[UPDATE] Garret Anderson: Douchebag
by Ozzz on Apr 11, 2007 11:37 PM PDT
208 comments
So by now you'd have to be an Anaheim fan not to have heard that certain players plan to wear Jackie Robinson's long-retired #42 to celebrate the 60th anniversary of his breaking the color barrier.
Ken Griffey Jr thought it up, and now other players (such as Oakland's Milton Bradley) plan to do likewise. The Dodgers are even tossing around having their whole team wear the #42.
So what did Anaheim Angel Garret Anderson have to say about wearing #42 when it was offered to him a week ago?
'Not gonna happen.'
From the LA Times:
MILWAUKEE — To honor the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier, all 25 Dodgers players will wear the former Brooklyn Dodgers infielder's No. 42 on April 15.The first Angels player asked by the team to wear the number declined.
Outfielder Garret Anderson said that although he has a great appreciation for Robinson, he won't do it because Ken Griffey Jr., among others, thought of it first.
"It wasn't my idea, and I'm not the type of person to jump on the bandwagon because someone else is doing something," Anderson said. "If I did it just because someone else was doing it, it would seem kind of empty to me."
Right, Garret. Because it's all about you.
Even assholes of the caliber of Gary Sheffield and Barroid Bonds are joining this celebration, so too will Willie Randolph and Derek Lee... but they're all apparently far too sheep-like for Garret. Unoriginal. Non-unique. Not Andersonian.
Coco Crisp, Dmitri Young, Mike Cameron, Josh Barfield, Orlando Hudson - they'll all wear #42. But they're just being trendy. The real man of independent thought is G. Anderson of The Angels Angels of Anaheim.
So I've decided I'm going to be like Garret Anderson from now on. No, I won't be intentionally lowering my OBP - rather, since I didn't think up Christmas, I won't be celebrating it from here on.
And I certainly didn't choose my wife's birthday, so I'm calling off the party planned for next week. If she wants me to celebrate her birth, she'll have to be a little more original about it. Maybe she could have it on February 31st or something.
Also, it wasn't my idea to end World War II, so I won't be honoring the fallen on Armistice Day. I mean... it'd just be kind of empty to me to do it just because every thinking human being on the planet does it.
4th of July? I'm having it on the 6th of September, because that's what I thought up just now. That way it'll mean something, because I thought of it, and it's all about me.
Me and Garret Anderson.
In our opinion Anderson is a punk who doesn't deserve to wear Robinson's number. Anderson is everything that Jackie wasn't, he's the modern day selfish athlete who doesn't care about baseball traditions, history, the African American struggle, or common fucking sense.Garret Anderson is Barry Bonds minus 500 homers but fully equipped with the You-Owe-Me attitude that nearly ruined baseball. Now in his 14th season, you'd think that GA would have gotten it by now, that the $50 million that he's earned over the years in baseball would have made him feel somewhat grateful. But no, he chose to take this moment to spit on the memory of a fellow Black man who paved the way for him.
Heck of a job, brotha.
On a sad, sad side note, the Angels have asked Gary Matthews Jr, who is still under a drug investigation, if he'll wear the #42 in Anderson's place.
Thanks Garret. Way to honor the memory.
Cross-posted on Notes From The Nat
UPDATE!
It was to be expected, I guess, but the knuckledragger king over at Halos Heaven has truly outdone himself in discussing this diary. Seems we're all just white Berkley liberals who want to keep the black man down by forcing him to honor a black man against his will. We're racists, if you will.
RevNutbar: He won't paly (sic) Steepin Fetchit and sing the Po' Me Blues for the Berkeley Politically Correct TribunalRevNutbar again: not playing the sympathetic darkie upsets Bay Area white liberals. Ima gine (sic) if guilt were your sole identity, you'd be furious at an independent voice among African Americans too.
jjackflash says: I've said it before and I'll say it again. I respect GA, and believe he does a lot more to honor Robinson by not simply doing whatever massa says he should do.
Caseys kiss of death: Garret Anderson is just another nappy-headed ho. Who cares what he does?
Let me make it abundantly clear for the trogladytes over at Hick Heaven - the issue here isn't that GA won't do what thwe white man says he should, it's that he refuses to honor THE MOST IMPORTANT BLACK MAN IN BASEBALL.
Now, if you wanted to say 'who cares', that's one thing. If you wanted to say 'he's a free spirit', that's another. But to call people racists for wanting someone to honor a leader in civil rights?
A new low, even for the single most embarassing blog on SB Nation. In fact, I've said it before and I'll say it again - when is SBN going to come down on Halos Heaven and kick it out of the organization?
When one SBN blog calls the other racists, that, to me, is time for action.
Imus was fired for less.
0 recs |
208 comments
Email
Print
Comments
This just proves the old maxim:
IGNORANCE IS ITS OWN PUNISHMENT
by Carlos1118 on Apr 11, 2007 11:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why not take him at his word?
That he has a great appreciation for Robinson?
If wearing Robinson's number is simply a way of honoring the man, it is not the only means to that end.
In fact, all black MLB players honor one of the principles JR stands for, just by playing: racial integration of MLB. Garrett Anderson is honoring something else JR stands for: the freedom of an individual to make individual choices, no matter his skin color.
And the act of wearing JR's #, just because one happens to be black oneself, should be in no way mandated by Ken Griffey Jr., MLB, or douchebags on the internet.
by As Man on Apr 11, 2007 11:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll bite.
It isn't mandated by anyone. He can choose to not wear the number whenever he wants.
...BECAUSE Jackie Robinson opened the way for him to do so.
Seriously, why not wear the number? What's it going to change for him, even if his heart isn't in it?
It's a douchey stand to take. If he REALLY wanted to show integrity, he could refuse to play alongside a roider.
Instead, the roider will be wearing Robinson's number.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's douchey to use the word douchey
and call Garret Anderson douchey. By that logic I am douchey.
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 12, 2007 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I won't disagree...
...with your final point.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
first belly laugh of the day
by LAXile on Apr 12, 2007 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I also believe anagrams are douche...
enough said
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 12, 2007 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Geez, what a cage bud ho
by iglew on Apr 12, 2007 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe the problem is the way
he explained himself. If he had said what you said, the decision wouldn't look so bad.
Instead, he comes across as a self-centered idiot.
by rfloh on Apr 12, 2007 6:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
reminds me of flag burning issue.
by ak_A on Apr 12, 2007 7:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Constrain Your Outrage, HollywoodOz
According to you, Garret Anderson is a selfish, unprincipled douchebag who spits on the memory of Jackie Robinson because he feels Ken Griffey's idea is an empty gesture and refuses to participate.
If that is true then, reasonably, the reverse must also be true. By wearing Number 42 for a day, Barry Bonds is now a selfless, respectful, principled saint who would never do anything to further his own interests.
Does that sound right? Not to me.
I don’t agree with Anderson’s decision, but I am appalled by your apparent willingness to condemn him to the Third Circle of Hell for making a decision that runs contrary to your sense of what’s appropriate.
by ptbarnum on Apr 12, 2007 5:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
not quite
He didn't say that he felt Griffey's idea was an empty gesture, on the part of Griffey. He said that his own following along with the idea would feel hollow for him. Big difference. This could be due to the fact that he's a selfish prick...or something quite different, which he didn't exactly/fully articulate. His lack of partcipation could also be because he feels that, once again, while the idea itself was a noble one, the widespread adoption of it by players (like Bonds) whose everyday actions cerainly do not reflect appreciation for Jackie renders it meaningless...almost as if such other players are tainting the celebration; analagous perhaps to a devout Christian's view of the secularization of Christmas. In this scenario, GA would seem at worst self-righteous (but only subtly, because he certainly didn't explicitly denounce Bonds and other "unworthy" participants).
But if the latter scenario were in fact true, then one would think he'd be inclined to think of his own way to honor Robinson. If he truly respected Jackie, but didn't want to associate with the perceived ignorant "bandwagoners" who are going to be involved this Sunday, then it would seem as though he should think of his own way to honor Jackie. I don't really foresee that happening, though, do you...
