Gomes and A.J. Pierzynski providing leadership in a clubhouse where there hasn't been any since the retirement of Jones after the 2012 season.
Leadership is great, but as the legendary Jeff Francouer would have said, "If leadership counted, then it would be on the scoreboard."
In response, Braves officials keep doing the right thing by acknowledging the public outcry each time they unload a popular player, and then they do what they have to do, which is they keep purging.
Purging, not rebuilding! That's the party line. Sure, the Braves got rid of all their "name" players, but they aren't rebuilding, just restructuring the team from a team that could compete for the NL East to a team that can't compete for the NL East. That's definitely NOT rebuilding.
(By the way, I'm down with the plan. Just call it what it is and don't act otherwise. That's all I want.)
What comes to mind is that old line from Branch Rickey, when he traded a stunned Ralph Kiner and his prolific bat during the early 1950s from the Pirates to the Cubs: "We can finish last without you."
So the Braves are going to finish last, after Terence previously said the Braves wouldn't finish last. A hallmark of a Terence Moore column is where he submarines his own argument. It's always fun to read him ruin his own point.
This isn't to say the Braves were awful before their makeover. They were just destined to remain what they were in recent years: Slightly better than mediocre, stale, another team destined to add to Atlanta's string of playoff losses in the NL Division Series or NL Wild Card Game.
79 wins in 2014, 96 wins in 2013, 94 wins in 2012, 89 wins in 2011, 91 wins in 2010, 86 wins in 2009. I wouldn't call that mediocre and to think the 2015 version of the team is an improvement because the team just won't make the playoffs is a fallacy. Remember, Terence isn't supposed to be arguing the rebuild was the right move, his argument is the 2015 Braves team are better than we think. This is not true. There are two separate issues that Terence is attempting to confuse with each other.
Looks like the future for the Braves is now.
No, it is not. It is in the future...maybe. Acting otherwise is only fooling yourself, Terence.
5. Jon Heyman thinks that Josh Hamilton owes the Angels and Arte Moreno an apology. I'm not sure if I agree with that. I don't approve of Hamilton's comments about the Angels at times, but an apology? I'm torn, but Jon is not.
Hamilton possesses that irresistible exacta of ability and personality that's hard to beat. Maybe too irresistible.
You can't trust an addict and Hamilton admits that is what he is. So the "maybe too irresistible" goes to this.
Hamilton is an extremely affable, talented guy, and it's hard not to root for him. It is also difficult to criticize him, as not too many have lived in those shoes. But if no one else will say anything, at some point you'd like to see Hamilton say something. "I'm sorry," would be a start.
Yeah, maybe. For me the whole "I'm sorry" thing should be reserved for those that Hamilton personally hurt and not meant for a millionaire baseball owner who knew about Hamilton's background when he signed him. I don't know, it feels like "I'm sorry" should be reserved for those who aren't multi-millionaire owners.
Somehow, the Angels, Rangers, Hamilton's agent Michael Moye and the union made it work. It works to the point where everyone's happy, even if Hamilton's the one smiling brightest.
Which is all great. Yet, the fallout doesn't seem quite fair.
I didn't realize that life was fair.
As Hamilton himself said at his press conference, Moreno knew what he was getting into. And he certainly could have come up with much more delicate phrases following the surprise arbitrator ruling that commissioner Rob Manfred couldn't suspend Hamilton for his self-reported relapse.
At that moment, the very rich guy looked a little too interested in saving a few bucks.
But I can't really blame him. Not too much, anyway.
And I understand why Hamilton isn't saying "I'm sorry," because he feels like Moreno didn't take the time to understand his condition and that he will always have an addiction issue. It would be hard to say, "I'm sorry" to a person who has lost your respect through acting like he cares more about his bottom line than you as a person. That's why I think "I'm sorry" to Moreno isn't required, because Moreno won't apologize to Hamilton for coming off as cold.
In his Texas press conference, Hamilton never once took responsibility for causing the Angels a lot of heartache. Instead, what he said was Moreno should have known better.
I found that to be an asshole thing to say and this comment comes off as very "gotcha" when it's probably not meant to.
Moreno questioned Hamilton's "accountability" after the arbitrator ruling. So perhaps Hamilton wasn't in a charitable mood. But maybe Hamilton's lack of accountability is fair game at this point.
No one likes having their accountability being questioned. This is a situation where both parties should move on. I get why Hamilton didn't apologize and I get why Moreno was irritated. If Moreno can't apologize in some fashion then I understand why Hamilton wouldn't apologize either.
6. Bill Madden, as always, wants Pete Rose on the Hall of Fame ballot. He knows he wouldn't be elected, but still wants him on the ballot.
Even before new commissioner Rob Manfred is able to sit down for a face-to-face with Pete Rose, baseball’s banned all-time hit king is back among us, albeit slightly from afar, in a Fox TV Sports studio in Los Angeles.
But the very fact Manfred is even granting Rose an audience — something his two predecessors, Fay Vincent and Bud Selig absolutely would not — tells me the Commish is at least cognizant of this long overlooked fact: Rose is the only player in the history of baseball who has never been eligible for the Hall of Fame — and it wasn’t Bart Giamatti, the commissioner who consigned him to baseball’s permanent ineligible list in August of 1989, who determined that. It was the Hall of Fame board of directors which, a few weeks after Rose was banned, determined that the permanent ineligible list applied to the Hall of Fame as well, and informed the Baseball Writers Association that he could not be placed on its ballot.
You'll never guess why Bill Madden thinks Pete Rose should be on the Hall of Fame ballot. Because of steroids of course.
This was a decision that would’ve probably been accepted as right and just, given Rose’s offense of breaking baseball’s cardinal rule on gambling, until the steroid cheats came along and did as much as Rose to impugn the integrity of the game by making a mockery of the record books.
I consistently fail to understand the "These PED users are eligible for the Hall of Fame, so why isn't Pete Rose?" argument. I don't see the parallel, partly because Rose accepted the lifetime ban, which isn't something PED users have done.
And while, as Manfred again pointed out Thursday in a meeting with APSE Sports Editors, “the rules on gambling have been in place literally for decades,” and that “they have been clear and spell out specific penalties; the reason those rules exist is because gambling is corrosive in a number of ways, including raising the specter of not doing everything they can to win,” it is worth noting in retrospect that Giamatti didn’t close the door entirely for Rose to eventually get reinstated.
In the fourth point of Giamatti’s resolution on Rose, he said: “Mr. Rose may, under Major League Rule 15 (c) apply for reinstatement. This ruling prohibits any such application for a period of at least one year.”
Yep. MLB has chosen not to reinstate him, as is their right.
Then, later on in the press conference, when asked if it would help Rose toward reinstatement if he sought rehabilitation for what many believed was a compulsive gambling habit, Giamatti replied: “The burden is entirely on Mr. Rose. It isn’t up to me. It’s up to Mr. Rose, it seems to me, to re-configure his life in ways I would assume he would prefer. But a person who wishes to establish the kind of record that would sustain an application would want to take whatever steps would seem appropriate to that person to be persuasive.”
And of course, because Rose has done these things then Bill Madden thinks Rose deserves another shot to be on the Hall of Fame ballot? Well, not exactly.
The problem for Rose was he did none of that. Instead he continued to deny that he had bet on baseball for another 14 years, all the while being seen publicly in gambling casinos and spending much of his life in Las Vegas, until he finally came clean in January of 2004 with the release of his book, “My Prison Behind Bars.”
(Deep sigh)
So why would baseball reinstate Rose when he accepted the lifetime ban and has not done, as outlined by the commissioner at the time, the steps to show rehabilitation? Because of PED users of course. All of a sudden it's not about Rose, but about what others have done that shows Rose should be on the Hall of Fame ballot. Rose is scum, but he's scum like others on the Hall of Fame ballot.
Interestingly, the idea there are already cheaters in the Hall of Fame, so this being a reason the PED scum should be allowed in isn't seen as a persuasive argument for inclusion of these PED users into the Hall of Fame. Interesting how Rose should be rewarded for the actions of others who are scum like him, but there is a firm line drawn where PED users don't get the necessary votes for induction despite the actions of others currently in Hall of Fame that were also considered cheating.
it seems to me there ought to be some way to remove him from the stigma of the permanent ineligible list and put him on a “restricted list” that would still prevent him from working in baseball but allow him to make promotional appearances at ballparks, serve as a sort of good-will ambassador for the Reds, or even do (anti-gambling?) public service commercials for baseball.
