User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 0.7952 seconds
81 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
You listening, Sammy?
Off topic two posts into the thread. Nicely done.
LoDuca's a nutsack; of course, we already knew that.
What, exactly, did Lo Duca ever do to "earn" a rep as a clubhouse leader?
Well, he'd be a great leader on a team with tons of talent and no Hispanic players. Is that so much to ask?
Back-alley handjobs to the LA media? [edit: slightly less offensive]
What a dumb comment.
He's listening, but you need to speak Spanish for him.
He was traded by a person Plashke and Simers hated, so there had to be some reason to bash him for it.
If there is, Lo Duca must've caught it years ago.
I've been leaning toward not bringing him back next year anyway- something like this helps to tilt me further in that direction. This is one of those statements that is a mistake, even if it turned out to be 100% valid. I have seen no evidence that he's the go-to guy (reporters talk to Beltran, Delgado, Reyes etc. ALL THE TIME), but it doesn't matter. Talk to the reporters, you did something monumentally stupid, and it has the potential to affect the Mets in the near future (due to missed games from suspension). That's why reporters are asking about it. Not because Paul Lo Duca is white.
Yep, that seems to be it, beginning and end.
Which is why Michael Barrett is now in San Diego.
Didn't he pick a fight with A-Rod once upon a time?
I'd say the chances were already pretty slim. It wouldn't surprise me if this killed them dead.
You know, the funny thing is that there was probably a fairly insightful comment to be made here, had LoDuca been the fairly insightful, careful person to make it. There very likely IS a phenomenon by which some or many reporters tend -- consciously or otherwise -- gravitate towards the non-Hispanic players for comments, because of a real or perceived communication barrier. It will vary from reporter to reporter, of course, and from player to player, depending on whether the reporter speaks Spanish (and if so, how well) and how comfortable the player is with his English. And if this does happen, or even if the non-Hispanic players believe it happens, then those players will believe they are being asked to take more of the interviews (and may actually take more of them).
Now, instead of that perhaps interesting and useful discussion about reporter behavior, and then some consideration of whether it matters (and if so, why and how), we get an insight into LoDuca's resentments and anger. And there is little chance that Omar Minaya is going to want a player around with such attitudes burning so close to the surface, especially not in a clubhouse that is as (and is going to continue to be) as diverse as the Mets. See ya', Paul.
In some quarters, he would be praised for asking that the media attention and fame be shared.
Only I think it's pretty clear here that he wasn't taking the media to task -- rather, the Hispanic players:
“I’ll do this (interview), but you need to start talking to other players,” Lo Duca announced loudly after he was approached by a radio reporter after the Mets-Cardinals series finale was washed out by rain. “It’s the same three or four people every day. Nobody else wants to talk. Some of these guys have to start talking. They speak English, believe me.”
If asking the media to share their attention is okay, is it also wrong to ask other players, whose job it is to be available to the media, to also engage in the sport of "interview"?
Pretty much. Those early 00s Dodger clubhouses weren't happy places and I had never heard of LoDuca as a clubhouse leader before he got traded.
That's not their ####### job. Their job is to play baseball. Why any of them ever speak to the media, who add absolutely nothing, I have no clue. Well, that's not true. Some morons like to hear themselves speak. But I would certainly never talk to them, and any ########### catcher with a Napoleon complex who told me it was my job to do so could blow me.
It's wrong to do it the way LoDuca did it, that's for sure -- for the exact same reasons John Smoltz shouldn't have gone to the media with his snarky remarks slamming Chipper Jones. Going to your teammates privately and talking to them about it might just be fine. What do you want to bet this is the first time Paul LoDuca has said a word about this to Reyes, Beltran, Delgado, et al -- and he said it through the tabloids. Class act.
Well, you have a pretty fricking limited view of your job and the nature of your business. As a baseball player, you are in the entertainment business, and that means you should want to help sell tickets and generate revenues and keep the whole machine churning to help you sign your next humongous contract. That means, among many other publicity-generating activities, talking to the media. Good luck in the baseball business with that attitude.
I spent last summer in Cleveland as an intern with MLB.com; that's a limited experience, so I don't want to pass myself off as someone who knows what he's talking about.
But I'll admit to doing that during my time in the clubhouse. When you're looking for pre-game notes, you're looking for someone you know will be cooperative and communicative, and so you (well, I) lean to those players who will talk, or at the very least, can talk in your language. So I found myself talking to Paul Byrd a lot, for example, because he's an intelligent, articulate guy who will talk your head off if given half a chance. Even someone like Jhonny Peralta, who does speak English, speaks it heavily-accented and without a ton of confidence. As a result, the quotes you get from him tend to be basic and bland, because that's what he knows how to say really well.
Ich spreche nicht Deutsches
It works on phone solicitors, who are almost as annoying as sports reporters.
Sports reporters rarely call me during sex, so I would put telemarketers above them in terms of annoyingness.
Steve Carlton says hi.
As to 27, yes, i guess a private conversation would have been a better way to handle it, if indeed one was not attempted (we cannot assume facts not in evidence here, either way).
But at this point, it looks like we are arguing method of delivery of the point, and not the point itself, which is that some other guys need to make themselves available to the media; correct?
I guess the Cards got the best of that trade.
Okay LoDuca is no Carlton.
Well, yes and no. You can make yourself plenty available just by being there and being friendly and accessible when approached. I'm not sure what more Jose Reyes can do than that if a reporter chooses to head to LoDuca or Wright instead -- hold up his hand and call the guy over and say, "No! Come talk to me!"??? IOW, LoDuca really should direct his comments 100% to the reporters and their behavior, unless his point is that the Hispanic players are being affirmatively uncooperative and thus discouraging interviews.
To me, the real point of this article -- what it really tell us -- is something about LoDuca. We are having a more thoughtful and interesting conversation about the issues of player/reporter interaction than he did; he just popped off in a way that created clubhouse tension and probably ticked off his teammates, and which unreasonably put the blame on them for a situation that really is the fault (at least principally) of reporters. That does NOT reflect well on LoDuca.
Paul LoDuca, you're no Steve Carlton, Joe DiMaggio, or Sandy Koufax.
That's going too far.
I actually agree with much of what was (well) said in #36, with this one proviso. If there are guys ducking the media using the language barrier as an excuse, and the media is acting as an enabler by not pressing those guys for interviews, then shame on both groups, and if I was a guy who was bearing more than my share of interviews under that set of circumstances, it would make me angry.
yes, he should vent his anger in private, as that is always the better way, but let the first of you who always exercises the proper control and doesn't lose his temper at the wrong time caste the first stone.
In the mean time, step up and talk to the media, Carlos and Jose and whomever else is ducking; you are letting down your teammates and your fan-base.
I do not think it is Mets fans; I think it is people on this site.
I have always found a high correlation between players with great looking main squeezes and the hatred that primates feel for them (Mark Grace; Paul and is ex-bunnie and then the 19 year old; and so on).
This would be true if they had anything more interesting to say than the English speaking players. Do they?
Well, I think we can all agree that's not my issue with LoDuca.
And honestly, I think others just find his whole schtick annoying -- the Napolean complex -- especially given how different he is in almost every way from the guy he succeeded, Piazza, who was The Franchise for so long.
But as a player, LoDuca is certainly an acceptable catcher. He's just not the total class act Piazza was, and he suffers by contrast.
I'm sure the fact that he's not Mike Piazza probably plays into it, which obviously isn't fair, but I don't give a damn. Blowduca doesn't deserve fair.
EDIT: And as for having a pulse, he's hitting .281/.325/.361 and has been remarkably unclutch, batting something like .200 with batters in scoring position. He's no Jason Kendall, but you'd be hardpressed to say he's an average catcher, since his defense isn't good either.
Ask them about LoDuca. You could run for a couple of months on those quotes, I bet.
It's not the fact that he's short; it's that he behaves in ways totally consistent with the whole complex. Hell, LoDuca himself has talked about it -- that he struts and tries to prove himself all the time and is cocky and confrontational and just pretty much a jerk -- and attributed it to being short and always feeling the need to prove he can "measure up." If LoDuca can make it part of the discussion of his development as a player and person, why can't we?
Or ask them about Gary Sheffield.
Anyone know when Milledge comes back?
I mean he's one of the few mets who doesn't go through every game looking like he's in a coma.
isn't it a little strange to essentially be saying, "his teammates think he's a leader, but I know better"?
I work with non-native speakers every day, from all over the world, with various English levels, and this was a theme of the Sosa-bashing.
First, just because a guy "speaks English" doesn't mean he will be comfortable speaking English in a high-pressure language-based environment like a Congressional hearing, or, although it is a different kind of pressure, the locker room of a pro sports franchise in New York. This may or may not apply to the high-profile Spanish speakers on the Mets.