Oh, and to be "appalled" by someone else's outrage is a bit, eh, contradictory, no?
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
also
see Aaron's post below...some of what he says kind of overlaps with what I said here. Examples:
--I clarified GA's statement by pointing out that he did not say the idea itself was empty, but the implementation of it was; I was basically repeating what Aaron said in the sixth paragraph of his post.
--I said that if GA truly respected Robinson, he'd find another way to show that appreciation; Aaron wondered if GA gets involved in efforts to promote baseball within the black community, or just assist with general charity...
To that end, I do think I remember seeing GA in one of those overplayed Boys and Girls Club ads that MLB runs every inning, but I'm not positive. That would be a start, I guess.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Massive strawman you're building there.
If I choose not to spit on someone's grave, does that make me a great guy?
No, it just means I'm not a douchebag. At least not at that moment.
Bonds is an ass. Honoring Jackie Robinson doesn't make him less of an ass, but DIShonoring would sure make him moreso.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tori Hunter and CC Sabathia are douches too then
aren't they OZ?
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 12, 2007 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have they specifically refused to wear it?
The article doesn't say they have.
So no. They're just passing fair comment.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Having researched both players now..
...turns out they'll BOTH be wearing the 42.
So Garret remains the sole douche.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
confused
I do not understand how this makes Bonds a selfless, respectuful player. Just because he particapates in this doesnt make him a saint.
That said, I think hollywood was trying to make the point that Anderson's unwillingness to honor his black heritage is purely out of spite. So what someone came up with the idea first. The point of the matter is to honor one of the greatest pioneers of baseball. To say you wont honor Jackie Robinson because Griffey Jr. thought it up first is just flat out stupid logic. I would think he is a smart enough man to realize that its not whos trend he follows but the meaning behind it.
That and he wont slide/dive for flyballs.
by Glomar on Apr 12, 2007 6:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Much Ado About Nothing
I'm Black and I'm a baseball fan. I've been the former for 34 years and the latter for about 27.
Personally, I couldn't care less if Anderson wears #42 this Sunday. I've heard the fans and media work themselves into a tizzy over this as if Anderson MUST wear the number or he's disrespecting Jackie Robinson's legacy.
Does anyone know if Anderson donates him time and money to baseball's RBI program? Is he charitable with disadvantaged youth? Is he involved with finding ways to introduce more African-Americans to the game?
Personally, I have no idea, but these are all vitally more relevant to continuing Jackie Robinson's legacy than the numbers on a guy's back.
Anderson has always been something of odd duck and he probably could've (and should've) let an Angels publicist re-write his nonsensical explanation. But, Anderson's stance, in my mind, IS admirable.
Sorry, but the #42 thing IS an empty gesture. I don't doubt Griffey's sincerity, but the way it's played out, it seems that teams are asking their players more out of obligation, while players are accepting in the hope of some good PR.
Is anyone going to remember who wore #42 the next day? The next year? There's a lot more to this than that.
by Aaron C on Apr 12, 2007 6:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for being reasonable.
This is a cheap shot at a player on a team you don't like, Oz. Simply by virtue of him not wanting to wear those numbers on his clothes for one day, you condemn him and would have all of us believe that he disrespects or even rejects his racial and historical heritage. If you're so cynical to believe this, why not cast a glance askance at the celebration in the first place? Besides, who says that Garrett must honor a man's legacy only in ways ordained by the league or by the media or by general public consensus? Maybe the man has a shrine to Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby in his basement. Maybe if he has a bad day at the ballpark he goes home and cries and asks Jackie's ghost for forgiveness for letting him down.
The point is, just because a bunch of people have decided that sewing a couple of numbers on a piece of polyester for one day constitutes a fantastic gesture for the history of the man, that doesn't mean that it constitutes a fantastic gesture for everyone. We're all going to make our own decisions on what is important to us, and if that means that you have to build some vendetta against Garrett Anderson because he didn't do this thing that you and a bunch of other people wanted him to do doesn't mean that you are right and that he is wrong, it just means that you think he is.
And here's the best part. If you feel like hating him and directing vitriol at him over this, then feel free. It's your right to do so, but I'm not going to stand beside you and condemn the man just because he doesn't want to toe the line and act like wearing his number that day will put a little bit of Jackie back in all of us so we can feel good about how Major League Baseball finally managed to unfuck itself in 1947 after 70-7000 years of bigotry.
It is indeed myopic to declare a victory over racism just because we now have baseball players of non-Caucasian or non-American descent. Have a look at any number of national issues these days and tell me that we're making progress.
This is a PR game.
by hunter on Apr 12, 2007 6:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well said, hunter.
I didn't get a sense of showboating selfishness from Anderson in his quote either. From his perspective, he's being asked to wear something new to his workplace, and he's saying that it feels like an empty gesture to him.
BFD. What if your office had a Hawaiian shirt day and you felt like blowing it off? What's the worst that could happen? Some corporate cheerleader or management type comes to criticize you for not wearing enough flair?
Fine, so in this case, Hawaiian shirt day has a special significance. But Anderson's not saying Jackie Robinson doesn't deserve accolades. He's not saying Robinson didn't open the doors for him to be there. The article even paraphrases him as saying he's got a great appreciation for Robinson.
Asking Anderson to kowtow to the party line on this and act grateful that he's allowed to be where he is now strikes me as more than a little patronizing. He shouldn't have to feel grateful that MLB decided to get over a racist policy that undermined its own legitimacy and humanity in general. He's not the asshole; it's everybody else who felt (and feels) like they were doing him some big favor by being less racist.
by sarchasmic on Apr 12, 2007 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's a rare day on AN when...
Oz's cynicism is trumped by someone else's...well done.
Obviously, the initial reaction to this story would be to take it at face value, see that it involves a well-known player from the A's biggest rival, and declare the guy a douchebag without further investigation. Fine...snap judgments are often par for the course for anything, sports being right near the top of the list.
But this isn't a fucking mob of mindless Halos-haters right here...we won't stop at step one. Next step (the step I took) is to try to put GA's quote/stance into some sort of objective context, without tipping the scale too far in the other direction (ie rationalizing the decision). With this post, the historical/social context has been added, and the tentative result is "Garret Anderson: Not A Douchebag."
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
holy jesus!
Excellent comment! You just nailed shut his pie-hole with this post.
by sf drift king on Apr 13, 2007 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right on
Your totally right. This isn't a big deal at all. Just becuase Garret chose not to do something that everyone else wants him to do, because he's black, does not make him a bad guy. There are dozens of reasons to why, but Garret probably doesn't want to go into them, because it's not a big deal. What if say Milton Bradley chose not to wear it? Would you get all mad at him? Along with Chone Figgins, Garret Anderson is one of the classiest Angels I've seen and Hollywood shouldn't get on him for not wearing a silly number. It's just a number. Do you think Jackie would really care whether or not Garret wears his number? No he woulnd't. He would more likely think it's unique that Garret is not wearing his number just because everyone else is doing it and putting himself at risk of criticism from people like you. Just like how Jackie faced criticism when he broke the color barrier.
by Mulderfan on Apr 12, 2007 7:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know, it comes down to this:
When the US national anthem plays at a ballgame, I hate having to stand for it. I don't enjoy it, I'd much prefer not to, especially at a time when so much of what the US is doing in the world is the opposite of what I'd like to see the country doing.
But I stand. You know why?
Because to NOT stand would be an insult.
Sure, I could justify it all sorts of ways, but the reality is that the annoyance I get at being asked to cowtow to what the rest of the crowd is doing is far less important than the offense that would be taken by everyone else if I was a smug, self-righteous asshole and sat through the anthem.
And yes, if Bradley refused to wear the number, and gave the lame excuse that he 'hand't thought of it', I'd think him a punk and dislike his attitude immensely.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Garret is showing respect
"I personally don't feel I'm worthy of it"- Garret Anderson on why he's choosing not to wear number 42 on Jackie Robinson Day.
