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.
Page 2 of 2 pages
Not to his employer, it isn't. What's important to his employer is Josh Hamilton producing on the baseball field.
I don't see why the forum, or the speaker, makes much of a difference, on how obnoxious a comment is. That has always struck me as a weak cover.
Changing a routine, in a sport known for routine, and subjecting oneself to withdrawl symptoms in the middle of the season on the basis that you think you're making God angry (his words indicate that's his reasoning, I'm not making things up) is pretty damned odd to me. Perhaps you disagree, but surely you can see why some would think this to be odd behavior?
I'm not really sure how this is an argument. I'm not sure how the forum or speaker doesn't make a difference. There's plenty of things that I feel comfortable saying to a circle of friends that I wouldn't say in a professional setting; plenty of them I'll stand by as correct and reasonable, but inappropriate for certain settings. It's one thing for me to make fun of magic undies to a like minded friend, another altogether to do so while speaking to a mixed crowd. Avoiding offending others is pretty relevant in day to day life.
Dip doesn't "cause" oral cancer; it increases the odds of incurring oral cancer, which remain very small even for dippers.
By that standard, radiation doesn't "cause" cancer, either,
You do you realize this is a mixed crowd, right?
It's a public forum. The fact that it's not national television, but instead a public forum, and that we're operating under pseudonyms and not our real names doesn't change the fact that the comments here are being put out for public consumption for people who share one main interest but are by no means a homogeneous entity.
So no, I don't see any meaningful difference, and the attempts to distinguish have always struck me as lame justifications.
YMMV, but since we were talking about what I find obnoxious, your mileage doesn't really matter.
An owner publicly explaining the organization's decision-making criteria to the paying fanbase strikes me as a positive good.
Am I allowed to think that Ryan is being petty and should not have told this to anyone, yet also understand his irritation?
If Ryan honestly believes that Hamilton quiting dip is what causes him to slump, then I can understand the gut reaction to wonder why he chose then, of all times
It makes me wonder if Hamilton is just a really annoying dude and the tobacco issue was just a small part of a collection of tiny annoying behaviors that added up to a constant annoyance.
It's a lot easier to read over a comment, think, "that's ignorant and offensive" and ignore it than it is to walk away from an in person conversation.
That seems odd to me that you think context and audience are essentially irrelevant. I feel like I must be misreading you.
None of us were in an in-person conversation with Josh Hamilton.
The "no champagne for the celebration" thing would have really ticked me off. Really, 50 people can't do a fun, traditional thing because one person can't ####### control himself? Even if I understand why it's the case, I'm pretty sure it's still irritating to have someone around that wants the special consideration that Hamilton does.
Sure, but the milieu of an online discussion forum is such that comments that would offend someone in face to face discussion generally don't on a forum, as they're quite easy to simply ignore. It's a lot easier to read over a comment, think, "that's ignorant and offensive" and ignore it than it is to walk away from an in person conversation.
Don't we already know this is the case? I mean, he might be a wonderful guy to some people, but I'm almost positive he'd grate on my nerves. The "no champagne for the celebration" thing would have really ticked me off. Really, 50 people can't do a fun, traditional thing because one person can't ####### control himself? Even if I understand why it's the case, I'm pretty sure it's still irritating to have someone around that wants the special consideration that Hamilton does.
“Quite frankly, he’s not the smartest guy in the world and sometimes, he thinks he is. I think that whether it was the chaw, or the eye issue, or the knee, this guy always has something medically that he has to deal with. He can go forward but he’s not content until he gets a diagnosis. You go back to ‘hey guys, it’s me, it’s Josh, it’s going to be something weird’ so the weirder the diagnosis the easier it is for him to move on. He’s tried chewing tobacco before, and it has impacted him during the season. You never want to say a guy should keep chewing tobacco, but in his case, there is some evidence behind it.”
Back to Hamilton, Ryan's and Hamilton's best interests are, to a not insignficant degree, opposed. What's the point in pretending otherwise?
Ryan is looking back at all the little (and not so little) things that went wrong and this one is standing out...
Becuase it has the potential to effect the season. Again, I am not necessarily agreeing with Ryan, but I can seem him thinking why mess with what is working. Why not just wait until November? Players put other things off until the off-season, so why not this as well?
I would love if the Red Sox signed Hamilton.
I've been saying this. Unfortunately, it seems more likely that Ross plays LF for them next year than Hamilton.
I'm not keen on Hamilton largely because I think he's going to require 6-7 years. If they can get him for 5 years he or Ross should be able to handle RF. I think he's got 3-4 years of being worth or close to worth his contract. I'd rather not have to have him around for 2-3 years of not being worth it.
I also think that watching Josh Hamilton every day would make him my favorite Red Sox player by Patriots' Day.
I think Hamilton has 3-4 good years left, but not necessarily concurrently nor over the course of only 3-4 years.
why only 3-4 good years? Or are you saying only 3-4 'star' level seasons?
why only 3-4 good years? Or are you saying only 3-4 'star' level seasons?
If he didn't have durability issues/uncertainties, he would command $30 m a year or a Prince Fielder contract.
3-4 $20 million+ years left.
If the Sox could get him for 110/4yrs, great. More, or longer, ehhhhh.
I just think that saving the games in his 20s -- which is usually an issue of stunting the player's baseball development and that issue is not present here -- helps Hamilton.
I get what you're saying but I think you're leaving out what he was doing to his body while not playing games. My guess is that whatever physical savings he generated by not playing 150 games a year in his 20s is offset and then some by the damage he did to himself.
I wouldn't have any problem with 5/100 for Hamilton, given my current knowledge of his situation and his talent. The relevant question is, do you go 7/150, which is probably closer to his likely salary.
Ok, I agree with you, then. But, remember that some of those good years are worth way more than $20m. I.E. if the Sox were guaranteed his 2012 production for 2013, they would pay north of $30 m for a 1-year deal. I was even more optimistic about his price this year, hoping they could get him for 110/5 or 125/6.
I want to add that it is curious that one of the strongest anti-PED advocates around here is saying that a player should have continued to use a dangerous drug to help his team. That seems inconsistent but I'm willing to be convinced that it's not.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.5989 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed