Following up on today's discussion
by PaulThomas on Jun 12, 2008 6:14 PM PDT
Email
PrintAll content from this post has been removed in accordance with my decision to leave Athletics Nation. It is my sad duty to report that I no longer wish to create content for, or share it with, this site as currently run. I cannot, in good conscience, square the site's policies with what I consider to be the bare minimum requirements for free and fair discussion, and I have no wish to engage in unfree and unfair discussion. Goodbye.
61 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
CORRECTION
the blog doesn’t belong to Jason Whitlock. it’s mine. Glad you like it, nonetheless. Thanks for linking to it.
Agents are in a cutthroat business
Before we cry too many tears for Sosnick we should remember that athletes dump agents all the time, and agents both gain and lose in these deals.
Sosnick was the agent who negotiated the $2.98 million signing bonus for Hochevar with the Dodgers after Hochevar dumped Boras. Hochever later changed his mind and went back to Boras and ultimately reentered the draft. Hochevar claimed later that Sosnick put undue pressure on him. No idea if that is true, but is undeniably true that Sosnick saw no problem with wedging his way into a fat commission on a $2.98 million signing bonus after Boras had been Hochever’s pre-draft “advisor” for free.
I have no problem with Hamilton dumping his agent if he was not happy with him or thinks that another agent will be able to negotiate a better contract., and I don’t feel any particular sympathy for Sosnick. I do have a problem with Hamilton using a “Jesus dream” as an excuse rather than admit the truth. Man up, Hamilton!
I believe Hamilton...
which is simultaneously less cynical and much scarier…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
back to the issue
The issue, as I wrote about it, was less about religion (though that’s the obvious hot-button) and more about the fact that an agent all but delivered a big contract for his client to sign, only to have the client then punt the agent.
It’s as if you were househunting. Your real estate broker spent a year with you, taking you from house to house. Finally he/she found you a great house and help negotiate an even better price. At the last minute, you changed agents and bought the house at the previously agreed-to price. The agent you tossed earned that commission even if you closed with another agent.
Are sports agents ruthless and often act in despicable ways? You betchya. But, if someone does the work for his client and takes them to the precipice of a big contract, he should have a right to claim those pending commissions as “earned”.
The fact that Hamilton hid behind religion diverts the attention. What if he made it a black/white issue (even though that’s not the case here)? Would that change it? I don’t care what Hamilton’s reason is. If he believes what he told Sosnick, that’s great. I’m not one to stand in the way of anyone’s religious beliefs, so long as you don’t push it on me. But, if you had a guy working for you since 1999, helping you thru your darkest days, and then summarily dump him on his ass due to a dream you had, shafting him out of rightly earned commissions, well that just sucks. I don’t know of any religion that encourages you to screw over those who have helped you when you were down.
And no, I am NOT Jason Whitlock. About 100 pounds lighter and many shades lighter. And living much further East than KC.
What is your actual name?
I’d like to correct the fanpost…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Check.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I know the commandments of the Lord are supposed to be true and righteous, but that implies that either he’s wrong about this instruction being from the Lord, or the Bible is, because it ain’t true and righteous.
Paul, I respect most of what you post. I really do. But as an obvious non-Christian, I doubt that you’re the authority on Biblical interpretation. I say that with all due respect.
I generally bemoan the profusion of Mr Sabermetric Sporks in the Scrabble ranks who don't know the meaning or usage of 50% of the words they use. -monkeyball
I think I'm just as well qualified to do it as 99% of the people who attempt it
i.e. the percentage of the population that didn’t go to divinity school…
If hamhanded Bible interpretation was a crime, half of the American South would be incarcerated.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Only half?
You might want to expand your scope.
by TheRaiderWay on Jun 13, 2008 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions
what about japhethhanded Bible interpretation?
Is it prurient? I don’t know what to tell you. I think it’s odd and interesting. It’s part of life. @('.')@
The reference to the american south
is a little hamhanded, too, but as a long-time southerner, i’ll grant that your general point is correct. One issue not addressed here is the behavior of the new agent, and as a long-time southerner, i can assure you that the “i’ll be doing business in a christian way” is a common marketing strategy in regions where self-identification with one’s faith is strong. And let me add from personal knowledge, that the lawyers, insurance agents, et al who identify this way are privately as cynical and frank about their motives as any other group of shysters i have ever met.
by Hot Cup Joe on Jun 13, 2008 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions
As I said on the other thread...
