Thursday, October 21, 2004
It's A Good Thing I Don't Own A Gun...
So I went to the grocery store last night after the game. It's 9:30 p.m. and I'm in line behind one of these raving lunatics that curses to themselves or whoever is with them whom they see but the rest of the world does not. As if watching her smash potato chip bags into her personal cart wasn't enough, I had to endure this encounter with two early 20s bimbai (Glendale version)...
Girl: Can I cut in line? I'm just buying cigarettes.
Me (thinking): And I'm just buying a bag of cat food and some cookies. I've been waiting for fifteen minutes, so can you.
Me (speaking): Sure.
Girl (to checker): The Red Sox beat the Yankees.
Checker: Yeah, I know. Somebody told us when it ended.
Girl: Yeah, they're going to the World Series now; they haven't been since like 1918 or something.
Girl2: 1918, did they have baseball then?
Checker: They've had baseball since the 1800's.
Girl2: 1800's? Wasn't that like when the dinosaurs were alive?
Me(thinking and turning red with rage): Yeah, my great grandfather was a Triceratops. Those cigarettes sure haven't made you smarter. And the Red Sox went to the World Series in nineteen-eighty-f'in-six! You know, when Abe Lincoln was President! Get off the bandwagon or at least move closer to the engine so I can't hear the incessant bile spewing from your mouth!
Checker(To me as the girls walk away): Our precious education dollars, huh?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is there really a difference between Javier Vazquez and Esteban Loiaza? Are we sure they're not the same person switching uniforms? When was the last time you actually saw them both at the same time?
|
|
|
Girl: Can I cut in line? I'm just buying cigarettes.
Me (thinking): And I'm just buying a bag of cat food and some cookies. I've been waiting for fifteen minutes, so can you.
Me (speaking): Sure.
Girl (to checker): The Red Sox beat the Yankees.
Checker: Yeah, I know. Somebody told us when it ended.
Girl: Yeah, they're going to the World Series now; they haven't been since like 1918 or something.
Girl2: 1918, did they have baseball then?
Checker: They've had baseball since the 1800's.
Girl2: 1800's? Wasn't that like when the dinosaurs were alive?
Me(thinking and turning red with rage): Yeah, my great grandfather was a Triceratops. Those cigarettes sure haven't made you smarter. And the Red Sox went to the World Series in nineteen-eighty-f'in-six! You know, when Abe Lincoln was President! Get off the bandwagon or at least move closer to the engine so I can't hear the incessant bile spewing from your mouth!
Checker(To me as the girls walk away): Our precious education dollars, huh?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is there really a difference between Javier Vazquez and Esteban Loiaza? Are we sure they're not the same person switching uniforms? When was the last time you actually saw them both at the same time?
# posted by j.h.k. @ 1:46 PM 
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Cry Me A River
I received the following in an e-mail last night from Joe, regarding how he once loved ARod but now despises him:
When he became a Yankee, it broke my heart cuz he wanted to come to Boston but I still respected ARod. Then the Arroyo/Varitek/ARod incident occurred, which sorta changed me but not enough to hate the guy.
But after his "whatever" fan to Trot in Game 5 and his bush-league move in Game 6, I officially HATE Alex Rodriguez. He's still great, but I loathe him.
Check out these quotes from after Game 6 and try and tell me I'm wrong:
''I was kind of perplexed by it,'' Rodriguez said. ''I don't know what I was trying to do. I know he was coming and I know that the line is mine. They said I could've run him over, but I went out of my way. Looking back at it, I probably should've just run him over.''
''It was a big momentum changer,'' Rodriguez said. ''I don't want those umpires to meet anymore because every time they meet, it goes against the Yankees.''
Okay, Joe, I think you're wrong. I can't defend this Game 5 fanning thing too much because I didn't see it, but from what Joe described to me, Nixon made an incredible sliding catch on an ARod pop-up and upon seeing the catch made, Alex made a waving gesture toward the play as if to say "whatever." Joe's interpretation of it was that Alex was disrespecting Trot. Again, I didn't see the play but it makes more sense to me that he would be waving off his own bad luck in the situation than for him to disrespect a great defensive play. If it were me, I would be fanning as if to say "I put it in play and he just made a better play. (waving) Ya gotta throw those away." That seems more believable to me, but, either way, I don't see it as such a horrible gesture that I'm going to go from love to hate.
Regarding the baseline battle in the eighth where ARod slapped the ball from the outstretched glove of Bronson Arroyo, I see this neither as bush league nor as cheating as I've heard so much on the radio this morning. Baseball is a contact sport. You're taught to slide hard into second even if you have no chance of being safe just so you might take out the second baseman's legs and prevent him from making the throw to first. At home, a charging runner is encouraged to barrel into a stationary catcher in the interest of knocking the ball loose. Why is ARod slapping at the glove such a departure from this mentality to qualify as "bush league?" Was Arroyo not trying to tag him out? Imagine you're ARod. You're the highest paid player in baseball in your first postseason in a storied rivalry which your signing helped to incite. Your team is down and you have the chance to continue a late-inning comeback. With all your talent and all the money you're paid, you are being counted on to come through with a hit in this particular at-bat more than any other in your career thus far. You make contact down the first base line. You run with every fiber of muscle in your legs to try to beat this throw or tag to the base. Just as you're almost there, as you've almost come through, Arroyo sticks out his glove to make the tag. With all the pressure of the situation and as badly as you want to come through for your team on this grand stage, why should you draw so much flak for acting out of sheer instinct by trying to slap the ball away? Do people really think this was premeditated? He didn't even have time to make a decision here; it was just a reaction. With Mientkiewicz blocking his way and the tag looming in, his will to succeed caused him to react. There's nothing bush league about that. Of course he broke the rules. I know that. That's why he was called out. But why are people taking it so far beyond that, making it a question of character, when 9 out of 10 of them would have done the same thing, also without malicious intentions? Dan Patrick just made a great point on his radio show on espn radio. He said that all this criticism is coming not because of the act, but because of who committed it. He ventures that if Kevin Millar had done the exact same thing, Red Sox fans would be lauding him for giving a great example of how to "cowboy up." I whole heartedly agree. All ARod did was what any team would want its players to do, play with the tenacious will to win. If they break the rules in doing so, you take the penalty and go from there. In football, do we crucify cornerbacks for pass interference penalties? Of course not, because they're just playing the game as best they can. How often do you hear football announcers saying something like "Now there's a penalty his coach isn't going to mind. He made a great play on the ball and just caused too much contact." It's the same damn principle here. Why are so many people climbing onto their high horse (or soapbox, wink) and making this into a morality issue?
''I don't know what I was trying to do..."
...Other than trying to win. It was instinct. Nothing more, nothing less. He broke the rules and the umpires eventually made the correct call. That should be the end of the story here.
"They said I could've run him over, but I went out of my way. Looking back at it, I probably should've just run him over.''
That's absolutely right. That would have been the best way to give his team a chance within the confines of the rules. The rule states that you are allowed to make such contact, whether it be at home plate or first base. If people wanna argue against ARod considering a run-over as a better option, talk to the rule book. It seems ridiculously unfair to criticize him first for breaking the rules and then rip him again for saying he should have done something that is not against the rules. I'm sure if ARod had just slowed up and accepted the tag, these same people would call him a quitter and say he had no heart. In a few hours, this thing has gone beyond all reason.
''I don't want those umpires to meet anymore because every time they meet, it goes against the Yankees.''
Is he factually incorrect? Did the Yankees not go 0-for-2 in the umpire conference results last night? Both calls were correct, of course. ARod is not arguing otherwise. He's simply observing the facts. What do you want him to say here, "All that matters is that they get the call right regardless of how it affects the scoreboard?" In a perfect world, sure that's the answer you'd like to hear, but what pro athlete in any high-stakes contest has ever sided with objective fairness over their own victory? Right or wrong, it doesn't happen very often so don't hate the player, hate the game.