Rose wants to know how much that would pay.
Then it would be up to the Hall of Fame to decide if he could take his place on a ballot, like the steroid cheats. For the record, even Shoeless Joe Jackson was eligible for years for the Hall of Fame and got two votes in the first election in 1936 and another two in 1946.
Hey Bill, those votes occurred nearly 70-80 years ago. Let's focus on today.
For that, he at least deserves a vote — instead of remaining the only player in the history of the game who never got one.
I'm fine with Rose being reinstated, but he DESERVES absolutely nothing for actions he took that brought the lifetime ban upon him.
7. Bob Klapisch can't figure out if A-Rod is still cheating or not. On April 18, he wrote this article which hinted around the possibility of A-Rod still using PED's. Here are some of his comments:
Good luck to anyone trying to figure why Alex Rodriguez has become the Yankees’ best hitter, despite all the factors that should’ve been working against him. That includes his age, the yearlong drug suspension, two surgically repaired hips and going cold turkey on PEDs. We think.
Let’s address this last point first. I have to assume Rodriguez is playing clean in 2015;
Except, he doesn't dismiss the idea A-Rod is using steroids. Of course.
So how’s he doing it? Here are a few wild guesses:
This theory runs counter to conventional sports theory, which says an athlete’s reaction-time deteriorates with time, especially after 35.
Whatever happened to assuming A-Rod was not using steroids? Klapisch assumes A-Rod is clean, then lists one of the reasons behind A-Rod's hot hitting as being that A-Rod is back using PED's. Sounds like assuming A-Rod is clean isn't something that's being done.
A cynic would reflexively ask: Who’s to say A-Rod hasn’t found a more sophisticated supplier than Tony Bosch?
To this, we shake our head and say no. So does MLB, which has greater enforcement powers than ever before. Not only is A-Rod subject to increased random testing, as is anyone who violated baseball’s Joint Drug Agreement, but testers are now empowered to come to Rodriguez’s home at any hour.
But after A-Rod kept hitting well, this sort of slight cynicism was fixed and now Bob Klapisch knows that A-Rod is not cheating. Sure, Bob beat around the bush at PED use with the idea A-Rod would definitely get caught, but now he knows for sure A-Rod isn't cheating. He's convinced!
Sure, there are plenty of folks who still don’t trust Rodriguez and think his pursuit of 700-plus HRs is a scam. But it felt like everyone in the ballpark had long since forgiven A-Rod and were willing to ride shotgun into the record books.
Sportswriters like Klapisch realize they are behind the curve in the whole "forgiving A-Rod" category, so they are quickly trying to make up for this.
Again, you might not believe any of it. Rodriguez has apologized a million times since spring training and you might think he’s not humble, just hardened and maybe smarter about a PED supplier this time around.
But as I’ve said before, I believe A-Rod is clean.
Yes, but then you listed "Better, more invisible PEDs" as a reason he could be hitting the baseball well. So, you believed, but didn't really believe.
The Yankees’ slugger knows he’s being watched, monitored, shadowed. A drug-tester from MLB was dispatched to Fenway on Sunday night and he was there for only one reason, to hunt down Rodriguez. The tester, a grim-looking man who spoke to no one, practically followed A-Rod to the bathroom for a urine sample. Rodriguez didn’t mind the surveillance; he knows it’s his penance for past sins.
Can you feel the narrative around A-Rod turning around? It's amazing what hitting a baseball does for the perception of A-Rod and how it helps him to be a more believable character that a sportswriter can cheer for. Success cures all.
So the night ended with a lingering question: How can Rodriguez hit a ball that far approaching age 40? Why is his bat-speed better now than in 2013, when it should be the other way around? I’m casting a vote for A-Rod’s better angels – that it’s not PEDs, but his surgically repaired hips now healthy enough to generate torque.
That is until Bob Klapisch decides that A-Rod is really powered by PED's again. I'm sure he'll write another "I don't think A-Rod is doing PED's" column where he again dismisses the idea A-Rod is doing PED's while continuing to bring the subject up.
8. Baseball is dying a terrible dying death. Nick Cafardo says so.
Baseball is trying to attract kids to the game, somehow, some way. But it’s been an uphill battle. If it continues, 20 or 30 years from now there won’t be much of a baseball viewership.
Baseball is dying a terrible, horrible death. Perhaps it's my peer group, but nearly everyone I know likes and watches baseball. Perhaps my peer group doesn't reflect reality. That's entirely possible.
The Red Sox probably are less susceptible to this than teams in other parts of the country where baseball isn’t as popular.
Well, obviously. The Red Sox are the team that's the least susceptible to this problem because they have the most informed and dedicated fans that would never turn their back on the team. Red Sox fans GET baseball, so even if MLB consists only of the Red Sox A-team facing the Red Sox B-team for 162 games there will always be professional baseball due to the unwavering fan support of the community in Boston that can't be found anywhere else in the world in any other sport.
It’s a simple game that has been muddled by the trends of recent years. Kids, particularly in the inner city, aren’t playing baseball with the frequency of the past, and the interest level in watching baseball isn’t there either, as the kids interviewed for the Globe story pointed out.
But the Globe interviewed kids who aren't from Boston, right? After all, the Red Sox are always going to be popular in Boston so good luck finding any kids who aren't Red Sox fans.
The human stories of players and their histories have gone the way of their WARs and WORPs, and I’m not sure kids see that as fun.
The idea that WAR and other advanced metrics chase fans away from the game is a fallacy. A total fallacy. If anything, it chases the generation away that baseball wants to be chased away (i.e. older fans of the game), while bringing in new fans who are passionate about the sport of baseball and enjoy using different metrics to watch the game. Using advanced statistics is another way of enjoying the game, not a reason why the game is dying.
In our day, we loved baseball cards and all we cared about was batting average, home runs, and RBIs. It was simple. It was easy to be a fan.
It's still incredibly simple like that. Nothing has changed.
Roberto Clemente, Hank Aaron, or Willie Mays used to step into the box and swing at the first good pitch he saw. Now, batters are encouraged to look at more than four pitches per at-bat.
As a result, we’re seeing more called third strikes. At-bats take forever, attention is lost, and the outcome isn’t as good as it used to be.
In 2010, there were 28 players with 85-plus RBIs, 85-plus runs, and 20-plus home runs. In 2011, there 20. In 2012, there were 24. In 2013, there were 14. Last season, there were 11.
Reader Matt emailed me this article and included this little tidbit of research that he had done:
I looked it up and in 1963 there were 12 of these players in the Major Leagues. Plus, Hank Aaron drew over 1,100 unintentional walks in his career. Cafardo probably thinks that on every one of them Aaron spit in his hands, glared at the pitcher, and called him a pussy for not challenging him.
Oh, so "back in the day" there weren't so many of these players who hit home runs, drove in runs and scored runs was there? Interesting what research does to disprove conventional, unintelligent thought. Thanks to Matt for this research. It's one year, but it proves that Cafardo is reminiscing about a time that necessarily didn't occur. The past was always much better in retrospect wasn't it?
Oh, and home runs and RBI's were up during the Steroid Era, which is an era baseball writers like Nick Cafardo see as a black mark on the history of the sport. Yet, fan interest was high. Can't have it any way you want it. Want a clean game, there has to be some sort of sacrifice.
Why aren’t hitters swinging at those pitches more often? It just prolongs the at-bat, and thus fans lose interest.
Now, the more pitches seen per at-bat is considered a good thing, wears down the pitcher, but so do doubles in the gap.
The personalities have changed, too. Players are making so much money that instead of a game, it has become a business to them.
(Nick Cafardo shakes his fist at a cloud and yells at children for being on his lawn)
David Ortiz is fun, but then he gets criticized if he pimps a home run.
(Nick Cafardo gets in his 1988 Buick, turns on the radio and listens to only the older Rolling Stones albums)
A pitchers’ duel is fun to watch, but how many last a full nine innings? You see good seven-inning battles and then, of course, managers go to their relievers.
"Not enough runs are scored in baseball these days!"
"Why aren't there more pitcher's duels that last nine innings?"
Can't have it both ways. Want runs? Great, that means there will be fewer nine inning pitching duels.
With all the advancements in understanding the human body and the claim that strength and conditioning coaches do baseball-specific work with their players, why are there so many oblique, hamstring, quadriceps, and shoulder injuries? Is it time to return to the days when players didn’t overtrain and really stuck to baseball-related exercises?