Bible-thumping + me = truculence. It’s practically a chemical reaction.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
The many faith-based economic scams
that reoccur regularly in my old home town would not do much to change your opinions. While i am suspicious of the agent who is benefitting from hamilton’s dream, i also want to express sympathy for the player himself. He must understand that his grip on sobriety is a tenuous one, and if he thinks this will help, who’s going to argue?
by Hot Cup Joe on Jun 13, 2008 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
too many big words
what does truculence mean? I’m to lazy to go to the dictionary website.
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
I'm assuming it's similar to truculent-which I understand is defined this way:
Say you have a truck, and I need to borrow it-that’s a truculent.
-thank you Don Meredith.
"Camelot sure fell apart, didn't it?"-Steve McCatty
Qualification to dicuss the bible.
My opinion is, experience has been, that people who are open minded and fairly intelligent in general tend to understand what the Bible says, regardless of whether they believe it. And the opposite is true as well. I know atheists (or as they like to be called, agnostics) that have read the bible numerous times, gotten degrees in religion, and just generally understand what the Bible stands for. I’ve also known people from my past churches and groups who are in leadership-type positions that, at least in my opinion, don’t get - at all - the point of the Bible. I remember one incident at a function I was at where I said to someone at the end of the discussion something to the extent of “you really don’t have a clue what the Bible is saying, do you!” only to see him introduced as the new youth director 2 days later. Generally, I’m not sure I see a high correlation between “Judaeo-Christian -ness” and a deep understanding of the Bible. If someone goes into it with an open mind, is moderately intelligent, and actually studies it, there’s no reason to believe they can’t grasp what the Bible is saying, regardless of whether they believe it.
I understand where you're coming from
..and to a certain extent agree. Non-Christians are definitely able to learn and understand many aspects of the Bible.
It bothers me, though, to see people that don’t “get” something acting as experts on it. PaulThomas may have studied the Bible and Christianity for years. I really don’t know. He may feel qualified to discuss the principles Christianity, but I disagree with that assessment. Many people, myself included, feel that you have to actually faithfully live the principles in the Bible to fully understand what they mean. Only after your obedience to and study of certain principles does the deeper meaning surface.
Non-Christians often criticize the Christian God for his supposed inconsistency. How can he be both merciful and just? Why will he spare some people but condemn others (sometimes whole populations at war or in a natural disaster) to death? Non-Christians offen try to find black-and-white Biblical interpretations where none are possible.
I will not argue whether or not certain principles are true—that will go nowhere quickly. Where non-Christians see contradictory behavior, Christians do not. Certain passages of scripture have multiple applications that can be discovered through study and prayer. Christian belief is that while God and his laws don’t change, human needs do. Something that applied to one person three thousand years ago might need to be adapted to the challenges of our times. My point is that black-and-white interpretations of the Bible are not always possible. Those who make an honest effort to understand what their God requires of them and which choices they should make have a problem when people who don’t even believe in the same God tell them what they supposedly believe and what their God says they should do. Especially when they believe that true scriptural understanding can’t be had without faith in that same God.
In response to the idea that his agent stuck with him through trials: maybe so. Maybe he was extremely supportive. Maybe he wasn’t, though. We don’t really know. His agent will obviously say that he was, but that’s what he gets paid to do. Why wouldn’t he stick with him when there was the possibility of a huge pay day? Maybe Hamilton didn’t feel like he was a good influence, as others have said. Maybe he just wanted someone who “got” him (as a side note, I disagree with agents that market their Christianity—it’s like having money changers in the temple).
It seems to me that people are more upset with the idea that someone got shafted out of a lot of money in the name of Christianity. It really sucks that he didn’t get that payday, and that someone else swooped in. Christianity, however, is not about making sure your friends or business colleagues get money. Heeding a revelation from your God is much more important to a Christian than making sure someone gets a huge payday (and also more important than the feelings of a friend).
Now, if Hamilton’s lying about the Jesus dream, then we’ve got a whole other issue on our hands.
I generally bemoan the profusion of Mr Sabermetric Sporks in the Scrabble ranks who don't know the meaning or usage of 50% of the words they use. -monkeyball
Well, as I often say, at least we've clarified the issue
Heeding a revelation from your God is much more important to a Christian than making sure someone gets a huge payday (and also more important than the feelings of a friend).
Before I start ranting, I will give you a chance: do you, personally, believe this to be the case? Or are you just stating what you think Josh Hamilton believes?
