These are the same reporters who lick Reggie Jackson's taint and work every day in the House that Ruth Built.
That would be Babe Ruth.
The guy who saved baseball but went and played for the Boston Braves because he selfishly wanted to be offered the job as Yankees manager.
The guy who spit in his hand before shaking Gehrig's hand for the b&w photos.
The guy who never saw an advertisement he didn't like.
It's not even worth discussing, y'all.
Mike Vaccaro says "good riddance" and Peter Abraham says (ahem) "Perhaps the Yankees are better off without such a player."
Abraham, by the way, implicitly seems to believe that Curt Schlling and Manny Ramirez are gritty, selfless role players.
I have little doubt that ARod is an arrogant prick. I'm consistently amused that so-called reporters can't tell the difference between a Good Player and a Good Interview.
6 comments:
Here's the deal, Darren.
You find one (1) example of me writing or suggesting how unselfish Schilling or Ramirez is and I will resign.
If not, you shut down your blog.
Deal?
Now we'll see how accountable you are. My guess, not very much.
This is how you "suggested" Manny & Schilling are unselfish:
1. ARod is selfish.
2. Teams are better off without selfish players.
3. The Red Sox just won the World Series.
4. Red Sox players are unselfish.
5. Manny and Schilling are on the Red Sox.
Q.E.D.
I did not say that you "explicitly stated." I said "implicitly seems to believe."
Oh, and if you believe any team on the planet is better without ARod than with ARod, then you are mistaken.
What a shock, you have no ethics. You extrapolate something you presume I believe x 5 and use it to criticize me.
Then you parse words when challenged
Sad.
I rest my case
It's unethical to extrapolate? It's unethical to use logic?
I mean exactly what I said. Do you? Do you really think the Yankees will be better off without ARod?
You said the Yankees are better off without a player like ARod. (Technically, you said "maybe" they're better off without a player like ARod.) It's a completely absurd proposition, but every proposition has corollaries.
Let's assume the Yankees are better off without a selfish player. (This is your proposition, by the way.)
Then why are the Red Sox winning World Series titles with selfish players?
You tell me.
Either (1) Manny and Schilling are unselfish (this is the corollary I immediately inferred), (2) The Red Sox would have been EVEN BETTER without Manny and Schilling (preposterous, but that's really the only possibility that supports your proposition), or (3) Baseball is different in Boston than in NY -- so much different, that SELFISH players are good for the Red Sox, but bad for the Yankees.
Also, I am not sure how I "parsed words."
Spelling out a logical argument step by step is "parsing words"?
Am I "parsing words" now?
You tell me, Mr. Abraham, if you think the Yankees will be better off without ARod.
If you say "Yes," you are a fool.
If you say "No," then you might not be a fool.
I say No.
You can't "parse" a one-word answer.
Post a Comment