Yes, MLB and their teams should mandate how often players can work out. Just like in the old days when every player was durable for the entire season, except for some pitchers who ended up with "dead arm" that couldn't be sufficiently explained.
Players of yesteryear had to work other jobs and as a result got stronger. Aaron delivered ice. Bob Feller worked on a farm. Over time, their tendons got stronger.
"Baseball players should not work out as much as they do in the offseason or overtrain!"
"Baseball players need to do more work in the offseason by lifting heavy objects or working on a farm in order to get stronger!"
So yes, while the game has to be marketed better to kids, the kids need to see the game we saw as kids.
Well that game isn't coming back and "the kids" are stuck with the game today. The same game where enjoyment can come from the use of advanced statistics and not despite the use of these statistics.
9. Rick Telander is afraid American colleges are attempting to exploit African teens by giving them an opportunity to go to school and participate in athletics.
The Anteaters player’s name is Mamadou Ndiaye, and he stands 7-6, weighs 300 pounds and has an 8-3 wingspan. That means if you turned him sideways, his arms would cover an entire doorway.
Ndiaye came to the United States speaking no English and was found to have a tumor on his pituitary gland, a problem solved by surgery. He had guardians in Huntington Beach, California, moved through high school, and now he has played in the Big Dance.
So after Ndiaye was dragged to America, a tumor was found and corrected, he graduated high school and now he's getting a college education? When will this exploitation end?
Basketball, dominated by African-Americans at the highest levels, is starting to skip the American part and go straight to Africa for talent that might lead the way.
It’s not a completely new template — Hakeem Olajuwon (Nigeria) and Dikembe Mutombo (Zaire) have certainly left their marks on the NBA — but with this new trend comes a sense of the dirty but time-honored exploitation of a continent so rich in natural resources but so lacking in fundamental order and control.
"Sure, other Africans have come to the United States to play basketball, gotten an education and succeeded, but this is a 'new' trend and it's called 'exploitation' now. Okay, it's not a 'new' trend, but for the sake of this article can't we just pretend it's new so I can try and get my point across?"
You can blame the NBA and its entrance rules for some of this. But the NCAA, which allows freshmen to play and tacitly encourages fake education, plays a bigger role. Coach Cal says it again and again: I’m just playing by the rules they gave me. And, like a riverboat gambler with loaded dice, he’s right. So the hunt for the edge never ends.
It always comes back to John Calipari in some way doesn't it?
In 2010, five Kentucky players were taken in the first round of the NBA draft, something that had never happened before. This season, Calipari has nine McDonald’s All-Americans.
And here is the damning number about this startling trend. You ready for the truth about the exploitation? Of these 14 players being discussed that played for Calipari, 0 of them are native Africans that were ripped from their homeland to play for the Evil Calipari.
So what has this got to do with Africans?
Good point. Nothing.
Well, the talent in that incredibly diverse continent is bubbling, even if it is raw, largely uncoached and far afield from the cradle-to-adulthood training that most elite American players undergo. But it’s there, and it’s noticed.
So the problem is that United States colleges are recruiting international athletes to come play at their school and get an education? I guess I fail to see the issue here. Nearly every school has an international student program where, and hold on to your hat for the exploitation to begin, they take international students and bring them to the United States to go to school. Sometimes they play sports. I know, it's horrifying.
Shortly after this, I read an article in Harper’s Magazine entitled ‘‘American Hustle: How Elite Youth Basketball Exploits African Athletes.’’ In it, I read about schools like Our Savior that have dominant teams due to relying on dubious African ‘‘scouts’’ who send them players such as Diallo, a 6-9, 225-pound power forward who is a five-star college recruit.
There is money for the scouts, in round-about ways, and for the rare players who make it to the NBA. But many African teen players are brought over and suffer indignities of alienation and poverty and things like sleeping on the floor in a gym for half a year, the report said.
Wait, so high schools are exploiting these African basketball players, which means colleges are also exploiting them simply by recruiting them and offering them a scholarship and housing? Interesting way to look at it, Rick.
‘‘It’s like an auction,’’ a high school insider told the author, Alexandra Starr. ‘‘Each kid is an item to sell.’’
There, watching, with many others, was John Calipari.
Watching, licking his lips, just waiting to send another African basketball player that has never actually played at his Kentucky basketball program to the NBA. One would think if Rick is going to mention Calipari then he would also mention how Calipari has never had a player originally from Africa play for him while at the University of Kentucky. That would display honestly, which isn't something Rick cares to display.
10. Andrew Harrison used the "n-word" and now Jay Mariotti wants everyone to stop using this word. It's Jay Mariotti, social advocate.
If we truly are interested in eliminating racism in this country, uniting as one, then all usage of the N-word must stop. Now. Forever.
For those who don't stop using this word, Jay will come over and yank your hair, then deny it while complaining the legal system is against rich, white men.
Why? Maybe because a 20-year-old named Andrew Harrison hears the N-word echo through popular culture and finds himself muttering it, under his breath after a difficult loss, when a reporter asks a Kentucky teammate about Wisconsin star Frank Kaminsky, who happens to be white.
Not because it's offensive word, but eliminate the word because others will repeat it.
“F--- that n-----,” Harrison said, mouth covered yet in front of a microphone, which picked up the racial slur and sent it careening across social media and into the mainstream.
CAREENING across social media, CAROMING into the Internet and then SLIDING into Jay's ears where he knew he had to stop this bullshit immediately. If anyone can reach across the racial divide, it's Jay Mariotti.
Either we’re all serious about ending this social sickness or we should stop talking about it and let it be. What was Ferguson about? What were the “I Can’t Breathe” T-shirts about? What was “Selma” about, the lessons and the movie?
It wasn't entirely about the "n-word." It is about race relations and perceived racism, which will be present no matter whether a racial slur is spoken or not.
Kaminsky himself should have known better earlier in the NCAA Tournament, when he and his teammates were asked how they would want an opponent to describe them. “Resilient,” said one. “Disciplined,” said another. “Unselfish,” said another. “Tough,” said another.
“White guys,” said Kaminsky, a character.
Oh my, Frank. By acknowledging that you are white, you are setting race relations back decades. DO NOT acknowledge you are white. No one would know if you didn't constantly bring it up.
We’re not supposed to be seeing color. We’re supposed to be seeing humankind. Why is USA Today counting the number of black and white starters?
"Let's be colorblind," says Jay Mariotti.
ESPN originally announced it was launching a black sportswriting site, which made me wonder why the network also wasn’t starting an Asian-related sportswriting site and a Latino-related sportswriting site and so forth. Why narrow the audiences? Why separate us instead of using sports media as a way to bond and connect us?
Because ESPN wanted a site that appealed to and for black sportswriting that everyone could read. The same reason ESPN has a site called "ESPNW." It's not an exclusive site, but a site featuring content from a specific sub-group of people who love athletics.
Why does Barkley, a man crusading against racism, use the N-word?
I simply find it funny that Jay Mariotti, whose writing career is most known for being hateful, wants to start crusading against hate and bring people together. He probably means everyone else should come together so they can all be in the same room while he fires hateful shots and criticisms from a totally separate room.
My personal opinion is that Tom Brady knew what was going on, but it wasn't some vast conspiracy that requires a long suspension and public flogging. Bill Simmons' opinion on the subject can always push me over the edge to requesting the death penalty for Brady and the Patriots, simply because he has that effect on me, but I think I can stay non-emotional as long as I'm not listening to his nasally voice give his opinion. I'm tired of the subject, quite honestly.
1. You won't believe this, but "Mr. Non-Judgmental, Wait for the Facts, I Got Done Wrong by the Criminal Justice System" Jay Mariotti calls for the Patriots to vacate wins.
Lance Armstrong deliberately broke the rules and was stripped of his seven Tour de France victories. A generation of prominent baseball juicers knowingly broke the rules and have been rejected for Hall of Fame induction. You cheat on Wall Street, you go to jail.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "You cheat on Wall Street, you go to jail." That's hilarious. I love it when Jay makes jokes like this. You cheat on Wall Street, you MAY go to jail, but most likely you will be reprimanded and then allowed to make a ton of money again very soon.
You cheat in politics, you're run out of office.
I'm starting to wonder if Jay is joking or not. If you cheat in politics, you get elected. Isn't that the deal?