As for the first section, I’m laboring mightily to keep this to baseball-related topics, but I will say that I found it offensive, glib and highly convenient. I know Christianity would love to be immune from criticism, but thankfully the First Amendment isn’t a dead letter just yet.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Perhaps it's best if we just let it go.
I’d rather this not blow up more than it has.
I generally bemoan the profusion of Mr Sabermetric Sporks in the Scrabble ranks who don't know the meaning or usage of 50% of the words they use. -monkeyball
For the record..
I’m not making any judgements as to what’s true or correct. I am merely stating what much of the Christian world believes. You have every right to say that you think something is unethical, and also that you think that it’s unethical by Christian standards.
My whole point in this is that Hamilton might not think the way you do about what’s good or bad. And while you may feel that your feelings and beliefs are justified, they are just your feelings and beliefs.
I generally bemoan the profusion of Mr Sabermetric Sporks in the Scrabble ranks who don't know the meaning or usage of 50% of the words they use. -monkeyball
(sorry, misspelled judgments)
I generally bemoan the profusion of Mr Sabermetric Sporks in the Scrabble ranks who don't know the meaning or usage of 50% of the words they use. -monkeyball
Variant spelling
Either one is correct…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Judgement v. Judgment
On my very first day of law school, a few of the 2nd year students sat my orientation group down and taught us two things:
(1) Never show up unprepared to Prof. Zierdt’s class, and (2) never spell judgment with an “e.”
But yeah, I think it’s OK to spell it either way, in the absence of professors and crusty old judges.
Well, here's the problem
I DON’T think it’s unethical by Christian standards. (In fact, I think it IS ethical by Christian standards.) I think the Christian standards are themselves unethical.
The latter point is kind of a non sequiter. I know Hamilton doesn’t share my opinions, because if he did, he wouldn’t have hosed Sosnick. In the fiat-enabled world in which he actually reads these conversations, however, I might change his mind. And more to the point, I might change the mind of someone else who concurred with him.
Not very likely, I grant you. But more likely than if I don’t even bother trying.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
That is a completely valid point
I respect your opinion about Christian standards; I won’t try to convince you otherwise.
As you probably know a Christian’s relationship with Christ is paramount. Turning down what he took to be a revelation would be like spitting in his God’s face. Nobody’s asking you to adopt his philosophy.
In Hamilton’s mind, he’s doing what he thinks is right. I’m not saying that he’s right, only that he’s trying to do what’s right. Provided that he’s not lying, of course.
I generally bemoan the profusion of Mr Sabermetric Sporks in the Scrabble ranks who don't know the meaning or usage of 50% of the words they use. -monkeyball
Further, let me edit: Non-Christians should say "opponents of Christianity"
I generally bemoan the profusion of Mr Sabermetric Sporks in the Scrabble ranks who don't know the meaning or usage of 50% of the words they use. -monkeyball
Hamilton and his agent.
I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t been following the discuss a ton on this matter, so I could be wrong about this. But my understanding is that Hamilton fired Sosnick because he wanted a Christian agent representing him. I say that having absolutely zero idea of what religion Sosnick is. Correct me if I’m wrong about any of this.
Now, regarding whether Hamilton screwed over Sosnick, my first thoughts centered on his addiction history. I know I’ve had addiction issues in my family (both relatives and in-laws), just like I’m sure many people here have had. I’ve also worked as a counselor-type at a rehab center for teenagers. The one thing that I saw the kids struggle with most is the people they associate with, and how they need to basically walk away from all of them. The ones who struggled with it but knew they had to do so were the ones I believed would be more likely to succeed. The ones who took the approach that “hey, my friends do meth but I won’t”, I really didn’t have a ton of hope for. Now, that’s not to say that Sosnick has anything at all to do with his drug problem. But if Hamilton believes he needs to surround himself with Christian influences in order to stay clean, I would think that his agent would be one of those people he would want to be a positive influence on him. After all, it was Christianity that lead to his sobriety. People finally get sober for all sorts of reasons, but sometimes it’s because of religion—I’ve seen firsthand what Teen Challenge (Christian rehab program) has done for a family member. So maybe he’s just trying to surround himself with positive influences. I have no idea at all whether Sosnick was or not, but I at least could understand Hamilton’s thinking if that’s the case.