Hmmm...Sounds like Garret has respect for Jackie if you ask me.
The rest of the article on MLB.com is right here if you want to read it.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...
by Mulderfan on Apr 12, 2007 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This article was published a full week
after the article Oz is quoting went to press. It was also written by someone who cashes two checks a month with MLB's logo on them and makes no mention of the initial quotes that likely caused Lyle to write the article you linked.
That's fine journalism, there.
by devo on Apr 12, 2007 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
good point, devo
That journalism is about as poor as your fantasy team at the moment...what gives? Where's the management been? I was out of town for a few days and thus neglected the squad, but I expect more out of the Pink Sparkle Ponies than having guys on the DL in the starting lineup...
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have anyone on the DL
in the starting lineup ...
With Weaver Gagne and Garcia on the DL and a 4 rookies (plus a first year starter), I built my team to follow the A's model -- slow start, torrid finish.
by devo on Apr 12, 2007 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in that case
I hope I play you in the next few weeks then
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Week 6 and again week 19 ...
my team should be healthy for our first meeting ... but the rookies probably won't full hit their stride and/or get promoted until our week 19 meeting.
by devo on Apr 12, 2007 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would sit during the Canadian national anthem..
but I didn't think of it first. Besides, I like singing along, and sitting doesn't go along with the lyrics. Maybe I'll modify the lyrics. Hey, yeah! I thought of that first:
Oh Cana-DUH, we sit on guard for THEEEEEEEEEEE!
P.S. I love Canadians, they make great bacon, dontcha know, eh?
by McFood on Apr 12, 2007 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't understand why
people stand for the anthem. I find repulsive the very notion that you "hate" having to stand for the anthem, and, furthermore, find it insulting. Standing for the anthem is showing respect for the men and women who, in the past, made this country what it is, warts and all. You don't show support for current actions by standing, you show appreciation for those who have sacrificed their lives to build this country going all the way back to the Revolutionary War.
In this post you come across as the smug, self-righteous asshole you claim not to be.
by IndianaAsfan on Apr 13, 2007 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two things you don't seem to get:
- I'm an Australian who lives in Canada. I'm under no obligation to stand for the US National Anthem, any more than I have to pledge allegiance to the flag.
- I didn't say that one had to support present actions to stand for it, I was suggesting that when one is outraged by those actions, the inclination is to make a point of it by refusing to stand - sort of like burning a flag, even though it doesn't necessarily represent the things you're protesting.
If I stand for the US National Anthem, I do so so as to not offend those who would see my staying seated as an affront and an insult. And if you seriously think I'm the only one in that category at any given ballpark - foreign or otherwise - you're mistaken.
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
I didn't know that your were an Australian or living in Canada. I, as a US citizen, don't find anyone, not a citizen of this country, who doesn't stand for the US national anthem insulting.
I also don't think that very many US citizens find that insulting either, especially if you hate it. I appreciate your efforts to not be insulting, but sitting doesn't show disrespect.
I apologize for my uninformed critique of you.
by IndianaAsfan on Apr 13, 2007 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No apology required.
And while I consider your openness towards people refusing to stand to be refreshing, I tend to think that to stay seated takes away from the moment for others, even if I'm not into it.
Case i point, when Steve Irwin died (not to draw too far from way out left field or anything), I was pretty loud about how, as much as people might have enjoyed his show and all, he was a pretty large faker. In fact, he was an outright fraud.
But even though what I was saying was correct and factual, it was wrong of me to say it at that time, because at that moment, for most people, what was happening was a period of grief for others. For me to intrude upon it with my darn facts didn't make it about truth or setting the record straight, it just made it about me spoiling that moment for them.
That's how I feel about the National Anthem. I'd prefer not to stand, I'd much prefer to finish my beer and my conversation without having to put everything down and take off my hat and expose my hat-hair to the world - but someone would get pissed off, and that would cause a back and forth, and as we've seen in this thread today, that small moment of 'free speech' can turn into a whole swathe of backbiting when someone, somewhere, starts calling you names for no respecting what they respect.
When really, all anyone wants is for the damn anthem to finish so they can play ball.
Unrelated question: How does one become an A's fan in Indiana?
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL, good question
I'm not really sure how I became an A's fan. It started a long time ago, when I was young - very young. Then they hired Billy Martin and had Rickey Henderson running all over the place and kind of went on from there. Besides, there really isn't much else going on in Indiana (I grew up in Michigan, so that's just a poor attempt at a dig at my fellow Hoosiers).
Not a very precise answer, but it is what it is. :-)
by IndianaAsfan on Apr 13, 2007 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, Rickey is a good answer.
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i admire the way
he conducts himself on the field. this little story doesn't change my mind.
by oakath on Apr 12, 2007 7:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Angels Fans
You might find a lot of Angel fans who don't like the way GA conducts himself ON the field. Have you ever seen him run down a ball that gets past him in LF?
Off the field, GA seems to be a good man.
by Colorado Fan on Apr 12, 2007 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
#42
Wearing #42 would mean you would have to run out a ground ball, wouldn't it. GA running out a ground ball? So un-original.
by Colorado Fan on Apr 12, 2007 8:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd comment on this diary
but the topic wasn't my idea, so what's the point?
by Nico on Apr 12, 2007 8:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
the whole "appropriate" player thing is a joke
I think it is pretty silly that they want "appropriate" players to wear it.
From the list of players I've seen wearing it, is it safe to say that the only factor really being considered is if they're black or not?
I would think an "appropriate" player would be one who respects what #42 did for the game and doesn't take advantage of it. A player that gives it his all, has complete respect for the game, and is a stand up citizen that hasn't had any run ins with the league office.
You could probably find better representatives than Bonds, Bradley, or GMJ but I guess the color of their skin makes them the most "appropriate" choice.
Furthermore, is no one paying homage to the true reason Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier? Branch Rickey, the GM who actually signed Jackie Robinson, was just as much a part of breaking the barrier as Jackie Robinson.
You could even take it a step further and say he was even more instrumental than Jackie, seeing as how no one else at the time was willing to sign a black athlete. Furthermore, Rickey had the astute mind to pick Jackie out of all the black ball players. What if the first black player was someone who didn't pan out as a ball player? Would that have created more stereotypes and pushed segregation in the sport further?
Were it not for Rickey, there is no Jackie.
So let's pay respect to the past by getting Barry Bonds to wear his number. Sigh....
by fadedash on Apr 12, 2007 8:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you on this.
I whish there was some sort of thought given to who wears the number beyond simply being black and a senior player (or superstar player) at the ballclub.
I'd much rather see ROOKIES get to wear it, be they black or white, since Robinson was a rookie when he broke through, and I personally think a swathe of white players honoring Robinson would be a much bigger message.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Appropriateness"
Complete list of players:
Arizona: Orlando Hudson, Tony Clark, Eric Byrnes, Chris Young, Scott Hairston, Bob Melvin, Lee Tinsley
Atlanta: Andruw Jones
Baltimore: Corey Patterson
Boston: Coco Crisp
Chicago Cubs: Jacque Jones, Cliff Floyd, Derrek Lee, Daryle Ward
Chicago White Sox: Jermaine Dye, Harold Baines
Cincinnati: Ken Griffey Jr.
Cleveland: Josh Barfield, C.C. Sabathia
Colorado: LaTroy Hawkins
Detroit: Gary Sheffield, Curtis Granderson, Craig Monroe, Marcus Thames, Lloyd McClendon
Florida: Dontrelle Willis
Houston: Entire roster
Kansas City: Reggie Sanders, Emil Brown
L.A. Angels: Gary Matthews Jr.