Precedent demands, then, that the New England Patriots — whose dynasty now has been tarnished by two scandals involving a deliberate and slimy circumvention of NFL rules — should return the Vince Lombardi Trophy won in February. Their fourth Super Bowl title must be vacated at once, glaringly evident as it is that star quarterback Tom Brady was a direct participant in a football-deflation scam and paid a co-conspirator to do his dirty deeds — all to gain an illegal competitive advantage — then lied and tried to cover up his role when league investigators interviewed him.
I'm not sure Jay knows understands the concept of "precedent" or not. I don't know if precedent counts in this situation since every example Jay just provided all were examples outside of football and the NFL. Precedent would be comparing a punishment for Brady to a punishment the NFL has handed out for a similar situation or an applicable situation. Jay does not provide a similar situation in the NFL, only situations not handled by the NFL. Wasn't it Jay a few months ago who suggested that all journalists take law classes so they know the law? Jay really should be the one attending these classes.
When the league announces penalties for Deflategate in coming days, Commissioner Roger Goodell must protect the sport's integrity and issue a robust punishment that sticks for the ages.
FOR THE AGES!
Perhaps change the NFL logo to an outline of Tom Brady's body with an "I cheated" sign hanging over his neck? That'll learn him.
Super Bowl XLIX — Championship vacated.
Come on Jay, you had to have spent five minutes coming up with a catchier line than that! It's not nearly hysterical enough.
Or, Super Bowl LIE.
There we go. You know what, since we want this to stick FOR THE AGES, just change Super Bowl XLIX to Super Bowl LIE from now until Roger Goodell runs the NFL into the ground (circa 2028 at this rate).
And much as it stunned the American public to discover that the once-beloved Armstrong masterminded a massive doping program,
There is a difference in considering Armstrong innocent until shown to be guilty and being stunned. I'm not sure anyone was stunned when Armstrong finally admitted all he had done in order to gain the upper hand. All that was left was for him to just admit he cheated.
He has the supermodel wife, the family, the good looks, the image as The Guy Every Other Guy Wants To Be. The other night, I looked up from my ringside seat at the Floyd Mayweather-Manny Pacquiao fight (also a sham, it turns out)
Do you like how Jay slipped having ring side seats to the fight in this column?
If you still believe that deflating a football below the league minimum (12.5 pounds per square inch) is an overblown story, consider that Brady benefited from violating the rules just as Armstrong, Alex Rodriguez and the other cheats did.
Like George Brett did with putting too much pine tar on the bat, like Whitey Ford did by scuffing the baseball, like Gaylord Perry did by throwing a spitball...should I continue to talk about cheats who didn't get kicked out of the Hall of Fame or have their legacy tarnished by minor cheating in other sports?
The difference: Whereas the juicers inflated their bodies for an edge, Brady shrunk the football so it would feel better in his hand.
I'm going to try and ignore the "shrunken balls so they fit better in his hand" joke for now. It's hard (boom!), but I'll try to do it. Maybe I'll write in to a Bill Simmons mailbag and talk about it. He seems to enjoy it when his readers talk about jerking off.
Referee Walt Anderson checked the balls before the game and determined that all but two were properly inflated. But when Anderson and his crew left their locker room to take the field, Anderson angrily wondered why the same game balls couldn't be located, according to Wells' report. That's because McNally — again, the attendant for the officials' locker room — had removed the balls from that room and taken them to a bathroom, where he "locked the door and remained in the bathroom with the game balls for approximately one minute and forty seconds." The timeline was based in part on a security camera in a Gillette Stadium hallway that captured McNally slipping into the bathroom with his needle and game balls. Could McNally do his handy work in 100 seconds?
Yes, could McNally do his handy work on balls in 100 seconds? Rick Pitino says that wouldn't be a problem at all.
Absolutely. He was an expert ball-shrinker, after all.
(Bengoodfella sits in stunned silence at how much Jay is setting him up for juvenile jokes, but also throwing him off the trail of the hysterical journalism)
Perhaps, McNally just put the balls in cold water. Though I don't think it works exactly that way, does it George Constanza?
A text exchange at the time between McNally and Jastremski indicated Brady was aware of their hanky-panky. It also was apparent McNally isn't a big fan of Brady, which is odd, given Brady's godlike status within the Patriots' realm.
Brady knew, so why vacate all of the team's wins? A-Rod didn't have all of his records vacated, neither did any of the other baseball juicers. Lance Armstrong still has the money from his Tour de France wins and sponsorships. Want precedent? There is precedent to not force the Patriots to vacate their wins.
What's bothersome is that Goodell is leaving the matter to Troy Vincent, the league's executive vice president of football operations. "As with other recent matters involving violations of competitive rules, [Vincent] and his team will consider what steps to take in light of this report," Goodell said in a statement.
He does this because Goodell is a weenie who wants to see public reaction before deciding on a punishment. He doesn't care to actually hand down punishment based on the violation committed, he only cares about what the public thinks the punishment should be, except when he shows a blatant disregard for public opinion that doesn't fit his agenda.
The only way to accomplish that is by throwing down the hammer. First Spygate, now Deflategate. First Belichick, now Brady.
Vacate.
It's a little hysterical to make the Patriots vacate their Super Bowl victory. There is no evidence the Patriots won the Super Bowl while using deflated footballs, so I think the punishment should be kept separate from the Super Bowl victory. Plus, the Patriots deflated footballs. It helped Brady or he wouldn't do it, but I feel there is a more appropriate and less hysterical punishment.
2. Nancy Armour thinks the Patriots deflating footballs puts the integrity of the NFL at risk. That's hilarious isn't it? How can something the NFL started losing a while ago, all of a sudden be at risk of being lost? The NFL's integrity problem started long before Tom Brady hired some dude to deflate footballs.
Four-time Super Bowl champion. Three-time Super Bowl MVP. Two-time NFL MVP. Without question, one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game.
A liar and a cheat, too.
BAM! Call the fire department, Tom Brady just got roasted.
Tom Brady, the NFL's Golden Boy and Madison Avenue's perfect pitchman, has proved to be little better than Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and everyone else who broke the rules in search of an edge.
It seems this comparison to PED use isn't going to go away. These three guys used Performance Enhancing Drugs, while Brady used Performance Enhancing Balls (PEB's). I don't like cheating or a team trying to gain an edge, but if the whole "using PED's is the same thing as deflating footballs and the punishment for the team should be vacating of titles" attitude prevails then any NFL team that has ever had a guy suspended for PED use would have to vacate their Super Bowl title (had they won one). Should MLB teams vacate their World Series titles if it turns out they had a PED user? After all, PED use is the exact same thing as PEB use.
The two New England Patriots employees who let the air out of the footballs did so with Brady's knowledge and, more likely, at his behest.
Or, in the simplest of terms, he cheated.
(Bengoodfella clutches his pearls and falls down backwards into his flowered upholstered chair)
But it's not a matter of liking, it's a matter of trusting.
And if you buy the stories told by McNally, Jastremski and Brady, let me know, I've got a bridge I've been trying to unload.
You have a bridge you are trying to unload? Bridges are generally built by and are the property of federal, state and local governments, paid for by taxpayers. So if you have stolen a bridge and are trying to re-sell it on the free market then you are a thief and probably should be in jail. I'll just say that I wouldn't go around bragging about the bridge you stole. How dare you comment on Tom Brady deflating footballs when you are stealing money from taxpayers! Have you no sense of decency, ma'am?
But that's missing the point. By tampering with the footballs – or having someone do it for him – Brady tampered with the integrity of the game.
This is the NFL, and if everybody isn't playing by the same rules, there's little point in playing at all.
Next we know, every team will be deflating footballs and the NFL will be helpless to stop this from happening. Eventually, the league will be forced to fold as football, Roger Goodell will be forced to become a lobbyist for the cigarette industry, NFL players will have to use their college degree and concussions will be dramatically decreased. No one wants this to happen and it will all be Tom Brady's fault.
Think about it. If Brady, or his minions,
Exclusive video of Brady's minions.
are playing fast and loose with the rules in their game, how is anyone supposed to believe the same thing isn't going on everywhere else? It's a question of credibility, and by sacrificing his, Brady put the entire NFL's at risk.
How are we supposed to believe it's not happening everywhere else? We don't, but Brady got caught, so that seems to be some indication that if other teams are cheating they will either (a) stop deflating footballs or (b) get caught.