Second, communicating effectively with people in their second language, even if their skills are pretty good, requires work and patience. You have to speak more slowly, you have to speak more clearly, and you have to watch your idioms, slang and reductions. Now, all that seems intuitively obvious, but, believe me, as one who trains teachers, the #1 mistake I see is new teachers saying stuff too fast and in ways that the students can't entirely understand. So, from the perspective of both the reporters and the players, it's more work and takes more time, so it is easier, particularly with a mouthy guy like LoDuca a few feet away, to just go to him for postgame, pregrame, or other quotes.
On another note, I recall a few Mets fans talking last year about how Milledge was clearly blowing it because the Mets have such an awesome clubhouse atmosphere and he has so any good role models. That all may be true, but whatever crap Milledge was pulling, LoDuca's #### was out of line last year, and this is, too.
In the mean time, step up and talk to the media, Carlos and Jose and whomever else is ducking; you are letting down your teammates and your fan-base.
This is something media types sometimes try to sell--Ted Leitner, the Padres announcer I always biatch about, plays this card all the time. I have never seen the logic behind it. The "publicity machine" will always have plenty of fodder, regardless of what any specific player does, and the press, while it does have constitutional protection for good reasons, is an amalgam of private, competing entities--not a charity. No one is being let down because a guy says "no comment." Also, as a few have pointed out, unless Reyes and Delgado have specifically set up media moratoriums, your quibble, such as it is, is with the media, not the players, in this case.
If this is true, then it probably says something about LoDuca that his teammates are out-playing him despite the fact that they're unconscious.
He hustles, he's animated, he has a tough guy look, he is short and stocky, he catches, he's white, he talks a lot. Like Pete Rose and many other players, he fits many reporters' and fans' pre-conceptions of what a "team leader" is supposed to be.
which teammates would that be? delgado? beltran and his massive .541 june OPS?
I have said the fault here is with both groups, but if a player is approached on a consistant basis by the media and always says "no comment", I do not fault the media for eventually not trying, any more. And yes, it is the player's right to always refrain from commenting, but if we concede the point that interaction between media and players is good for the games' revenues (publicity drives ticket sales and viewers), then this person who never comments is passing on a responsibility. Yes, it still all works if there is one no-talker and 24 who are cooperative with the media, but the more who do not talk, the greater the burden on those who do. And in his own angry way, that is exactly LeDuca's point-I don't want to always have to be 1 of the 5 guys who carry this burden, and that is a fair point.
care to fill us in on what a team leader actually is, then?
isn't it a little strange to essentially be saying, "his teammates think he's a leader, but I know better"?
If he is a leader he should STFU about talking to the media. Thats what the leader does.
Someone who doesnt whine about talking to the media?
I think talking to the media is a "burden" for guys like LoDuca only when the questions are about unpleasant topics:
Most of the guys who fit the LoDuca profile generally love popping off to the cameras, notepads and mics.
if we concede the point that interaction between media and players is good for the games' revenues
On a certain level, yes. If you posit a hypothetical world in which no one ever talks to the media, that might be true. But there will always be many guys who love the spotlight--avoiding attention is not generally a trait of those who pursure sports careers--so I don't think this has much real-world applicability.
How about everyone else? Green, Gomez, Reyes, Wright, and Valentin?
This team has had some letdown games, but I think the whole looking like there in a coma thing is the exception, not the rule.
You must be a LoDuca fan, huh?
I'd say a leader is someone who handles problems respectfully behind closed doors, for one thing, instead of losing his head and mouthing off to reporters. I'd also say a leader is a guy who sticks up for his teammates in public, rather than trashing them in public. Basic rule of leadership in any field: praise in public, criticize in private. Another basic rule: support your team members to outsiders as much as you can without compromising yourself. A third rule: You got a problem with someone, go to the source before you take it elsewhere. If LoDuca has a problem with the Spanish speakers not talking to reporters, and he were a leader, he would have handled it that way. If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he did that already, then he needs to take it to Randolph or Minaya--after telling his Latino teammates he is taking that step, so they can tell their side.
Even if you assume he did ALL that, mouthing off to the media doesn't help anybody--except the media, which now has a "controversy on the struggling Mets" angle.
the mets' ostensible best player is an underachieving $119 million pile of sullen mush who tells anyone who will listen about how he should be on the DL. I shudder to think what would happen if mets fans got their wish and the team jettisoned the only guy who plays as if he'd run over his own mother at home plate to get a win.
Sounds like they need some leadership in the clubhouse. Who is supposed to be the leader on the Mets?