L.A. Dodgers: Entire roster
Milwaukee: Bill Hall
Minnesota: Torii Hunter, Rondell White, Jerry White
N.Y Mets: Willie Randolph
N.Y. Yankees: Mariano Rivera, Robinson Cano
Oakland: Milton Bradley, Shannon Stewart, Tye Waller
Philadelphia: Entire roster
Pittsburgh: Entire roster
St. Louis: Entire roster
San Francisco: Barry Bonds
San Diego: Mike Cameron
Seattle: Arthur Rhodes, Jason Ellison
Tampa Bay: Carl Crawford
Texas: Ron Washington
Toronto: Vernon Wells, Frank Thomas, Royce Clayton, Mickey Brantley
Washington: Dmitri Young
From USA Today.
I don't believe anyone believes that Branch Rickey doesn't deserve any praise, but Robinson was the person who had to deal with the insults and the death threats. And while Rickey had the wisdom to pick Robinson, it was Robinson who was responsible for Robinson acting with dignity, grace and courage.
by rfloh on Apr 12, 2007 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love how they included Mariano Rivera.
Thanks for the list. I knew that the whole Dodgers team would be wearing them (Miller and Morgan were griping about how they wouldn't recognize anybody), but didn't know about Houston, Philly, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis.
by TurnTwo on Apr 12, 2007 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
heh
Rivera's been honoring Robinson for like 15 years now. He should wear something besides 42 this Sunday, or something.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wash representing TX
I guess that means there are 25 douchebags on the Rangers...Oz picked the wrong divisional rival to call out.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
25 douchebags on the Rangers team?
The hell you say! :)
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
heh
I'll give Ian Kinsler a free pass, he's saving my fantasy teams a week and a half into the season...24:1 still isn't a good ratio, though
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unintentional I'm sure, but...
I like that the Nationals are separated from the rest of the list by a few spaces. I think it's rather nice that a AAA team has chosen to participate as well, though.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so...
what should be done to honor Rickey (no, not that Rickey), then? I don't know, should every white GM wear a Branch Rickey mask on Sunday?
Branch Rickey was way ahead of his time and definitely deserves some credit in this "celebration." But it's not like his driving motive for signing Robinson was to open the floodgates for the integration of MLB...he wanted to win ballgames. And Robinson certainly helped him do that (if I'm not mistaken, the Dodgers lost in Game 7 of the Series in 1947). It's kind of similar to the motives surrounding the Emancipation Proclamation...sure, Lincoln sympathized with the slaves, and was happy to free them, but his main objective for signing that into law was to win the war and restore the Union.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. Every GM should wear a Rickey mask.
Rickey Henderson, that is.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Beane will be pinch running in the 9th, then.
I think that would probably be a decent move even if he wasn't wearing the mask...if you believe Moneyball lore, anyway
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but...
I definitely agree that it would be a better idea if race wasn't at all a factor in determining who wears 42. Seeing as three whole teams are supposed to wear the number, though, I guess there will be some exceptions there.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley #42?
So if Milton is going to wear #42 does that mean Stewart just conceded the privledge of honoring Jackie Robinson by wearing his number and let Milton take it? If so, does that make Stewart a douchebag for not challenging Milton to an arm wrestling match or an old fashioned duel for the chance to represent?
by methodrampage on Apr 12, 2007 9:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You're really reaching here.
Ignoring the obvious silliness of two players wearing the same number in a game, Milton has been with the team longest, thus he gets the honor.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Full disclosure:
I was wrong on this. Both Bradley AND Stewart will be wearing the number, as will Tye Waller.
I was under the impression each team selected one player to do so, but it seems entire teams are now planning to wear it, which is very damn cool.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hold on
You just said
Ignoring the obvious silliness of two players wearing the same number in a game
But it's
very damn cool
for an entire team to wear #42?
by methodrampage on Apr 12, 2007 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure.
Two players wearing the same number will be confusing.
The entire team wearing it will be mondo confusing, but I think the much larger statement (IE: black, white and otherwise players all paying the same tribute) is worth that confusion.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm digging your capacity to counter all
naysayers in this thread, Oz. Whatever side one is on, there's more intelligent conversation here than in a year's worth of HH. Or cable news. Or many media outlets. (Not that my colostomy bag comment constituted much of a contribution...)
by LAXile on Apr 12, 2007 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oz: indefagitable
but if GA played for the White Sox, his fellow Oz, the one who "manages" that squad, would subtract syllables 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 if he was asked to describe his Hollywood conterpart. Yeah, when that guy retires/gets fired, he should definitely look into giving Rev a hand over at HH.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have you ever noticed...
...you'll never see Ozzie Guillen and RevNutbar in the same room at the same time?
I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
heh
*indefatigable, by the way. Fucked that one up...Sabres' pregame hype was starting to grab my attention at that point. Ozzie/Rev would still shorten it to fag, of course.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 13, 2007 7:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or in the Rev's case... fat.
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This story was on deadspin over a week ago.
That asside I think that your criticism of Garret Anderson is completely misplaced. If the guy doesn't want to do it, he doesn't have to do it. This is America. Sure, it would be nice of him to do it, but he has his reasons for not wearing the jersey. He did not say anything disparaging about Jackie Robinson, he simply stated that he did not want to participate because he didn't want to be a follower. How do you know he doesn't appreciate what Jackie Robinson did for minorities? You are ASSUMING, that because Garret doesn't want to 'honor' Mr. Robinson by following the herd he is a douchebag. Now that is a pretty douchebag move in my opinion - your assumption.
Your criticism is so typical of the PC bullshit that is destroying free thought in this country. Because Garret disagrees with you makes him wrong, a bad guy or somehow disrespectful of Jackie Robinson? Because he is not following the crowd he is a douchebag? Get with it dude and think outside of the box.
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 12, 2007 9:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The point is not whether he chooses to wear it
It's how he explained himself. He said, I don't want to do it because I didn't think of it. That is the mark of a self-centered asshole. If he would've said that he felt as though it was a nice gesture but that he felt more comfortable honoring Jackie Robinson through his actions on the field rather than on his uniform, that's respectable and reasonable. I don't think anyone here or elsewhere would criticize that. If they did, it would be unwarranted.
by baseb3383 on Apr 12, 2007 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The thought police are coming
....it's a sad day.
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 12, 2007 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh please.
He could have done any number of things to 'retain his individuality'. Like, maybe wear a '42' on his sleeve, or the side of his helmet, or put 'Robinson' in place of his name on the back of his jersey.
This isn't about not following the crowd. It's about him.
It's all about him. And that's the problem.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why does he have to wear #42 again and what
is he getting out of not wearing that number? I really don't see how this is all about him.
Man, Oaktoon needs to come back so he can lay the smack down on you again.
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 12, 2007 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, Oaktoon smacked me down.
In BizarroWorld.
What is he getting out of not wearing the number? A lot more crap than he would if he just went ahead and wore it proudly.
And it's all about him because he MADE it about him.
He won't wear it because, and I quote, "it wasn't my idea."
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oaktoon exited so he wouldn't have to waste time
arguing over NON STORIES like this one. Self righteousness blows buddy. Or to put it in a term you will understand, it is "douchey." Did I use that correctly?
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 12, 2007 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's hard to tell.
Did you mean self-righteousness is unattractive? If so, you used it wrongly.
Did you mean it's low and hateful? In that case, you used it properly.
But no, Oaktoon didn't exit so he wouldn't have to 'waste time' arguing over non-stories. In fact, that's about all he ever did when he was here.
Fact of the matter is, he was banned. Because, not to be redundant, but he was douchey.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What does he get out of it?
Apparently nothing and if that's the only thought that went through his head, well then, I'd say he's a self centered asshole and/or a douche.
Seriously, it's fine to think this is a largely empty gesture -- but publicly scorning gestures of memorial, whether empty or not, is a very, very non-empty gesture and doing so because he didn't think of it first, well that just makes him a douche.
by devo on Apr 12, 2007 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What are you talking about?
You're completely ignoring the point. You can put things tactfully without sounding like an idiot; when you are in the public eye you need to measure your words if you care about your reputation and image. Garret didn't do that and so people will think he's an ass. The gesture could be hollow or not, the point is to at least think before you say something dumb like "it wasn't my idea, therefore I'm not going to do it."
by baseb3383 on Apr 12, 2007 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
heh
we may have typed the word "tactfully" simultaneously (see my post below)
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No one is arguing that it is a crime ...