Additionally, if Hamilton is now truly a Christian - and I have no reason to believe he is not - perhaps he wants his agent to conduct himself similarly. Again, I don’t know Sosnick, but if Hamilton wants his agent to put faith above all else, that’s pretty much his right. If Sosnick doesn’t conduct himself as Hamilton believes an agent should, why should feel obligated to Hamilton stay with him out of loyalty? As a lawyer, I know firsthand just how few Christians (or devout believers of any religion) there are in the profession. Perhaps he just wants to find someone who will be able to understand Hamilton’s priorities. And remember that when he does negotiate his next contract, his value is going to be influenced greatly by his addiction history. Frankly, I’d be hesitant to give him a long term deal, given the high rate of relapse for addiction. Hamilton is going to need to be in a place that is good for him mentally and spiritually if he hopes to stay clean. Going to some big market for $100M isn’t going to do him any good if he’s out of baseball or dead in two years.
I don’t know Sosnick, or why he might not be the best agent for Hamilton, but I do believe that Hamilton is entitled to pick an agent based on his religion if that’s what he wants to do. If Sosnick meets all the criteria Hamilton wants in another agent, and Sosnick didn’t do anything against Hamilton’s beliefs, then perhaps Hamilton really is a hypocrite. But I don’t know nearly enough about the situation to make the determination right now.
It's not the fact that he's changing agents that chaps my ass
It’s the fact that he’s doing it right before signing a large contract that said agent worked desperately to get for him, to the point of staying with him when any reasonable businessman could have said “You know what, you’re not worth the time I’m spending on you.”
You’re giving Hamilton far too much credit for intelligence here, IMO. Remember, this is a guy who is about to change agents because of a dream. Not because of some rational calculation that Sosnick was a “bad influence” (which, given what we know about the guy, seems like a totally preposterous calculation in any case). A dream.
(I’m assuming here that Hamilton is telling the truth, because if he isn’t, he’s a disingenuous asshole, which is even worse.)
I really think the best way to handle this would be for Hamilton to pay a double commission on his next contract. Let’s face it, if the guy can’t handle having $400 in his wallet, what’s he going to do with millions of dollars? It’s the ethical thing to do, and it might just be the rational thing, too, not that that value appears to be weighted too highly on the Josh Hamilton scale.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
forget about religion for a moment
the religion is not the point, so much as we’re making it here.
The point is, Hamilton is dumping his agent at the 11th hour before he signs a mega-contract that his agent (since 1999, I believe) essentially negotiated.
Hamilton is free to choose whomever he’s most comfortable with. he could have chosen Bozo the Freakin’ Clown as his agent and the discussion’s thrust doesn’t change. He did so at a point in time where he’d be shafting the guy who has worked on his behalf since 1999… and that sucks.
What if Hamilton was black and his dream said he needs to be in “a black stable” rather than “in a Christian stable”? Or what if Sosnick was black? Can you imagine the hue and cry about racism if THAT happened. Think about that again. What if Sosnick was black?
I mention that to again try to steer the focus from religion for a moment, though I know it’s impossible to do so.
or what if Sosnick was ...
Is it prurient? I don’t know what to tell you. I think it’s odd and interesting. It’s part of life. @('.')@
Ah. Now I see.
PT, I had been unsure about what you meant when you commented in the postgame thread that you think Hamilton’s a bigot.
After reading up a bit, I understand entirely now, and I agree with you 100% (though I’d use another, more specific, term.)
Is it prurient? I don’t know what to tell you. I think it’s odd and interesting. It’s part of life. @('.')@
Which one?
(I’m not aware of any one-word epithet meaning “Christian/religious chauvinist”...)
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I'm not thinking of what Hamilton's in favor of, but what he's opposed to
Is it prurient? I don’t know what to tell you. I think it’s odd and interesting. It’s part of life. @('.')@
I’m going to write a fanpost entitled “Is the relentless fetishizing of abstruseness on the blog unavoidable?”
so long as I'm around, it is
Is it prurient? I don’t know what to tell you. I think it’s odd and interesting. It’s part of life. @('.')@
sosnick
called into fitz and brooks one day talking about dontrelle willis. he sounds like a great guy and tells it like it is. he essentially spoke about the evils of being a sports agent and that he didn’t do some of the slimeball things that other guys (boras, dan fegan in basketball, drew rosenhaus in football, etc.) do.
i feel for the guy, after he is about to cash in after nine years of hard work and staying true to himself and to hamilton.
"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006
To divert back to Milton Bradley... I don't get the racial angle.
What is the racial angle here? Did Lefevbre ever make any distinctions between Hamilton and Bradley on the basis of race?
I’m not really convinced that Bradley is being criticized more harshly because he’s black. I think he’s being criticized because his antics tend to be extraordinary. Remember Kenny Rogers and the cameraman? It’s like that. And Milton Bradley has a history of them.