I was considering writing a column later today about how maybe I should reconsider my anti-Red Sox stance because of all the great Red Sox fans that I am personally connected with and just applaud great baseball theater. But I think the events of last night and this morning will stop me short of that. All the bickering about "ARod is a cheater" and "may the best non-cheating team win" really ruins a great game and a historic series with a bitter aftertaste. Instead of talking about the heroics of their team and the Herculean effort of Schilling, all I hear are Red Sox fans griping about a play and a call that went their way in a game they won.
Red Sox Nation, give me an f'in break.
|
When he became a Yankee, it broke my heart cuz he wanted to come to Boston but I still respected ARod. Then the Arroyo/Varitek/ARod incident occurred, which sorta changed me but not enough to hate the guy.
But after his "whatever" fan to Trot in Game 5 and his bush-league move in Game 6, I officially HATE Alex Rodriguez. He's still great, but I loathe him.
Check out these quotes from after Game 6 and try and tell me I'm wrong:
''I was kind of perplexed by it,'' Rodriguez said. ''I don't know what I was trying to do. I know he was coming and I know that the line is mine. They said I could've run him over, but I went out of my way. Looking back at it, I probably should've just run him over.''
''It was a big momentum changer,'' Rodriguez said. ''I don't want those umpires to meet anymore because every time they meet, it goes against the Yankees.''
Okay, Joe, I think you're wrong. I can't defend this Game 5 fanning thing too much because I didn't see it, but from what Joe described to me, Nixon made an incredible sliding catch on an ARod pop-up and upon seeing the catch made, Alex made a waving gesture toward the play as if to say "whatever." Joe's interpretation of it was that Alex was disrespecting Trot. Again, I didn't see the play but it makes more sense to me that he would be waving off his own bad luck in the situation than for him to disrespect a great defensive play. If it were me, I would be fanning as if to say "I put it in play and he just made a better play. (waving) Ya gotta throw those away." That seems more believable to me, but, either way, I don't see it as such a horrible gesture that I'm going to go from love to hate.
Regarding the baseline battle in the eighth where ARod slapped the ball from the outstretched glove of Bronson Arroyo, I see this neither as bush league nor as cheating as I've heard so much on the radio this morning. Baseball is a contact sport. You're taught to slide hard into second even if you have no chance of being safe just so you might take out the second baseman's legs and prevent him from making the throw to first. At home, a charging runner is encouraged to barrel into a stationary catcher in the interest of knocking the ball loose. Why is ARod slapping at the glove such a departure from this mentality to qualify as "bush league?" Was Arroyo not trying to tag him out? Imagine you're ARod. You're the highest paid player in baseball in your first postseason in a storied rivalry which your signing helped to incite. Your team is down and you have the chance to continue a late-inning comeback. With all your talent and all the money you're paid, you are being counted on to come through with a hit in this particular at-bat more than any other in your career thus far. You make contact down the first base line. You run with every fiber of muscle in your legs to try to beat this throw or tag to the base. Just as you're almost there, as you've almost come through, Arroyo sticks out his glove to make the tag. With all the pressure of the situation and as badly as you want to come through for your team on this grand stage, why should you draw so much flak for acting out of sheer instinct by trying to slap the ball away? Do people really think this was premeditated? He didn't even have time to make a decision here; it was just a reaction. With Mientkiewicz blocking his way and the tag looming in, his will to succeed caused him to react. There's nothing bush league about that. Of course he broke the rules. I know that. That's why he was called out. But why are people taking it so far beyond that, making it a question of character, when 9 out of 10 of them would have done the same thing, also without malicious intentions? Dan Patrick just made a great point on his radio show on espn radio. He said that all this criticism is coming not because of the act, but because of who committed it. He ventures that if Kevin Millar had done the exact same thing, Red Sox fans would be lauding him for giving a great example of how to "cowboy up." I whole heartedly agree. All ARod did was what any team would want its players to do, play with the tenacious will to win. If they break the rules in doing so, you take the penalty and go from there. In football, do we crucify cornerbacks for pass interference penalties? Of course not, because they're just playing the game as best they can. How often do you hear football announcers saying something like "Now there's a penalty his coach isn't going to mind. He made a great play on the ball and just caused too much contact." It's the same damn principle here. Why are so many people climbing onto their high horse (or soapbox, wink) and making this into a morality issue?