GA can say whatever he wants and do most things that he wants, just like you would be free to call Oz a Canadian loving, commie, fag French person ...
that's the way free speech works (for celebrities). You say whatever you want and then everyone thinks you're a douche ... of course you could just keep your mouth shut ... then everyone would think you're a douce who thinks you're too good for everyone else.
But seriously, Garret Anderson = douche, regardless of how many times people hypothesize that he might do charity work.
'Your honor, my client is clearly not a douche, because the prosecution has not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he does not do community service.'
by devo on Apr 12, 2007 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh
you can take the middle ground, grant interviews but speak tactfully (or not-so-tactfully, if you can compensate by being gregarious), and come across as a humble, professional human being. Even in 2007, this is still feasible...just watch the NHL, which I'm going to do as soon as the Sabres' playoff game starts. But really, the Schillings and Bondses are few and far between compared to the, say, entire roster of the 2007 A's, for example (and yes, I'm including Bradley).
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Aaron C hit the nail on the head with his
comment earlier. Couldn't have been better put. I think that MLB is so full of empty PR related gestures (think, God Bless America at the 7th inning stretch). How about investing more in developing African American's interest and access to the game? Instead, MLB has some break out the #42 jersey day while it ignores the fact that African Americans make up only 12% of active major leaguers - the lowest percentage in years. If MLB really cared to honor Mr. Robinson's legacy it would/should reinvest the millions it makes a year in giving back to the community. How many #42 jerseys do you think they are going to try to sell out of this? Now that strikes me as "douchebag," not Garret's lack of desire to wear #42
Do you know if Garret Anderson is or is not involved in giving back to the community? I'm going to assume that you had yet to look into that when you called Mr. Anderson a douchebag. This is a NON STORY.
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 12, 2007 10:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
EVERY player does charity work.
So what? If you go to a ballgame and they play the National Anthem and the dude in front of you stays seated, keeps his cap on and says "you're all sheep", are you going to ask if he does charity work before you declare him an asshole?
I'll wager not.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
EVERY player does charity work?
you lost me with that one.
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 12, 2007 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The national anthem is a different story and
a poor analogy at that.
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 12, 2007 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And your basis for that is...?
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For Starters...
The National Anthem wasn't some sort of 'tribute' contrived by Ken Griffey Jr.
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 12, 2007 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And it doesn't involve shirt numbers. So?
The point is, it's a situation in which the majority of people think it decent to STFU, stand tall, take off their caps and pay some respect to those who it honors.
Ditto the Robinson tribute - you don't have to feel it. You don't have to love it. You didn't have to think of it.
But if you specifically set yourself aside from it, you're flipping off everyone else - Griffey or not.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then let me make it clearer for you:
Every. Player. Does. Charity. Work.
Every one of them. Every single one.
Hell, even the short season single-A rookie teams do it. Visits to children's hospitals, working in soup kitchens, reading for pre-schoolers, telling kids to stay in school, raising money for organizations and causes.
Hell, even COLLEGE ball teams do it. Even BONDS does it!
Still unclear, or should I say it in Latin for you as well?
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone who speaks in absolute terms is CLEARLY
ignorant. There are bound to be exceptions.
I think we should fire Garret Anderson for disagreeing with HollywoodOz. The moral compass of the world.
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 12, 2007 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
apparently it didn't register that "anyone who speaks in absolute terms is CLEARLY ignorant" is itself said in absolute terms.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Touche
Nicely done.
by methodrampage on Apr 12, 2007 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The sun ALWAYS rises in the east.
You tell me - are there exceptions?
Charity work is mandated by both the MLB and players union.
And, on top of that, it's a great tax deduction for people trying to limit what they pay to the government on a $3m average yearly wage.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Santa Claus says
If you're standing on the North Pole the sun rises in the south (once a year).
Also, if you're traveling west and you're moving faster than the earth is rotating, then you can see the sun rise in the west.
by iglew on Apr 12, 2007 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that changes nothing.
From where I stand, the sun continues to rise in the east.
Just because you move elsewhere, doesn't change what I see.
Einstein was a pussy.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well,Who's Going to Honor Dave Henderson?
Let's not forget our intrepid CF and HIS contributions to our championship team in 1989. I think Milton Bradley would be a good choice this sunday.
by Gerard on Apr 12, 2007 10:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I was at the ceremony when #42 was retired at Raley Field when it was first built. His family was there, the California Supreme Court, and many other dignitaries. Very moving ceremony.
Having multiple players wear the same number on jerseys that just happen to be for sale smacks of bad commercialism.
by LawDaddy on Apr 12, 2007 10:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why can't white, latino, or asian players wear 42
? Was Jackie Robinson's accomplishment a black thing only, or something that all people should celebrate? And while I'm here, let me add that without the pornstache, GA is not quite a douchebag for refusing 42, but merely something slightly less lame: Christ, what an colostomy bag. Or wait, that's worse, isn't it?
by LAXile on Apr 12, 2007 11:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They can.
I posted a complete list of players who are going to wear the number. The entire roster of 3 teams, the Astros, Dodgers and Cardinals are going to wear the number.
by rfloh on Apr 12, 2007 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
cool
by LAXile on Apr 12, 2007 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No ones commented yet...
that Eric Byrnes is in fact doing it! At least according to the list posted above. That's pretty cool, and as far as I noticed the only white guy on the list not from one of the 'all of the above' teams. Also, as mentioned there a quite a few hispanic players(Rivera, Cano, Jones, Barfield, and I'm sure some more.)
by SuperBean on Apr 12, 2007 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rivera wears it every game
The other guys are switching it up to honor Jackie, though.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty sure
Bob Melvin is white but he could just have the Michael Jackson syndrome.
by methodrampage on Apr 12, 2007 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this might belong in the DLD, but...
www.myheritage.com does picture comparisons...I wouldn't put it past them to find a Bob Melvin/Diana Ross resemblence...
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*resemblance
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention
the two White guys from Minnesota.
by sslinger on Apr 13, 2007 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
just because your first name is Torii doesn't
mean you're a White.
by LAXile on Apr 13, 2007 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What if it's Rondell?
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I bet Anderson
wouldnt wear the AIDS ribbon either.
by pickinmachine on Apr 12, 2007 11:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He didn't think of pants first...
Q. Why is he wearing pants?
A. To cover his douchebag.
by McFood on Apr 12, 2007 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Logic and reason--The Economist. Passion and Halo
...Hating fun--A's Nation.
I think Garrett Anderson is a douche bag because he is an Angel.
And I shan't be dissuaded.
by The Dogfather on Apr 12, 2007 1:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, yes.
There is that.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vlad's one two. For no particular other reason.
They seem to come in red, mostly.
by The Dogfather on Apr 12, 2007 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
GA should wear no number at all that day...
then it would be original, and again, it would be all about drawing attention to himself, which is what it's all about, and that seems to be getting lost in all the douchebag flinging that's been going on in this thread. But, thanks to that, it's as fresh as a summer breeze in here!
by McFood on Apr 12, 2007 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the economist??
oz believes the economist is the most "right wing" publication out there, and that it has no credibility.
i'd find the exact quote if i actually cared about this diary...
by xbhaskarx on Apr 13, 2007 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and that's
not just right wing, but more right wing than any other publication.
by xbhaskarx on Apr 13, 2007 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure that...
NewsMax has it beat. So there's that.
But hey, no politics, remember?
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not about politics
but the dogfather using the words "Logic and reason" to describe a magazine you the diary author dismiss as "the most right-leaning publication around"...
by xbhaskarx on Apr 13, 2007 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have to fight every statement..
...that I don't concur with.
A guy would go fairly mental if he tried, ya know?
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh, i got bored...
http://www.athleticsnation.com/comme...
by xbhaskarx on Apr 13, 2007 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, let it go.