It’s a shame, too, because he’s such a great player, and I really enjoyed having him in Oakland.
by VORP is too nerdy on Jun 13, 2008 1:05 PM PDT reply actions
Calcaterra:
For as far as we have come as a society, there is still a fear and misunderstanding about the “Angry Black Man,” and every Black athlete who has ever done anything other than thank god and say “yes, sir” has suffered to some degree because of it.
I don’t have the list handy now, but Milton Bradley’s history of jackassery - and it’s considerable - is probably no worse than that of a lot of other guys, yet he, for some reason, is labeled a malcontent and a problem and someone who should be scolded whether he’s doing anything to deserve the scolding or not.
Why is that? Why doesn’t anyone talk about all of the stuff Brett Myers should be doing to turn his life around? Me view: it’s not some conscious “I hate him because he’s black so I am going to be unfair to him” thing, but it is racial, and it has to do with what we perceive about the character predisopositions of whites vs. blacks. The former “loose control” on occasion. The latter are “out of control.” It’s a pretty ugly thing.
Or to put it even more succinctly: similar actions get interpreted differently based on what their race is.
Also, it’s pretty unlikely that Lefevbre would have even felt entitled to take such a patronizing attitude toward a white guy.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
OK
Didn’t italicize correctly…
The quote is the first three paragraphs after “Calcaterra.”
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I understand your point.
But I think at least some of this is similar to the argument over whether steroid users should be treated worse than people who do things that on a strictly human level are far worse. I bring this up hoping to avoid any conversations as to whether black athletes (i.e. Bonds) are deemed to be even evil-er steroid users than white athletes (i.e. Giambi). Baseball fans tend to get far more upset when someone uses steroids than when someone hits their wive or drives drunk—too things that certainly desearve punishment. But the later events don’t happen on the field, nor do they directly affect the on-the-field play. Beating up one’s wive is bad, but beating up an umpire would be a bigger deal in a strictly baseball context. Perhaps part of it is that there are legal means to adequately address those off-the-field events.
Anyways, a lot of Bradley’s “incidents” - save for whatever went on between him and his girlfriend that time - happen on the field, or at least at the ballpark. I think that drastically alters people’s perception of them.
+1 ...
If he’s a white guy - he’s colorful. Since he’s a black guy - he needs to get his life together.
That said, I think his real problem is that he is far to acutely aware and sensitive of this for his own good. Sometimes it’s in our own best interests to enjoy the good parts of being in the matrix. Should he have to? No, clearly not—but he would be happier, wealthier and better thought of if he did. Of course, the same might be said of Malcolm X, et al … so, I guess we just must conclude that race issues are not that simple to resolve …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I don't see it here.
If Hamilton took off looking for an announcer, I’m pretty sure the press would be all over him.
Bradley, obviously has a history of getting into trouble. But I’m not convinced it’s because he’s black. I say that as a huge Bradley fan who thinks he’s both ultra-competitive and immature. (We’ve all played a sport with a guy like that, right?)
Save for Jeff Kent, I’m not sure anybody is judging Bradly because of his race. Plenty of different players get good or bad reputations early in their careers that stick, whether justified or not.
But Hamilton wouldn't take off looking for an announcer...
because the announcers aren’t slagging him.
The argument is not that people are “judging Bradley because of his race,” as I don’t think that anyone involved was actively trying to claim that “he’s incorrigible because he’s black,” or something similar. It’s that they’re judging him and the reason they feel qualified to judge him in the first place is because of his race.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Hey A-Nation
Thanks a ton for posting the link.
I had the same questions that some of you have: Why is this about race?
Look up Brett Meyers and ask yourself why this man isn’t hounded with the same nefarious comparisons to other feel-good stories.
The conclusion we came to here:
http://grittyandclutch.blogspot.com/2008/06/into-minds-of-gritty-clutch-vol-1-on.html
Is that if it IS about race, it probably wasn’t intentional, but that doesn’t make it okay. That, and that the types of mistakes each have made (Hamiltion v Bradley) rank differently in the eyes of the public. And that Bradley’s race doesn’t help with the homogenously white audience.
Thanks again and let us know what you think.
Gritty
Brett Myers
I’m from St. Louis, and I must interject with a somewhat-related story about Scott Spiezio.