''I don't know what I was trying to do..."
...Other than trying to win. It was instinct. Nothing more, nothing less. He broke the rules and the umpires eventually made the correct call. That should be the end of the story here.
"They said I could've run him over, but I went out of my way. Looking back at it, I probably should've just run him over.''
That's absolutely right. That would have been the best way to give his team a chance within the confines of the rules. The rule states that you are allowed to make such contact, whether it be at home plate or first base. If people wanna argue against ARod considering a run-over as a better option, talk to the rule book. It seems ridiculously unfair to criticize him first for breaking the rules and then rip him again for saying he should have done something that is not against the rules. I'm sure if ARod had just slowed up and accepted the tag, these same people would call him a quitter and say he had no heart. In a few hours, this thing has gone beyond all reason.
''I don't want those umpires to meet anymore because every time they meet, it goes against the Yankees.''
Is he factually incorrect? Did the Yankees not go 0-for-2 in the umpire conference results last night? Both calls were correct, of course. ARod is not arguing otherwise. He's simply observing the facts. What do you want him to say here, "All that matters is that they get the call right regardless of how it affects the scoreboard?" In a perfect world, sure that's the answer you'd like to hear, but what pro athlete in any high-stakes contest has ever sided with objective fairness over their own victory? Right or wrong, it doesn't happen very often so don't hate the player, hate the game.
I was considering writing a column later today about how maybe I should reconsider my anti-Red Sox stance because of all the great Red Sox fans that I am personally connected with and just applaud great baseball theater. But I think the events of last night and this morning will stop me short of that. All the bickering about "ARod is a cheater" and "may the best non-cheating team win" really ruins a great game and a historic series with a bitter aftertaste. Instead of talking about the heroics of their team and the Herculean effort of Schilling, all I hear are Red Sox fans griping about a play and a call that went their way in a game they won.
Red Sox Nation, give me an f'in break.
# posted by j.h.k. @ 8:58 AM
Upon Further Review...
I want to amend my stance on the Keenan McCardell situation.
I think I may have come off as being against the concept of contract renegotiation or ignorant to the concept altogether. This is not the case. I realize that athletes restructure their contracts all the time in order to give their teams more financial freedom or renegotiate them to reward exceptional play. I have no problem with that.
But both sides have to come to the table in good faith. If the team refuses to sit down and work on a deal, the answer is not to violate the contract currently in place. If I wasn't clear, this is where I feel McCardell is in the wrong. Are the Bucs reasonable in their refusal to renegotiate? Maybe, maybe not, but it's really irrelevent whether the Bucs owe him anything. If they didn't want to talk about it, McCardell should have played out his existing deal and remember how the Bucs valued him when they try to resign him down the line. Pay them back by turning your back on them as a free agent, but don't take a seat when you still have two years remaining on your current contract.
|
I think I may have come off as being against the concept of contract renegotiation or ignorant to the concept altogether. This is not the case. I realize that athletes restructure their contracts all the time in order to give their teams more financial freedom or renegotiate them to reward exceptional play. I have no problem with that.
But both sides have to come to the table in good faith. If the team refuses to sit down and work on a deal, the answer is not to violate the contract currently in place. If I wasn't clear, this is where I feel McCardell is in the wrong. Are the Bucs reasonable in their refusal to renegotiate? Maybe, maybe not, but it's really irrelevent whether the Bucs owe him anything. If they didn't want to talk about it, McCardell should have played out his existing deal and remember how the Bucs valued him when they try to resign him down the line. Pay them back by turning your back on them as a free agent, but don't take a seat when you still have two years remaining on your current contract.