Six months have passed.
We have better things to argue over than that tired old go-round.
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or GA should wear #2, since that is what his
comments smell of.
by LAXile on Apr 12, 2007 4:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That made me laugh way more than it should have.
Kudos!
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are there any teams w/o a black player?
It's not out of the realm of possibilities, you know.
The 2005 A's were, I believe suffering from a blackout for a month or so, between when Two Buck Chuck got demoted and when we traded for Jay Payton ...
by devo on Apr 12, 2007 4:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
when I saw Wash was the only rep...
For a second I thought Texas might be, but then I remembered that Texas just became the tenth major league team that Kenny Lofton has hit a home run for, so I don't think there are any.
Well, actually, the teams whose entire rosters are wearing 42 might not have an African-American player...off the top of my head, Philly's got Rollins and Howard, St. Louis has Preston Wilson, not so sure about LAD, Houston, or Pittsburgh; no one's coming to mind at the moment. Ok, the Dodgers have Juan Pierre, who despite his first name I believe hails from Georgia...that leaves Houston and Pitt. I'll check the depth charts.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming the pictures on MLB.com
are a fair representation of race, Houston does not have a black player, Pit has Shawn Chacon and Ian Snell.
by devo on Apr 12, 2007 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chacon
I'm thinking his roots are Dominican or Puerto Rican. Wonder how his family made their way to Anchorage, Alaska of all places.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't Kenny Lofton PLAY with Robinson?
Dude's older than Imus.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because sometimes you just get outdouched.
by JediLeroy on Apr 12, 2007 4:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
was there any doubt...
that this diary would reach 100 comments? The title was all that needed to be seen.
I think the real milestone for it would be 142. Approved by everyone but Garret Anderson.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 12, 2007 4:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Add TORI HUNTER and CC SABATHIA TO DOUCHE LIST
while you are at it HollywoodOZ.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/s...
Synopsis: Hunter and Sabathia state that the 'honor' is watered down since everyone is doing it.
Glad I'm not the only one with a little perspective and rationality on this one. HollywoodOZ, how dare they say that the 'tribute' is overkill!!! The outrage.
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 12, 2007 5:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
As has been explained ad nauseum ...
GA certainly has the right to turn down the "honor" -- it is THE WAY HE TURNED IT DOWN that makes hime a douche. That and the halo on his cap ....
by devo on Apr 12, 2007 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ad naseum, haha
have fun in college devo. You and Oz's self righteous indignent attitude turns the casual reader off. You two are on par with the Rev with a different perspective on things.
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 12, 2007 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Furthermore, if the way that Garret said
something is really that upsetting to you two you should really grow some thicker skin. Way to judge a guy by something that could have come out the wrong way, been a misquote, or for been taken out of context (which I believe you two have done). I'm sure you two ANGELS have never said anything that you didn't exactly mean or someone took out of context. The Rev could use two like you over there.
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 12, 2007 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're clearly in better position...
...to know how The Rev thinks.
Birds of a feather, and all.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The context is important here
The way you say something has a huge effect on how people interpret your personality and your way of thinking. Garret shifted the focus from something that is about honoring Jackie Robinson to the fact that he didn't think of the idea himself.
People really have been explaining this over and over and yet we're still arguing over the same point. To address your points:
-A quote is a quote; people get sued in this country if someone is misquoted. The words came out of his mouth, so he has to be accountable for that.
-The context can't be any different when Garret says "I" and "me" 5 times in 2 sentences. He put the focus on himself.
-Finally, nobody's really upset about it. We just think Garret is a douche.
-Rev is also a douche.
by baseb3383 on Apr 13, 2007 1:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Important point
I do good to point notice that person, here above, make good point (fyi, I'm doing my best to not upset SS33's feelings of educational inadequacy by using big words).
If you come to a blog and don't expect topics relevent to that blog's focus to get beat to death, you're probably kind of unclear on the concept.
Garret Anderson is a douche. Absolutely.
Does it really matter? No, not so much.
Why are we discussing it then? Because we are stuck at our desks at work and need something light to pass the time and/or ease the stress of the work day.
Finally, if anyone has ever watched cable news, it's quite clear that self righteous indignation sells quite well. It's entertaining television but poor journalism. Fortunately, I'm not being a journalist ... so poor journalism isn't really a strike against me.
by devo on Apr 13, 2007 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You and Oz are arguing semantics
You can't expect a professional athlete to be as well spoken as Jackie Chiles. I posit that the feeling behind GA's "I didn't think of it" is the same as expressed by Hunter & Sabathia. However, GA is more in the right IMO because all he did was refuse to wear the number while Hunter & Sabathia are criticizing others for doing so...which puts them in Oz territory.
by As Man on Apr 12, 2007 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
Is it so wrong to expect a public figure to speak decently and show some humility? It's pretty basic from my viewpoint; don't speak like a self-centered douche and you won't be considered one. Hunter and Sabathia actually had explanations that didn't revolve around themselves; they felt that it wasn't honoring Jackie Robinson. I respect their assertions regardless of whether I agree with them or not.
by baseb3383 on Apr 13, 2007 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
Yes, at this point, it is wrong to expect professional athletes to be articulate. On the other hand, it is right to expect more from baseball players than NBA players in terms of speaking ability...For example, if Monta Ellis had tried to say what GA said, he would have said "I ain't think of it."
by As Man on Apr 13, 2007 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ORLY?
1/3 of the league can't even speak english.
by methodrampage on Apr 13, 2007 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well said
by baseb3383 on Apr 13, 2007 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You really wanna hang your hat on that?
FYI, Hunter and Sabathia are going to wear Robinson's number.
So no matter what they say about it, they have the common decency not to spit on the honor by refusing it.
Common decency... look it up.
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pissed that Bonds gets to wear it.
That's a disgrace to Jackie Robinson's memory.
by larrysgurl on Apr 12, 2007 8:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You have to be kidding
Garret Anderson said he didn't think he was "worthy" of wearing Jackie's 42, and that makes him disrespectful? Can you blame him for thinking the '42' jesture has become watered down when five entire teams are going to have all their players wear the number? The St. Louis Cardinals, who threatened to boycott games against the Dodgers because of Robinson, and the Astros, who didn't exist when Robinson played, are all
"honoring" Robinson wearing the number 42. So is it ridiculous for Anderson to say that the tribute is "empty" or "watered down?" Of course it is. Garret Anderson hates Jackie Robinson
by Nick86 on Apr 12, 2007 8:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Respect timelines. They're your friend.
One week ago: original story comes out with quote that he didn't want to do it because 'he didn't think of it'.
Since: Rest of league puts their hand up to join in, so now the excuse is "it's watered down".
When Anderson said no, there were five (count 'em) five people in the entire league who were down to take part.
What will the excuse be tomorrow? That he wants to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here? The search for WMD? Spreading freedom?
by Ozzz on Apr 12, 2007 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Empty gestures
Why is the gesture "empty" or "watered down" if more people want to honour Jackie Robinson? We're not talking about whether a good but not great player is HOF worthy or not; or whether hitting 500 HRs is still a supreme achievement. Couldn't you argue that, the fact that so many people want to honour Robinson makes the gesture all that impressive as it means that many people recognise Robinson's achievments?
I'm not saying that GA is a db.
by rfloh on Apr 13, 2007 1:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you could argue that...
if they showed any evidence that they cared about Jackie and his accomplishments previous to this league-sanctioned event...of course, that also depends on what you consider "caring" to mean. If statements that show awareness of and appreciation for Robinson constitute caring in your mind, then that would make a lot more guys "eligible" to wear 42 than if you considered those same statements to be mere lip service.
Then again, the obvious counterargument to the above would be to use that last sentence as a parallel for the jersey situation rather than a prerequisite of sorts...in other words, instead of deciding on some standard of previous caring determined by how seriously you take verbal tributes, which implicitly places more value on the act of jersey wearing than the act of speaking, well, what makes wearing a jersey to commemorate Robinson any different from speech? It's symbolic speech, really, if you listen to the Supreme Court, not that you really should listen to the Supreme Court. Still, you needn't presuppose that the jersey gesture is "serious" while some speech may or may not be; if one is, then the other is, and vice versa.