I think he is a profoundly flawed man who plays the game with obvious passion. If he's not the leader of the mets than he's their soul, and I think that unless he completely falls off the table production-wise it would be a huge mistake for the mets to replace him just to get rid of the headache.
funny, people think Smoltz is being a tremendous leader whenever he goes to the media to try to shame his underperforming teammates into playing better.
isn't it a little strange to essentially be saying, "his teammates think he's a leader, but I know better"?
No, I'm just saying I don't see it. Maybe there are a ton of things that LoDuca does behind the scenes that make him be a great leader but I have never heard about them and I don't think they have ever been reported. I honestly can't think of one time where I read something like, "Paul LoDuca is a great leader b/c he did this great thing that has made a difference for the team." Most of the time you read or hear, "Of course, Paul LoDuca is a great leader." I'm not sure if his teammates actually belive LoDuca to be a leader or they just go along with the media's theory. Most of the time the questions will be phrased to someone like Wright for example, "So, David, obviously Paul's leadership has been critical to the Mets season, can you talk a bit about that?" and Wright will talk about what a great leader LoDuca is without giving any specifics.
I'm not against passion, but what the hell does LoDuca's fire do for him? I don't think intangibles are worthless, but they don't count for more than ACTUAL performance.
Overall, though, I suspect that his teammates generally think LoDuca is pretty much an annoying guy who drives them crazy but they put up with him because they know he's a good player who helps them win. They don't regard him as a "leader" -- and to the extent they did 36 hours ago, they do a lot less today.
find me somebody playing major league baseball today who could perform a personality transplant on somebody who looks like he doesn't want to be at the park.
Agreed. My point is that, IMO, popping off to the press in this fashion is not the behavior of a quality leader.
people think Smoltz is being a tremendous leader
I can't speak to this. Paging Braves' fans.
D-E-R-E-K J-E-T-E-R AKA G-O-D
I hope you're being sarcastic.
Plaschke used this same metaphor when LoDuca was in LA. Why do you say so? Not a gotcha--I want to know.
Totally.
Maybe I scanned the thread too fast -- but where is the evidence that "his teammates believe it?
Can someone point me to quotes from teammates or former teammates that refer to LoDuca as a 'leader'? Has he been given a nickname like "Sarge" or "Captain" that I'm unaware of? Are there quotes out there from Dodgers -- rather than Plaschke or Simers -- that said "boy, we just started sucking when our leader got traded"?
Not that I am aware of or recall, and I took the LA Times at that time, although I live in SD. But there may be.
The comments from the players at the time didn't disparage Lo Duca, but did seem to say that they resented the media acting like the Dodgers' dynamics were screwed without Lo Duca - i.e., they were neutral on whether he was a team leader, but made it clear they would be able to cope.
watching him every day, he just is. part of it is how he plays the game and how he carries himself. but it's also that the mets haven't had a player like him since the late 80s, and after YEARS of the front office putting high premiums on bringing in non-offensive guys you weren't sure were awake in the dugout, bringing him in was perfect. it was part of the mets building a team, as opposed to collecting talent.
Gimme someone like Greg Maddux - where I have real evidence of players literally shadowing him and speaking about how much they learned.
Gimme someone like Gary Matthews, who got bestowed a nickname like "Sarge" and whom you can find quotes aplenty from ex-teammates concerning leadership qualities.
Hard-work, playing hurt, going nuts on the field... Great - but it's not leadership. I know plenty of people in all walks of like that work hard, come to work sick, go nuts and scream -- but are the furthest from my mind when I think "leader", because they're also abrasive personalities who do nothing to teach or motivate. I also know plenty of people who are great drinking buddies and really entertaining to be around -- but whom I would again, hardly call leaders.
You don't necessarily need to be or do any of things to be a leader -- and you can also be and do all those things and still NOT be a leader.
Leadership has little to do with the things that we as the public and media see and proclaim "Gee. He threw all his equipment on the field. He must be a leader." or "Wow. He just bought me a beer and gave me a 60 minute interview and also dished some great dirt on teammate that I can use off the record. He must be a leader."
Derek Lee -- I think it's telling that when Z and Barrett went fists in the clubhouse, it was Derek Lee that the attendant grabbed to break it up.
How about Barry Bonds? Didn't the shoving match he got into with Kent start when Kent began berating some rookie?
I would bet good money and lay good odds that if one was to conduct a survey of Major League Baseball and ask who the "leaders" are -- we would ALL (myself included) be shocked at who was on the list and who got virtually no mention.