But knowing he was willing to break the rules puts him in a different, far less-flattering light, and diminishes all that he's accomplished.
It diminishes "all" that Brady has accomplished. Come on, you know that's not true. Brady probably cheated, but it doesn't diminish everything he has accomplished because there's no proof he had been deflating footballs for longer than the 2015 season.
3. Skip Bayless thinks those who paid to watch the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight didn't get screwed because Pacquiao was hurt. Of course Skip thinks this. Skip hates the public, which is why he subjects them to his ridiculous hot takes on "First Take."
You thought from the start your man Floyd Mayweather dominated Saturday night's fight.
Not my man.
I thought my pick, Manny Pacquiao, ultimately won seven of the 12 rounds.
Heart over head? From the bottom of mine, I do not believe so. I scored the fight round by round on Twitter and had Pacquiao winning seven rounds to Mayweather's five --115-113, PacMan.
So far, Skip in his career at ESPN against reason, obvious fact, and reality. Now, he is arguing against math and the observation of those who are paid to judge a boxing match. OF COURSE Skip had Pacquiao winning seven rounds. Reality hasn't quite set in for Skip that his fighter lost and no amount of opinion, fact or reality will obscure what Skip wants to believe. Look no further than Skip's takes on LeBron James throughout the years for proof of this.
Yet now, Manny Pacquiao is being as unfairly vilified as any superstar athlete I can remember. Instead of being lauded and applauded for his courage, he's being sued by irate fans convinced he duped them into shelling out a hundred bucks for a letdown of a showdown.
I'm not mad about it, but it's a pretty bitch move for one fighter to be injured and then no one who paid $100 to see that fighter fight is aware of the injury. It's almost like the opposite of using PEB's. It's an injury which affects one party's ability to perform to his/her normal standard. Pacquiao had an injury which affected his ability to competitively fight Mayweather. I don't think he should be sued or anything like that, but it's just a reinforced lesson that paying money to watch boxing can be a shaky move for a variety of reasons.
If Pacquiao had taken an obvious dive in Round 1, no doubt he would deserve this class-action wrath.
Pacquiao even told reporters from his country, the Philippines, that Mayweather knew his shoulder was hurt and kept pulling on his arm!
As usual, Skip seems to miss the point. The point isn't that Pacquiao cheated or did something wrong, but the need to go through with the event and make sure he got the money provided to him for fighting took precedent over a fair, competitive fight. That's the perception and that's why some are angry. It's the idea that the consumer was duped and the fight was this unstoppable force that had to happen no matter what in order for each fighter to get their payday. The payday came before a competitive bout, that's the perception.
So what would you have done if you had been in Pacquiao's shoes about three weeks ago? He had campaigned for this fight for five years -- partly for the potential payday, but more so because he believed he could beat the man who calls himself TBE (The Best Ever) and who had accused Pacquiao of PED use and posted a racist rant about him.
It's impossible to say what I would have done, but if I believed I could beat Mayweather and finally got the opportunity to prove it, then I would be very, very sure I was in peak physical condition so that I could prove it. That's what I think I would do. If I campaigned for the fight and knew I wanted to prove I could beat Mayweather, I would ensure I was in the best condition to do so.
But according to a source in the Pacquiao camp, he injured his shoulder while sparring about two and a half weeks before the fight. A cortisone shot eased some of the inflammation and pain, but it appeared surgery ultimately would be required. So why not just let a surgeon show the media an MRI of the torn rotator cuff and ask for a postponement?
Skip's defense is ego and money, which aren't exactly the best defense for why Pacquiao fought injured. I get it and I wouldn't sue him, but these aren't good reasons to fight injured. It feels like those who paid got screwed just a little bit.
Because Pacquiao feared he would give Mayweather one last excuse -- that Mayweather would simply say no way he could wait an entire year and turn 39 before fighting Pacquiao. Postponing would be risking Mayweather would fight the final fight on his contract this September and retire undefeated.
I understand this. I'm talking perception here, not WHY Pacquiao did what he did. "I wanted to fight him because I was afraid he wouldn't fight me" is a logical reason to fight injured, but the idea of a boxing match taking place simply so it could take place is the problem with this reason in terms of perception.
Did Pacquiao risk perjury and suspension by instructing his representative to not disclose the shoulder injury on the Nevada State Athletic Commission form at Friday's weigh-in? Maybe. But my source says that was nothing but a blunder.
Just a blunder! That's all. I wonder if Skip would give the same amount of leeway to an athlete that he didn't like if a similar situation were to occur? I shouldn't have to ask the question because I know the answer.
For me, the biggest shock of the night was the way the three American judges judged the Filipino boxer. They treated Pacquiao as if he were an unknown underdog whose best (if not only) chance to win rounds was by knockdown or by drawing blood or by at least turning Mayweather into a punching bag.
I should've known: If Mayweather-Pacquiao was devoid of knockdowns and didn't end in a knockout, Pacquiao had no chance. If his fate in a 12-round fight fell to the judges, home-ring advantage would prevail.
I like how Skip is changing the subject from something that Pacquiao may have done that was a bit shady on to potential shading dealings by the judges. I'll stay on-point. If Pacquiao was 100% healthy could he have knocked Mayweather down or turned him into a punching bag? The answer to this question won't ever be known (until the inevitable rematch), but part of the reason Pacquiao is being sued is because the chances of his knocking Mayweather down or beating him bloody were diminished by his injury.
I predicted a seventh-round Pacquiao knockout in part because a month ago sources in Pacquiao's camp said Pacquiao was convinced he could take out the 38-year-old Mayweather "early" with his quickness and power. So of course I was stunned and disappointed when Pacquiao came out tentatively in Round 1. I did not know about the shoulder.
Skip admits Pacquiao's shoulder had an impact on the outcome of the fight, yet he can't figure out why there are those upset with the non-disclosure of the shoulder injury. Skip Bayless will play deaf, dumb and blind until the very bitter end.
Twice before the fight we had Roy on First Take. Both times he refused to make a pick because he was commentating on the pay-per-view telecast. But both times it became clear he's a Floyd fan and thought Floyd would win pretty easily. So his tone during the fight was "told you so," which surely influenced the perception of millions of casual fans or even nonfans who had been intrigued enough to pay a hundred bucks.
So logically, the outcome of the fight was all Roy Jones, Jr.'s fault. Obviously this makes sense.
I got lost in trying objectively to view the competition from round to round.
Because Skip Bayless is the king of objectivity and had picked a Pacquiao victory (mostly because Stephen A. Smith predicted a Mayweather victory, due to being so far up Mayweather's ass that he can taste what Floyd had for dinner last night), he wants his readers to believe he is being objective. The next day Skip Bayless is objective on anything will be the first day this has ever occurred.
Exactly. What Mayweather did best was act like he was winning easily. He shook his head "no" after Pacquiao flurries. He preened and posed and no doubt out-styled little Manny. He blinded judges and Floyd fans with his reputation.
But he did not win.
Except, you know, he did win.
Now the poor man is being sued as he has surgery. Only in America.
Skip Bayless admitting the bum shoulder affected Pacquiao's ability to win the fight, while also not understanding why those who paid to see the fight are angry, is absolutely vintage Skip Bayless. Reality has no recourse when Skip has reached the conclusion he wants to reach.
But I will. This time I'd pay double to see it. Pacquiao deserves a rematch. And he will win. Again.
I think Skip doesn't like Mayweather or picks against Mayweather partly because he feels threatened by someone else who does things solely for the sake of attention. Skip doesn't want the competition.
4. I've been holding this article from Terence Moore about the Braves being good for the inevitable losing streak(s), just so I could point out how ridiculous his crowing was. After the Braves started 3-0, Terence was all "LOOK! The hustle and grit worked out. These Braves are good." He was wrong of course.
The first Major League team to 3-0 this season wasn't the Dodgers, with their massive payroll and overwhelming talent.
It was the Braves. You know, the rebuilding Braves. We're talking about the Braves with so many new players after nine trades and seven free-agent signings before Spring Training that super closer Craig Kimbrel had T-shirts designed for everybody that said, "Hello my name is (fill in the blank)."
Yep, when a team trades all of their best players for prospects then that team is rebuilding. I love how Terence took a 3-0 and start proudly starts jumping to conclusions that, even though there are 159 games to be played, this Braves team is better than I think. I think they won't win 70 games, so he's possibly partly right, but that doesn't mean he's entirely right.
The early success of this makeover is just a fluke.