Ok, enough of that train of thought...I don't even know if I'm going to want to read through what I just wrote.
Anyway, when five entire teams are sporting #42, cool as that may be, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that all 125 players from those teams are fully onboard with the idea. If those teams hadn't agreed as a unit (or however else the decision was made) to honor Jackie in that way, well, judging from the USA Today list you linked to, you might expect an average of two to three guys from those teams to wear 42.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 13, 2007 7:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would you assume that there are players
on the 5 teams what are not fully on board with the idea? I might be wrong, but what I've read indicates that the Cardinals at least, made their decision, based on the initiative of the players; not the manager or GM.
Yes, it is possible that the other 4 teams put pressure on the players to do, but why would they do so? Why would all the other teams, whose entire rosters are not going to wear the number, not do so then?
As for "caring", why does "eligibility" matter? Again, this isn't some exclusive club, where you must prove that you belong. As long as a MLB player wants to do it, he should be "eligible"
I'm not sure how different types of speech have to do with this. I'm not stating that speech via wearing a jersey number is more, or less special than say, verbal speech declaring that "Jackie Robinson rulez 111!!!"
by rfloh on Apr 13, 2007 7:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Astros may have had less pure
motives ...
by devo on Apr 13, 2007 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
speculation:
--Dodgers being the team that Robinson played for, they're almost expected to all wear #42 come Sunday, if not also announce that Jeff Kent has been designated for assignment or forced to retire.
--Astros could be covering for the fact that they don't have a single African-American player on the roster (which I think is what devo was alluding to), though they have some veterans like Ausmus who would probably be happy to be the team's representative...or a guy like Carlos Lee, since Robinson did pave the way for "Latin Americans who were black", as Maury Wills put it.
--Pirates have a young squad who might not really know any better ("Who's Jackie Robinson? Who's Roberto Clemente?" etc), and...
--Jimmy Rollins might have made it clear to his teammates that they were all going to be wearing #42.
The last scenario is kind of what I envisioned for most/all of the teams actually...a few guys suggesting that everyone wears 42, then everyone else agreeing. That's cool, but it's not really the initiative of the entire team, just of a vocal few players.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 13, 2007 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm aware that the Astros do not have
a single African-American player. Not trying to be condescending, but just because Carlos Lee is not white-skinned does not mean that he has African ancestry. Regardless, I'm not sure how this act would cover the Astros lack of African-American players. If someone wanted to fault them for that, they still would.
A young squad that does "not really know any better"? What exactly does that mean? The DRays and the Brewers also have young squads; should they also "not really know any better"?
Jimmy Rollins? Not the MVP? In either case, one could argue that Barry Lamar Bonds, or Derek Lee, or any other African American superstar, could also have pressured his teammates to wear the number. Yet only 4 teams in their entirety, are going to wear the number.
As for the last scenario, that's debating the semantics of "initiative of the entire team". What if say, half the team made the suggestion, and the other half merely agreed, would you then consider this as a team initiative?
by rfloh on Apr 13, 2007 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
5 teams in their entirety.
Stupid typos.
by rfloh on Apr 13, 2007 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm glad you weren't trying to be condescending..
when you said
just because Carlos Lee is not white-skinned does not mean that he has African ancestry
because that would make you look quite foolish, since I quoted Maury Wills in my above description of Lee as falling into the category of "Latin Americans who are black." You could also scroll up to the comment I made yesterday at 7:41 where I pointed out that Shawn Chacon was not actually African-American, despite having a listed birthplace of Anchorage, AK to go along with his complexion, as further evidence that I didn't make the error of thinking Lee was African-American.
I mentioned Lee here because a less obvious aspect of Robinson's legacy was that he did in fact pave the way for Latin Americans as well as African Americans to play in the MLB. So I thought that if the Astros were to hypothtically choose a representative rather than select the whole team, Lee might make a logical choice.
All of that aside, that post was all baseless speculation on my part (hence the title). I was doing my best to provide team-specific reasons for those franchises that have decided to be unified in their 42-wearing if I was forced to guess, not because I truly thought those were the reasons that each team decided to. Though in defense of my Phillies' speculation, I chose Rollins over Howard as the hypothetical organizer because he's known to be more vocal, has seniority over Howard, and is involved in more publicized efforts to promote baseball in the black community.
The Pirates were the team I went out on a limb the most for. But, frankly, they have a lot of young white guys; the Devil Rays and Brewers may be young, but they have several African-Americans on their rosters. In the most recent ESPN Magazine, Carl Crawford was interviewed, along with Rollins and CC Sabathia, about ways to popularize baseball among blacks (I found it pretty funny when Crawford said he was a "nobody" when he went back to his neighborhood)....
Anyway...I still assume that all five of those teams decided collectively to wear #42...but as with any situation involving a large group coming to an agreement, that doesn't mean that everyone was involved with the decision. It would vary from team to team, but I'm guessing there were quite a few people who passively complied.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 13, 2007 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*hypothetically
I hear you...stupid typos
by Cutthemullet on Apr 13, 2007 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My issue was only with
with the Maury Wills quote.
I understood the point of your post. Debating this is much more fun than debating "Fire Geren Now" or "Fire Van Burkleo now" posts. I was just nitpicking that it does not seem reasonable to me that only 3 teams, and not more, would "force" their entire rosters to do this.
Passive complicity is still complicity.
by rfloh on Apr 13, 2007 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
clarification
That entire last post was in response to:
Couldn't you argue that, the fact that so many people want to honour Robinson makes the gesture all that impressive as it means that many people recognise Robinson's achievments?
and you might want to revise the first part of my post, starting with the subject, to "you could make that argument...if all these wannabe participants had shown..."
by Cutthemullet on Apr 13, 2007 7:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cards/'Stros
What does the history of those franchises have to do with the current members of those teams? By that logic, no one on the Blue Jays, Nationals, Diamondbacks, Devil Rays, etc should be allowed to wear 42 because they too didn't exist, and as for teams that threatened to boycott games against the '47 Dodgers, I doubt the Cards were the only one. You could even say that having the entire Cards team wear 42 is extra atonement for the past wrongs of that team....
Or, in Oz's terms...respect timelines, they're your friend:
__________________________________________________
1947 1970 birth of 1980 birth of 2007
Jim Edmonds Albert Pujols
by Cutthemullet on Apr 13, 2007 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jeff Kent to Wear No. 42 to Honor Mariano Rivera
(courtesy of the Onion, but appropriate here, speaking of douchebags)
Though all the players on the Los Angeles Dodger roster will be wearing No. 42 on April 15 to commemorate the anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking Major League Baseball's color barrier, Dodger third-baseman Jeff Kent told reporters yesterday that he will wear the much-celebrated number to honor Yankee great and future Hall of Famer Mariano Rivera. "Mariano is easily my favorite pitcher, and I think it's wonderful that I finally have the opportunity to show how much he has meant to both me and to the game of baseball," said Kent, adding that Rivera is "the greatest player to ever don the No. 42 jersey." "Most important, he made it possible for Panamanians everywhere not to be afraid to chase their dreams." Kent added that he hoped Major League Baseball would eventually "get their act together" and retire No. 42 for good, which he feels would be the ultimate tribute to Rivera.
by timed exposure on Apr 12, 2007 8:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That is SOOOOOO wrong!