# posted by j.h.k. @ 8:54 AM
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Keenan "Leon" McCardell
Con*tract: n. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law.
"It is fair for any employee in any line of work to receive a pay raise when they are exceeding their expected roles within their company, or receive a promotion and increased responsibilities," said McCardell.
Man, I love it when athletes compare professional football to a "line of work." Does Keenan also expect two fifteen-minute breaks and thirty minutes for lunch? What's he bringing to the pot-luck company Christmas party I wonder? Here's my main problem with this, Keenan's contract does not stipulate his role as being Wide Receiver No. 1, 2, or 15. I'm not even sure if it is specific to the wide receiver position. In any case, the contract is to simply play football and says nothing about where you land on the depth chart at any particular time. I understand Keenan's gripe, but at the same time, I say a deal is a deal. After all, if Keenan ends up having a terrible season and falls off the depth chart entirely, he still gets paid as the No. 2. Would he be willing to renege on his contract as easily if in doing so he was giving money instead of taking it? Of course, he wouldn't.
|
"It is fair for any employee in any line of work to receive a pay raise when they are exceeding their expected roles within their company, or receive a promotion and increased responsibilities," said McCardell.
Man, I love it when athletes compare professional football to a "line of work." Does Keenan also expect two fifteen-minute breaks and thirty minutes for lunch? What's he bringing to the pot-luck company Christmas party I wonder? Here's my main problem with this, Keenan's contract does not stipulate his role as being Wide Receiver No. 1, 2, or 15. I'm not even sure if it is specific to the wide receiver position. In any case, the contract is to simply play football and says nothing about where you land on the depth chart at any particular time. I understand Keenan's gripe, but at the same time, I say a deal is a deal. After all, if Keenan ends up having a terrible season and falls off the depth chart entirely, he still gets paid as the No. 2. Would he be willing to renege on his contract as easily if in doing so he was giving money instead of taking it? Of course, he wouldn't.
If Keenan McCardell thinks he should be paid more money for performing better than expected, then he should blame no one but himself and his agent for not getting such incentives written into the contract. It's a keen clause and players sign into it all the time. Why should he get the same benefit as those guys when they had the foresight to get it in writing and he did not? If you don't have performance-based incentives in your contract, you play your butt off for the life of the deal and you go get a better deal as a free agent. That's how it works and Keenan should know that because that's exactly what he did when he came over from Jacksonville.
You think Mark Prior deserves to make $2 million when Kevin Appier is making $12 million? How about Albert Pujols, you think he doesn't perform better than his $7 million salary? If pro athletes start turning their backs on contracts just because they feel they've put up good numbers, the NHL won't be the only sport locked out for long. Free agency has done enough damage to sports, but can you imagine if an athlete could just sit out and make himself a semi-free agent anytime he wanted to? If I got a home run in my first at-bat of the season, I might just take a seat and point to my other-worldly batting average and slugging percentage. Keenan McCardell seems like a nice, articulate guy, but this whole thing reeks of something Leon from the Budweiser commercials would do. You know, the guy who tells his coach he can do more for his team by sitting on the bench and looking anguished for the cameras, asking the camera guy, "Yo, Money, what lens you got on me?"
McCardell skipped out of every team meeting, practice, and game from July to October, and watched his team go 1-5 while he sat and waited for his salary hike. Despite meetings with Coach Gruden and teammate Simeon Rice publicly pleading for him to come back, "Leon" McCardell sat on his million-dollar hands and demanded a trade if the Bucs weren't going to pay him the money he felt he deserved, even threatening to sit out the entire season if they did neither.
"Leon" got his wish today--well, sort of. Today Bucs GM Bruce Allen swallowed his pride and granted McCardell his trade. In the end, McCardell's principles cost him $705,882. Ironic that a player demanding money was willing to sacrifice so much of it. And here's the best part...
The San Diego Chargers, McCardell's new team, aren't planning on restructuring his contract either.
Play on, Leon.
# posted by j.h.k. @ 6:02 PM