I don't agree, at least as to the first two. Working hard and playing hurt ARE things that represent leadership by example, and things that can be infectious throughout a roster, helping a team get through the long season successfully. Going nuts on the field? No.
I'm not so sure about that. Managers try getting thrown out of games all the time, hoping to wake up their teams.
Yeah, but managers also don't have to play. A player getting kicked out of a game generally can only have a negative effect on a team, especially when the player is a catcher and goes so crazy that he also has to serve a suspension, which forces the team into a roster move as well.
Gimme someone like Greg Maddux - where I have real evidence of players literally shadowing him and speaking about how much they learned.
This can get flipped around twice.
When David Wells was in Chicago, the media called him a real leader because he "told it like it was" and didn't pull any punches and all that tripe. They meant he was a good interview.
Then came the Frank Thomas incident and they said, no, he's not a leader, but a fat guy embarressing himself. His poor performance didn't help, either.
You know what? After he left Mark Buehrle gave some quotes were he talked about what a postiive influence Wells was for him & how much he learned from him. He was a leader/mentor.
The media got it right the first time, but for the wrong reasons. The one constant was that the media judged Wells by his relationship with them, not the his teammates. Well that's just stupid. It's the way he related to his teammates that makes him a leader (or not a leader).
And of course a player can be a leader to some teammates and a jerk to others. Ask Dick Allen.
Joe Girardi has good credential to be a leader. He's the guy they had speak to the crowd when Darryl Kile died. That shows some sign of respect by the others in the two dugouts.
a negative quantifiable effect, perhaps. but this is an odd discussion, as things like leadership and team chemistry are non-quantifiable. who's to say that an ejection, a HBP, a brawl, media scrutiny, etc., can't have positive net effects?
Sure, but that doesn't mean it works, especially since the players know it is a ploy. Throwing your equipment on the field and acting like a ####### jackass does nothing except make you look like a ####### jackass. Besides if LoDuca is so important to the team he needs to be on the field and not ejected from one game and serving a suspension for another two. Leaders come in many shapes and sizes and can have many different and unique qualities, but I would imagine everyone would agree that a leader is someone who puts the greater good above themselves and LoDuca did not do that when he went nuts last Saturday night.
They may be better indicators than I give them credit for, but I absolutely disagree that they 'equate' so readily. I think it's fair to say that Sammy Sosa worked hard. He ran hard onto the field and I can't ever remember an occasion where I saw him lollygagging or fail to run something out. I suspect no Cubs from his tenure would call him a "leader".
Troy Glaus has played half seasons hurt, but I've never heard him called a 'leader'.
I think you're equating how you or I would react -- NOT being professional athletes -- to seeing someone play hurt or whatnot or how we as fans view those things. I would be willing to bet it's a completely different world if you're a major league quality ballplayer.
I think of my own career in a white collar world... I know lots of people that put in long hours... that call into work from home when sick (or show up). They're certainly NOT all leaders (some of them, absolutely, but no way all or even most of them). Some of them, in fact, are downright idiots who bring nothing to the table but long hours.
Take a group of like minded people --- highly skilled baseball players in this instance -- and I'll bet it's no different.
Heck, the "leader" of my high school baseball team was actually rather lazy and once got benched for not running out a pop-up. But - we all liked him enormously, he knew exactly what and when to say it, and he showed energy was energy was needed. He wasn't at the top of the steps every pitch cheering and clapping, but when he did, good things seemed to follow. It's a long way from HS to MLB -- but there you have it.
If I didnt know any better I'd say the Mets were a last place team based on some of the comments in this thread.
couldn't one say that about any of the ostensible aspects of leadership that have been bandied about in this thread?
Good point and one that's impossible to prove either way. We just don't have the technology!
This has little to do with "leadership" -- but I did find this survey from SI in May about the 'nicest guys' and 'meanest guys' in baseball. Nice and Mean probably have very little to do with leadership (i've known absolute ######## that I'd follow through fire) and no one could vote for someone on their own team, but thought it was interesting...
I can't speak to this. Paging Braves' fans.
Most of the Braves' fans I know think Smoltz is frequently a blowhard, and this was the most recent demonstration of that. This doesn't mean he's not a leader in the clubhouse, but his recent rant about Chipper was not a demonstration of his leadership qualities.
haha. I dunno, dan's ESPN defensive ratings showed some promise in quantifying that previously thought non-quantifiable.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main