Kent is a second-baseman.
by Philip Christy on Apr 13, 2007 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
good stuff
by Cutthemullet on Apr 13, 2007 7:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the Garret Anderson's of the World
who elect not to follow the crowd. An individual free thinking man is what I most admire. The people who annoy me are the one's who write post like this..
by sf drift king on Apr 13, 2007 12:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That's fine
We aren't arguing that point though. We're saying the way he did it makes him a jerk. I admire individuals too, and he could have had acceptable answers that didn't revolve around himself.
by baseb3383 on Apr 13, 2007 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So sorry
And to the rest of you, there's a war going on and you're worried about whether a millionair wears a jersey? YOu need to evaluate what's more important in life.
by sf drift king on Apr 13, 2007 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
now that is a truly crappy argument
there are people starving in ethiopia, how can you post comments on some baseball blog? YOU need to evaluate what's more important in life. and how many homeless people have you fed today? not enough.
by xbhaskarx on Apr 13, 2007 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(golf clap)
There are several wars going on.
Thankfully, some of us can bemoan them and chew gum (and post on blogs) at the same time.
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uhhh, I'm just borrowing
a line from the liberal left baby.. You don't like it when it's thrown back at ya.
..and the answer is ZERO. There shouldn't be any homeless people in San Francisco. But it's your policies that keep them that way.
I'm out.
by sf drift king on Apr 13, 2007 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or
it's there lack of work ethic that keeps them that way. But that's neither here nor there.
by methodrampage on Apr 13, 2007 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
uh... or mental ilness, ptsd, etc.
by xbhaskarx on Apr 13, 2007 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's true.
xbhaskarx is the decider.
by jeepers on Apr 13, 2007 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When did this become about liberalism?
Sheesh. Leave it at baseball, huh?
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, okay
i don't see where it's used here, but if that is an oz argument, it's a bad one.
and i don't want to get in a political discussion, but even if you're right and it is SF's policies that "keep [homeless people] that way", that wouldn't somehow make individuals feeding homeless people a bad idea, would it?
---
and when you say "you don't like it when it's thrown back at ya" and "your policies", you don't mean ME do you?
by xbhaskarx on Apr 13, 2007 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The SF city gov.
takes all of its policies straight from The Economist's playbook.
by mikeA on Apr 13, 2007 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no wonder those right wingers endorsed kerry
by xbhaskarx on Apr 13, 2007 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suspect he means 'us liberals'.
Congrats XB, you've become 'one of us'!
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
free thinking...
or ignorant?
I'm not implying anything, just asking. Sometimes it's really hard to tell the difference between the two.
Plural nouns those are, not plural possessives...you can scratch the apostrophes. Pardon me if you're just electing not to follow the rules of grammar.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 13, 2007 7:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, so Garret is 'free thinking' for saying no.
But I'm 'annoying' for having the free thought to say 'douche'.
Hey, free thinker. Next time the traffic light says 'stop', why don't you just hit the gas and roar right on through?
I'm sure the police will respect your 'free thinking' ways.
And hey, if you pass a funeral, be a free thinker and start yelling "DEEEEEAAAAAD GUUUUUUUUUUY!" over and over again. The mourners will totally dig how much of a free spirit you are. It'll be awesome - respect all round.
And when you pass a hottie in the street, be sure to show how 'free' you are by squeezing her punani. She'll totally be down with your Che side.
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You guys=NAZIs! There, can we close this thread?
I don't wanna have to go looking for green and gold douche bag images. And I don't want to post the little racer guy, so can we please just get along (out of here)?
by The Dogfather on Apr 13, 2007 7:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Calling people Nazis is always a good way
to bring a conversation to a tidy close. Let's start it up, again, folks! Among the many differences between "you guys" and real Nazis is that Nazis tattooed numbers on people while "you guys" talk about what it means to honor the achievements by voluntarily wearing the jersey number of a man whom the Nazis wanted to tattoo.
by LAXile on Apr 13, 2007 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
thank you for being a Nazi/you guys sympathizer
by Cutthemullet on Apr 13, 2007 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he meant 'nutsy'
But even then, that's some really bad spelling...
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rev. OZ,
just let it go buddy, let it go.
by SwisherSweet33 on Apr 13, 2007 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who the hell are you?
Have you run out of Dancing With The Stars episodes on the Tivo? Don't you have a Neopet to feed or something?
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
cut us some slack...
it's been a while since Tim Hardaway made any public statements.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 13, 2007 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
/sigh This is the best green DB I can find...
Godwin's Law surrenders.
by The Dogfather on Apr 13, 2007 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
as well it should...
"It is considered poor form to raise arbitrarily such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin'...
Seeing as I'd never heard of Godwin's Law before, you probably could've gotten away with it, heh.
But hey, I think you made up for it with that picture...goatee, diesel T-shirt, facial expression, obvious Napoleon complex...this guy fits the mold. I don't know where you go searching for "pictures of green and gold douchebags", but you nabbed one right there.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 13, 2007 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, green and gold-diggers DB
Google is our friend.
by The Dogfather on Apr 13, 2007 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
re: update
I have an appt, so I'll make this quick...
This is pretty much a 50/50 split in opinion, with some people undecided. Way to acknowledge that, Rev.
by Cutthemullet on Apr 13, 2007 10:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Meh.
Given that the article was dated 4/5, I think he probably didn't know the extent to which MLB was going to plaster #42 over everyone's backs, and made a miscalculation. I don't think it makes him a "douchebag."
by jeepers on Apr 13, 2007 11:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You know, I could take that.
If he came out and said it.
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
More meh, for me.
I just read the 4/12 article...sounds like upon further reflection, he decided he had reasons for not wanting to wear it. Unless it can be shown to me that his 4/5 statement wasn't a quick response to a direct question, I'm not particularly aggravated. He could have handled it better, but I don't think he's being particularly self-absorbed or entitled about the whole thing.
by jeepers on Apr 13, 2007 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
eww, yuck
This is the shittiest topic ever.
by kotsaykid on Apr 13, 2007 12:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That was insightful.
by jeepers on Apr 13, 2007 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not insightful,
but it made me laugh. +1 for kotsaykid.
by mikeA on Apr 13, 2007 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looking at your sig line..
...obsessed with poop much?
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Halos Heaven just pulled your punk card... LOL
When Matthews pulls on No. 42 on Sunday in Boston, flipping the numbers normally on the back of his jersey, Anderson will offer his full support -- and remember Robinson in his own way, as he did when he began to come of age as a young man developing a talent for the game Jackie changed on April 15, 1947, when he graced the Brooklyn Dodgers' lineup for the first time.
"I know pretty much everything Jackie's done," Anderson said, seated at his locker at Miller Park before a game against the Cleveland Indians. "I look at what he did with his life, using baseball as a platform to accomplish what he wanted socially, and it was bigger than baseball -- much bigger.
"He represented equality, not just for black people, but for Latin people and others from across the waters. It was the time of civil rights in this country, and he stood tall and carried a heavy weight for all people.
"That's what I take from his life -- and that's why I feel unworthy of wearing his number. I feel it's his number -- it's retired. But if other guys want to do it, I'll tip my cap to them. I don't downplay any of those other players. We all have our own way of expressing how we feel about things."
by sf drift king on Apr 13, 2007 2:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
game, set, match.
could there be anything worse than losing an argument with HHers?
by xbhaskarx on Apr 13, 2007 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Game set nothing.
His words were "I didn't think of it."
Now that he's copped grief, he changes his words.
"The war was about WMD... I mean links with terrorism... I mean stopping a tyrant... I mean spreading liberty..."
Changing your argument after you've been called on your shit is just an easy way out.
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what you're saying is ...
Garret Anderson is qualified to be President?
by devo on Apr 13, 2007 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nooooooooo!
Not nearly rich enough.
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's all semantics to me
Whatever. As much as I loathe the Angels and the HHers, on this point, I don't really care. If Anderson doesn't want to wear it --whatever his reason, then so be it. The whole point is honoring Robinson, I hope that's the message that comes through to those attending games this weekend.
by GreenNGoldForMe on Apr 13, 2007 3:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You've raised the level of discourse.
I disagree with your opinion, but I respect the way you floated it.
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really care, either ...
it's just amusing to call GA a douche ...
by devo on Apr 13, 2007 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is the greater point missed by so many.
Casey Kotchman's a douche too. Just 'cos.
by Ozzz on Apr 13, 2007 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