Or is it?
It is. A month after this article was posted the Braves were 14-14 with 16 of these games at home at suddenly spacious looking Turner Field. So yeah, it was a fluke.
Yes, Kimbrel is gone with his otherworldly numbers during his four years as baseball's best closer, but his replacement is Jason Grilli, a former All-Star closer with the Pirates. The rest of the bullpen includes Jim Johnson, a former All-Star closer with the Orioles.
I'm a "former" a lot of things and it doesn't mean I could do those things again. There's a reason Grilli and Johnson don't have "current" in front of "All-Star" and that's because they can't pitch at that level anymore.
The Braves are faster, too. Among their slew of trades, they acquired the speedy Eric Young Jr., who is their first true leadoff hitter since Michael Bourn left as a free agent after the 2012 season.
Does Terence get paid by Eric Young Jr. to call him a "true leadoff hitter"? If not, he should. Young was slashing .167/.236/.288 a month after this column was posted. If that's a "true" leadoff hitter then I'll take the "fake" leadoff hitter everyday of the week.
Then there are newcomers such as Nick Markakis, Jonny Gomes and A.J. Pierzynski providing leadership in a clubhouse where there hasn't been any since the retirement of Jones after the 2012 season.
Leadership is great, but as the legendary Jeff Francouer would have said, "If leadership counted, then it would be on the scoreboard."
In response, Braves officials keep doing the right thing by acknowledging the public outcry each time they unload a popular player, and then they do what they have to do, which is they keep purging.
Purging, not rebuilding! That's the party line. Sure, the Braves got rid of all their "name" players, but they aren't rebuilding, just restructuring the team from a team that could compete for the NL East to a team that can't compete for the NL East. That's definitely NOT rebuilding.
(By the way, I'm down with the plan. Just call it what it is and don't act otherwise. That's all I want.)
What comes to mind is that old line from Branch Rickey, when he traded a stunned Ralph Kiner and his prolific bat during the early 1950s from the Pirates to the Cubs: "We can finish last without you."
So the Braves are going to finish last, after Terence previously said the Braves wouldn't finish last. A hallmark of a Terence Moore column is where he submarines his own argument. It's always fun to read him ruin his own point.
This isn't to say the Braves were awful before their makeover. They were just destined to remain what they were in recent years: Slightly better than mediocre, stale, another team destined to add to Atlanta's string of playoff losses in the NL Division Series or NL Wild Card Game.
79 wins in 2014, 96 wins in 2013, 94 wins in 2012, 89 wins in 2011, 91 wins in 2010, 86 wins in 2009. I wouldn't call that mediocre and to think the 2015 version of the team is an improvement because the team just won't make the playoffs is a fallacy. Remember, Terence isn't supposed to be arguing the rebuild was the right move, his argument is the 2015 Braves team are better than we think. This is not true. There are two separate issues that Terence is attempting to confuse with each other.
Looks like the future for the Braves is now.
No, it is not. It is in the future...maybe. Acting otherwise is only fooling yourself, Terence.
5. Jon Heyman thinks that Josh Hamilton owes the Angels and Arte Moreno an apology. I'm not sure if I agree with that. I don't approve of Hamilton's comments about the Angels at times, but an apology? I'm torn, but Jon is not.
Hamilton possesses that irresistible exacta of ability and personality that's hard to beat. Maybe too irresistible.
You can't trust an addict and Hamilton admits that is what he is. So the "maybe too irresistible" goes to this.
Hamilton is an extremely affable, talented guy, and it's hard not to root for him. It is also difficult to criticize him, as not too many have lived in those shoes. But if no one else will say anything, at some point you'd like to see Hamilton say something. "I'm sorry," would be a start.
Yeah, maybe. For me the whole "I'm sorry" thing should be reserved for those that Hamilton personally hurt and not meant for a millionaire baseball owner who knew about Hamilton's background when he signed him. I don't know, it feels like "I'm sorry" should be reserved for those who aren't multi-millionaire owners.
Somehow, the Angels, Rangers, Hamilton's agent Michael Moye and the union made it work. It works to the point where everyone's happy, even if Hamilton's the one smiling brightest.
Which is all great. Yet, the fallout doesn't seem quite fair.
I didn't realize that life was fair.
As Hamilton himself said at his press conference, Moreno knew what he was getting into. And he certainly could have come up with much more delicate phrases following the surprise arbitrator ruling that commissioner Rob Manfred couldn't suspend Hamilton for his self-reported relapse.
At that moment, the very rich guy looked a little too interested in saving a few bucks.
But I can't really blame him. Not too much, anyway.
And I understand why Hamilton isn't saying "I'm sorry," because he feels like Moreno didn't take the time to understand his condition and that he will always have an addiction issue. It would be hard to say, "I'm sorry" to a person who has lost your respect through acting like he cares more about his bottom line than you as a person. That's why I think "I'm sorry" to Moreno isn't required, because Moreno won't apologize to Hamilton for coming off as cold.
In his Texas press conference, Hamilton never once took responsibility for causing the Angels a lot of heartache. Instead, what he said was Moreno should have known better.
I found that to be an asshole thing to say and this comment comes off as very "gotcha" when it's probably not meant to.
Moreno questioned Hamilton's "accountability" after the arbitrator ruling. So perhaps Hamilton wasn't in a charitable mood. But maybe Hamilton's lack of accountability is fair game at this point.
No one likes having their accountability being questioned. This is a situation where both parties should move on. I get why Hamilton didn't apologize and I get why Moreno was irritated. If Moreno can't apologize in some fashion then I understand why Hamilton wouldn't apologize either.
6. Bill Madden, as always, wants Pete Rose on the Hall of Fame ballot. He knows he wouldn't be elected, but still wants him on the ballot.
Even before new commissioner Rob Manfred is able to sit down for a face-to-face with Pete Rose, baseball’s banned all-time hit king is back among us, albeit slightly from afar, in a Fox TV Sports studio in Los Angeles.
But the very fact Manfred is even granting Rose an audience — something his two predecessors, Fay Vincent and Bud Selig absolutely would not — tells me the Commish is at least cognizant of this long overlooked fact: Rose is the only player in the history of baseball who has never been eligible for the Hall of Fame — and it wasn’t Bart Giamatti, the commissioner who consigned him to baseball’s permanent ineligible list in August of 1989, who determined that. It was the Hall of Fame board of directors which, a few weeks after Rose was banned, determined that the permanent ineligible list applied to the Hall of Fame as well, and informed the Baseball Writers Association that he could not be placed on its ballot.
You'll never guess why Bill Madden thinks Pete Rose should be on the Hall of Fame ballot. Because of steroids of course.
This was a decision that would’ve probably been accepted as right and just, given Rose’s offense of breaking baseball’s cardinal rule on gambling, until the steroid cheats came along and did as much as Rose to impugn the integrity of the game by making a mockery of the record books.
I consistently fail to understand the "These PED users are eligible for the Hall of Fame, so why isn't Pete Rose?" argument. I don't see the parallel, partly because Rose accepted the lifetime ban, which isn't something PED users have done.
And while, as Manfred again pointed out Thursday in a meeting with APSE Sports Editors, “the rules on gambling have been in place literally for decades,” and that “they have been clear and spell out specific penalties; the reason those rules exist is because gambling is corrosive in a number of ways, including raising the specter of not doing everything they can to win,” it is worth noting in retrospect that Giamatti didn’t close the door entirely for Rose to eventually get reinstated.
In the fourth point of Giamatti’s resolution on Rose, he said: “Mr. Rose may, under Major League Rule 15 (c) apply for reinstatement. This ruling prohibits any such application for a period of at least one year.”
Yep. MLB has chosen not to reinstate him, as is their right.
Then, later on in the press conference, when asked if it would help Rose toward reinstatement if he sought rehabilitation for what many believed was a compulsive gambling habit, Giamatti replied: “The burden is entirely on Mr. Rose. It isn’t up to me. It’s up to Mr. Rose, it seems to me, to re-configure his life in ways I would assume he would prefer. But a person who wishes to establish the kind of record that would sustain an application would want to take whatever steps would seem appropriate to that person to be persuasive.”
And of course, because Rose has done these things then Bill Madden thinks Rose deserves another shot to be on the Hall of Fame ballot? Well, not exactly.