Scott Spiezio, a former Athletic, was the utility man for the Cardinals in 2006 during their World Series run. He actually had his career year with the Cards, and I was personally a fan of his. However, throughout the 2007 season he’d frequently missed playing time due to extremely strange ilnesses. He’d missed multiple games at different times to “food poisoning” and had some kind of “finger infection”. It was odd. In reality, however, it was his drug use. And in response to his continued drug use and trouble with the law, Spiezio was released by the Cardinals…. this is after they’d signed him to, I think, a 2-year deal.
Cardinals fans were not happy, but they understood the necessity of disconnecting him from the organization and getting straight.
My point, and I may be ignorant and off base here, is that I don’t think this was widely-known outside of St. Louis. Were you guys aware of Spiezio’s troubles in the last 12 months? It may be the same way with Brett Myers. Being on the west coast, you don’t hear as much. That, and Brett Myers is a somewhat obscure pitcher, whereas Milton Bradley is an excellent all-around player. Milton’s also played on a number of teams, and as such, has had exposure to a lot of different organizations, players, and fans.
I think that Milton is given a hard time. I remember back in 2006 during the ALDS with the Twins there was an “incident” with Esteban Loaiza. Milton was unhappy with an at-bat and happened to knock over some coffee onto Esteban. Esteban simply got up and changed his pants, and there was basically no issue. The announcers, however, made it seem like it was an issue. I thought it was pretty petty, since it’s not uncommon for players to get frustrated after an at-bat.
I like Milton, and I really enjoyed watching him in Oakland. When he was a free agent this year, I was really, really hoping the Cardinals would pick him up to fill out their outfield. But I do recognize that he does have problems that make him an undesirable player to have on your team, and Tony La Russa has had a bad history with some of his players (see: Scott Rolen). That’s a damn shame, too, because I think he’s one of the best outfielders in the game.
by VORP is too nerdy on Jun 13, 2008 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Funny coincidence that you mentioned this story as...
Emil Brown missed two games with “food poisoning / mystery virus”...But I’ll give Emil the benefit of the doubt, and assume he ate at Applebee’s.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
What if Hamilton was black and his dream said he needs to be in "a black stable" rather than "in a Christian stable"? Or what if Sosnick was black? Can you imagine the hue and cry about racism if THAT happened. Think about that again. What if Sosnick was black?
(as a side note, I disagree with agents that market their Christianity—it’s like having money changers in the temple).
Both of these statements are pretty profound.
So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one
we know the answer to "what if Sosnick was Jewish?":
monkeyball would make some abstruse (actually not that abstruse) insinuations.
The A's colors are green and gold.
OK, since no one picked up on my insinuations ...
... I’ll stop fetishizing my abstruseness, and spell out my suspicion: I think Hamilton (or perhaps one or more of his current spiritual advisers) was less concerned about him getting a new Christian agent, than with getting rid of his previous Jewish agent.
Is it prurient? I don’t know what to tell you. I think it’s odd and interesting. It’s part of life. @('.')@
I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it
The whole “Christians vs. Jews” thing seems pretty played out these days. The militant wing of the Christian church seems more focused on Islam and the non-religious (I don’t know whether Sosnick is actually a practicing Jew or just an ethnic one).
With that said, I rule nothing out as possibilities when considering the thoughts of the tortured brain of Josh Hamilton.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
If ethics are codified in a contract....
the exactly what does Hamilton “owe” his former agent? The man is in business to make money, and he’s the one who drew up the contract. So what if Hamilton exercised an option in the contract not to his former agents liking? They entered into a business arrangement….nothing more. The terms were laid out in advance. Hamilton did him no wrong. You have a curious sense of ethics PT.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
The fact that something is not illegal
does not mean that it is not unethical—and, in fact, lawyers are routinely disbarred for doing things that are not per se illegal.
If I leave my keys in my car, and my car gets stolen, that may mean that I am an idiot, but it does not change the fact that the guy who stole my car is a jackass.
Sometimes you have to trust people to behave honorably in business transactions.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Trust..... That's why they make contracts.
It spells the terms of the relationship out in black and white. It means you enter a relationship with defined terms for ending it. His agent didn’t stick with him for philanthropic reasons…...nor should Hamliton be expected to do so. Hamilton held up his end of the bargain….and nothing I’ve read indicates to me that his former agent disagrees with that.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
OK, so
you think it’s OK to exploit a relationship if the exploitation isn’t contractually verboten.
I think that’s scummy. If I was an agent, this would cause me to refuse to accept Josh Hamilton as a client. It’s just not worth the risk of getting screwed.
I guess we have different views on ethics, but I don’t see where you come off implying that mine are bizarre.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