The problem for Rose was he did none of that. Instead he continued to deny that he had bet on baseball for another 14 years, all the while being seen publicly in gambling casinos and spending much of his life in Las Vegas, until he finally came clean in January of 2004 with the release of his book, “My Prison Behind Bars.”
(Deep sigh)
So why would baseball reinstate Rose when he accepted the lifetime ban and has not done, as outlined by the commissioner at the time, the steps to show rehabilitation? Because of PED users of course. All of a sudden it's not about Rose, but about what others have done that shows Rose should be on the Hall of Fame ballot. Rose is scum, but he's scum like others on the Hall of Fame ballot.
Interestingly, the idea there are already cheaters in the Hall of Fame, so this being a reason the PED scum should be allowed in isn't seen as a persuasive argument for inclusion of these PED users into the Hall of Fame. Interesting how Rose should be rewarded for the actions of others who are scum like him, but there is a firm line drawn where PED users don't get the necessary votes for induction despite the actions of others currently in Hall of Fame that were also considered cheating.
it seems to me there ought to be some way to remove him from the stigma of the permanent ineligible list and put him on a “restricted list” that would still prevent him from working in baseball but allow him to make promotional appearances at ballparks, serve as a sort of good-will ambassador for the Reds, or even do (anti-gambling?) public service commercials for baseball.
Rose wants to know how much that would pay.
Then it would be up to the Hall of Fame to decide if he could take his place on a ballot, like the steroid cheats. For the record, even Shoeless Joe Jackson was eligible for years for the Hall of Fame and got two votes in the first election in 1936 and another two in 1946.
Hey Bill, those votes occurred nearly 70-80 years ago. Let's focus on today.
For that, he at least deserves a vote — instead of remaining the only player in the history of the game who never got one.
I'm fine with Rose being reinstated, but he DESERVES absolutely nothing for actions he took that brought the lifetime ban upon him.
7. Bob Klapisch can't figure out if A-Rod is still cheating or not. On April 18, he wrote this article which hinted around the possibility of A-Rod still using PED's. Here are some of his comments:
Good luck to anyone trying to figure why Alex Rodriguez has become the Yankees’ best hitter, despite all the factors that should’ve been working against him. That includes his age, the yearlong drug suspension, two surgically repaired hips and going cold turkey on PEDs. We think.
Let’s address this last point first. I have to assume Rodriguez is playing clean in 2015;
Except, he doesn't dismiss the idea A-Rod is using steroids. Of course.
So how’s he doing it? Here are a few wild guesses:
- The time off actually restored Rodriguez’s fast-twitch muscles.
This theory runs counter to conventional sports theory, which says an athlete’s reaction-time deteriorates with time, especially after 35.
- Better, more invisible PEDs.
Whatever happened to assuming A-Rod was not using steroids? Klapisch assumes A-Rod is clean, then lists one of the reasons behind A-Rod's hot hitting as being that A-Rod is back using PED's. Sounds like assuming A-Rod is clean isn't something that's being done.
A cynic would reflexively ask: Who’s to say A-Rod hasn’t found a more sophisticated supplier than Tony Bosch?
To this, we shake our head and say no. So does MLB, which has greater enforcement powers than ever before. Not only is A-Rod subject to increased random testing, as is anyone who violated baseball’s Joint Drug Agreement, but testers are now empowered to come to Rodriguez’s home at any hour.
But after A-Rod kept hitting well, this sort of slight cynicism was fixed and now Bob Klapisch knows that A-Rod is not cheating. Sure, Bob beat around the bush at PED use with the idea A-Rod would definitely get caught, but now he knows for sure A-Rod isn't cheating. He's convinced!
Sure, there are plenty of folks who still don’t trust Rodriguez and think his pursuit of 700-plus HRs is a scam. But it felt like everyone in the ballpark had long since forgiven A-Rod and were willing to ride shotgun into the record books.
Sportswriters like Klapisch realize they are behind the curve in the whole "forgiving A-Rod" category, so they are quickly trying to make up for this.
Again, you might not believe any of it. Rodriguez has apologized a million times since spring training and you might think he’s not humble, just hardened and maybe smarter about a PED supplier this time around.
But as I’ve said before, I believe A-Rod is clean.
Yes, but then you listed "Better, more invisible PEDs" as a reason he could be hitting the baseball well. So, you believed, but didn't really believe.
The Yankees’ slugger knows he’s being watched, monitored, shadowed. A drug-tester from MLB was dispatched to Fenway on Sunday night and he was there for only one reason, to hunt down Rodriguez. The tester, a grim-looking man who spoke to no one, practically followed A-Rod to the bathroom for a urine sample. Rodriguez didn’t mind the surveillance; he knows it’s his penance for past sins.
Can you feel the narrative around A-Rod turning around? It's amazing what hitting a baseball does for the perception of A-Rod and how it helps him to be a more believable character that a sportswriter can cheer for. Success cures all.
So the night ended with a lingering question: How can Rodriguez hit a ball that far approaching age 40? Why is his bat-speed better now than in 2013, when it should be the other way around? I’m casting a vote for A-Rod’s better angels – that it’s not PEDs, but his surgically repaired hips now healthy enough to generate torque.
That is until Bob Klapisch decides that A-Rod is really powered by PED's again. I'm sure he'll write another "I don't think A-Rod is doing PED's" column where he again dismisses the idea A-Rod is doing PED's while continuing to bring the subject up.
8. Baseball is dying a terrible dying death. Nick Cafardo says so.
Baseball is trying to attract kids to the game, somehow, some way. But it’s been an uphill battle. If it continues, 20 or 30 years from now there won’t be much of a baseball viewership.
Baseball is dying a terrible, horrible death. Perhaps it's my peer group, but nearly everyone I know likes and watches baseball. Perhaps my peer group doesn't reflect reality. That's entirely possible.
The Red Sox probably are less susceptible to this than teams in other parts of the country where baseball isn’t as popular.
Well, obviously. The Red Sox are the team that's the least susceptible to this problem because they have the most informed and dedicated fans that would never turn their back on the team. Red Sox fans GET baseball, so even if MLB consists only of the Red Sox A-team facing the Red Sox B-team for 162 games there will always be professional baseball due to the unwavering fan support of the community in Boston that can't be found anywhere else in the world in any other sport.
It’s a simple game that has been muddled by the trends of recent years. Kids, particularly in the inner city, aren’t playing baseball with the frequency of the past, and the interest level in watching baseball isn’t there either, as the kids interviewed for the Globe story pointed out.
But the Globe interviewed kids who aren't from Boston, right? After all, the Red Sox are always going to be popular in Boston so good luck finding any kids who aren't Red Sox fans.
The human stories of players and their histories have gone the way of their WARs and WORPs, and I’m not sure kids see that as fun.
The idea that WAR and other advanced metrics chase fans away from the game is a fallacy. A total fallacy. If anything, it chases the generation away that baseball wants to be chased away (i.e. older fans of the game), while bringing in new fans who are passionate about the sport of baseball and enjoy using different metrics to watch the game. Using advanced statistics is another way of enjoying the game, not a reason why the game is dying.
In our day, we loved baseball cards and all we cared about was batting average, home runs, and RBIs. It was simple. It was easy to be a fan.
It's still incredibly simple like that. Nothing has changed.
Roberto Clemente, Hank Aaron, or Willie Mays used to step into the box and swing at the first good pitch he saw. Now, batters are encouraged to look at more than four pitches per at-bat.
As a result, we’re seeing more called third strikes. At-bats take forever, attention is lost, and the outcome isn’t as good as it used to be.
In 2010, there were 28 players with 85-plus RBIs, 85-plus runs, and 20-plus home runs. In 2011, there 20. In 2012, there were 24. In 2013, there were 14. Last season, there were 11.
Reader Matt emailed me this article and included this little tidbit of research that he had done:
I looked it up and in 1963 there were 12 of these players in the Major Leagues. Plus, Hank Aaron drew over 1,100 unintentional walks in his career. Cafardo probably thinks that on every one of them Aaron spit in his hands, glared at the pitcher, and called him a pussy for not challenging him.
Oh, so "back in the day" there weren't so many of these players who hit home runs, drove in runs and scored runs was there? Interesting what research does to disprove conventional, unintelligent thought. Thanks to Matt for this research. It's one year, but it proves that Cafardo is reminiscing about a time that necessarily didn't occur. The past was always much better in retrospect wasn't it?
Oh, and home runs and RBI's were up during the Steroid Era, which is an era baseball writers like Nick Cafardo see as a black mark on the history of the sport. Yet, fan interest was high. Can't have it any way you want it. Want a clean game, there has to be some sort of sacrifice.
Why aren’t hitters swinging at those pitches more often? It just prolongs the at-bat, and thus fans lose interest.
Now, the more pitches seen per at-bat is considered a good thing, wears down the pitcher, but so do doubles in the gap.
The personalities have changed, too. Players are making so much money that instead of a game, it has become a business to them.
(Nick Cafardo shakes his fist at a cloud and yells at children for being on his lawn)
David Ortiz is fun, but then he gets criticized if he pimps a home run.
(Nick Cafardo gets in his 1988 Buick, turns on the radio and listens to only the older Rolling Stones albums)
A pitchers’ duel is fun to watch, but how many last a full nine innings? You see good seven-inning battles and then, of course, managers go to their relievers.
"Not enough runs are scored in baseball these days!"
"Why aren't there more pitcher's duels that last nine innings?"
Can't have it both ways. Want runs? Great, that means there will be fewer nine inning pitching duels.
With all the advancements in understanding the human body and the claim that strength and conditioning coaches do baseball-specific work with their players, why are there so many oblique, hamstring, quadriceps, and shoulder injuries? Is it time to return to the days when players didn’t overtrain and really stuck to baseball-related exercises?
Yes, MLB and their teams should mandate how often players can work out. Just like in the old days when every player was durable for the entire season, except for some pitchers who ended up with "dead arm" that couldn't be sufficiently explained.
Players of yesteryear had to work other jobs and as a result got stronger. Aaron delivered ice. Bob Feller worked on a farm. Over time, their tendons got stronger.
"Baseball players should not work out as much as they do in the offseason or overtrain!"
"Baseball players need to do more work in the offseason by lifting heavy objects or working on a farm in order to get stronger!"
So yes, while the game has to be marketed better to kids, the kids need to see the game we saw as kids.
Well that game isn't coming back and "the kids" are stuck with the game today. The same game where enjoyment can come from the use of advanced statistics and not despite the use of these statistics.
9. Rick Telander is afraid American colleges are attempting to exploit African teens by giving them an opportunity to go to school and participate in athletics.
The Anteaters player’s name is Mamadou Ndiaye, and he stands 7-6, weighs 300 pounds and has an 8-3 wingspan. That means if you turned him sideways, his arms would cover an entire doorway.
Ndiaye came to the United States speaking no English and was found to have a tumor on his pituitary gland, a problem solved by surgery. He had guardians in Huntington Beach, California, moved through high school, and now he has played in the Big Dance.
So after Ndiaye was dragged to America, a tumor was found and corrected, he graduated high school and now he's getting a college education? When will this exploitation end?
Basketball, dominated by African-Americans at the highest levels, is starting to skip the American part and go straight to Africa for talent that might lead the way.
It’s not a completely new template — Hakeem Olajuwon (Nigeria) and Dikembe Mutombo (Zaire) have certainly left their marks on the NBA — but with this new trend comes a sense of the dirty but time-honored exploitation of a continent so rich in natural resources but so lacking in fundamental order and control.
"Sure, other Africans have come to the United States to play basketball, gotten an education and succeeded, but this is a 'new' trend and it's called 'exploitation' now. Okay, it's not a 'new' trend, but for the sake of this article can't we just pretend it's new so I can try and get my point across?"
You can blame the NBA and its entrance rules for some of this. But the NCAA, which allows freshmen to play and tacitly encourages fake education, plays a bigger role. Coach Cal says it again and again: I’m just playing by the rules they gave me. And, like a riverboat gambler with loaded dice, he’s right. So the hunt for the edge never ends.
It always comes back to John Calipari in some way doesn't it?
In 2010, five Kentucky players were taken in the first round of the NBA draft, something that had never happened before. This season, Calipari has nine McDonald’s All-Americans.
And here is the damning number about this startling trend. You ready for the truth about the exploitation? Of these 14 players being discussed that played for Calipari, 0 of them are native Africans that were ripped from their homeland to play for the Evil Calipari.
So what has this got to do with Africans?
Good point. Nothing.
Well, the talent in that incredibly diverse continent is bubbling, even if it is raw, largely uncoached and far afield from the cradle-to-adulthood training that most elite American players undergo. But it’s there, and it’s noticed.
So the problem is that United States colleges are recruiting international athletes to come play at their school and get an education? I guess I fail to see the issue here. Nearly every school has an international student program where, and hold on to your hat for the exploitation to begin, they take international students and bring them to the United States to go to school. Sometimes they play sports. I know, it's horrifying.
Shortly after this, I read an article in Harper’s Magazine entitled ‘‘American Hustle: How Elite Youth Basketball Exploits African Athletes.’’ In it, I read about schools like Our Savior that have dominant teams due to relying on dubious African ‘‘scouts’’ who send them players such as Diallo, a 6-9, 225-pound power forward who is a five-star college recruit.
There is money for the scouts, in round-about ways, and for the rare players who make it to the NBA. But many African teen players are brought over and suffer indignities of alienation and poverty and things like sleeping on the floor in a gym for half a year, the report said.
Wait, so high schools are exploiting these African basketball players, which means colleges are also exploiting them simply by recruiting them and offering them a scholarship and housing? Interesting way to look at it, Rick.
‘‘It’s like an auction,’’ a high school insider told the author, Alexandra Starr. ‘‘Each kid is an item to sell.’’
There, watching, with many others, was John Calipari.
Watching, licking his lips, just waiting to send another African basketball player that has never actually played at his Kentucky basketball program to the NBA. One would think if Rick is going to mention Calipari then he would also mention how Calipari has never had a player originally from Africa play for him while at the University of Kentucky. That would display honestly, which isn't something Rick cares to display.
10. Andrew Harrison used the "n-word" and now Jay Mariotti wants everyone to stop using this word. It's Jay Mariotti, social advocate.
If we truly are interested in eliminating racism in this country, uniting as one, then all usage of the N-word must stop. Now. Forever.
For those who don't stop using this word, Jay will come over and yank your hair, then deny it while complaining the legal system is against rich, white men.
Why? Maybe because a 20-year-old named Andrew Harrison hears the N-word echo through popular culture and finds himself muttering it, under his breath after a difficult loss, when a reporter asks a Kentucky teammate about Wisconsin star Frank Kaminsky, who happens to be white.
Not because it's offensive word, but eliminate the word because others will repeat it.
“F--- that n-----,” Harrison said, mouth covered yet in front of a microphone, which picked up the racial slur and sent it careening across social media and into the mainstream.
CAREENING across social media, CAROMING into the Internet and then SLIDING into Jay's ears where he knew he had to stop this bullshit immediately. If anyone can reach across the racial divide, it's Jay Mariotti.
Either we’re all serious about ending this social sickness or we should stop talking about it and let it be. What was Ferguson about? What were the “I Can’t Breathe” T-shirts about? What was “Selma” about, the lessons and the movie?
It wasn't entirely about the "n-word." It is about race relations and perceived racism, which will be present no matter whether a racial slur is spoken or not.
Kaminsky himself should have known better earlier in the NCAA Tournament, when he and his teammates were asked how they would want an opponent to describe them. “Resilient,” said one. “Disciplined,” said another. “Unselfish,” said another. “Tough,” said another.
“White guys,” said Kaminsky, a character.
Oh my, Frank. By acknowledging that you are white, you are setting race relations back decades. DO NOT acknowledge you are white. No one would know if you didn't constantly bring it up.
We’re not supposed to be seeing color. We’re supposed to be seeing humankind. Why is USA Today counting the number of black and white starters?
"Let's be colorblind," says Jay Mariotti.
ESPN originally announced it was launching a black sportswriting site, which made me wonder why the network also wasn’t starting an Asian-related sportswriting site and a Latino-related sportswriting site and so forth. Why narrow the audiences? Why separate us instead of using sports media as a way to bond and connect us?
Because ESPN wanted a site that appealed to and for black sportswriting that everyone could read. The same reason ESPN has a site called "ESPNW." It's not an exclusive site, but a site featuring content from a specific sub-group of people who love athletics.
Why does Barkley, a man crusading against racism, use the N-word?
I simply find it funny that Jay Mariotti, whose writing career is most known for being hateful, wants to start crusading against hate and bring people together. He probably means everyone else should come together so they can all be in the same room while he fires hateful shots and criticisms from a totally separate room.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)