teams aren't exactly interested in living up to your definition of "ethics"

Perhaps not. That doesn't make me any less correct. The world is full of people who fail to live up to my standards. Such is the state of fallen grace.

Sam Hutcheson Posted: January 12, 2009 at 04:22 PM (#3049988)

because, in my opinion, most big time athletes want to be "heroes" and want to be liked/admired/worshipped

If they want to be revered and worshipped they should behave in a manner conducive to reverence and worship.

- patiently
that is why they say what they say. they aren't going to get jeter treatment if they say "no comment" no matter HOW well they play (and i know that the team heavily "frowns" on players not talking to the media)

i am not saying that the media SHOULD be propaganda arms, i am saying that this is reality

and smoltz apparently doesn't believe he should have to (in his opinion) eat poopoo to be a community icon

which is his choice

these guys measure "respect" by amount of dollars and the way it is paid. you might not agree, but that is their community standard

sluts most definitely DO come with money - there are plenty of females who would happily have sex with anything no matter how disgusting/perverted/evil for money/status/power (see anna nicle smith and that ancient geezer billionaire) but they preferentially have sex with money if the penis belongs to an athlete

don't ask me to explain it please. i don't think/act like that

- and by the way, when you say stuff like - "the world is full of people who fail to live up to my standards, that is the state of fallen grace" you sound a little, um, megalomaniac (which is a big word meaning not sane)

If they want to be revered and worshipped they should behave in a manner conducive to reverence and worship. If they behave in a manner that doesn't convey that, well, that's not anyone's fault but their own.

Saying the correct things at their introductory press conferense is the first step to fans respecting them (which is the first baby step towards reverence). The "You know, I really would have played anywhere, but these clowns coughed up the most money" doesn't go over too well with the fans.

>>>If John Smoltz wants to be a community icon he should live by his word and sacrifice a couple mil to stay at home. <<<<

Putting a monetary price on becoming a community icon is nothing more than a whore naming her price.

that is why they say what they say. they aren't going to get jeter treatment if they say "no comment" no matter HOW well they play (and i know that the team heavily "frowns" on players not talking to the media)

Patiently: And I don't give a crap if they want Jeter treatment or not. A man has a choice. If he chooses to behave as if his life is driven by nothing but material possessions he has no right lobbying me or the general public to think of him as something other than a material man. I know that players shuttle ######## through the press on a daily basis. The fact that they do doesn't mean I have to take them seriously, and it certainly doesn't mean I have to countenance their self-righteousness when they get called on be materially driven every so often (usually around their FA contracts where the hypocrisy of their previous press clippings is thrown into obvious light.) If they want to be thought of as more than mercenary employees of the local ball club, they can act as if that's the case. If they don't act as if that's the case then I will judge them on their actions rather than their whining about "respect."

Last I checked, no one was asking John Smoltz to eat poo. I'm unaware of any "and you'll eat poo and like it" rider in any of his contracts to date.

bads85 Posted: January 12, 2009 at 04:42 PM (#3050019)


Saying the correct things at their introductory press conferense is the first step to fans respecting them (which is the first baby step towards reverence). The "You know, I really would have played anywhere, but these clowns coughed up the most money"

- i WAS looking forward to cc sabathia saying - well, i wanted to play in NY like i wanted to get put on a greens only diet and drive a mini like that hot blond chick in the italian job but the Union reminded me that it was my duty to take the highest contract to help out my fellow ballplayers, so now i'm stuck in this here shtthole when i really rather would have been surfing out in LA with the honeyzzzszz

Putting a monetary price on becoming a community icon is nothing more than a whore naming her price.

All of which is fine and good. Let's be clear. I have not, and will not, taken issue with a player choosing to leave his "home" club as a free agent. Not with any Braves players, including John Smoltz. Not with any famous free agents outside of the Braves - I defended AROD back in the day, I don't care where Mark Teixeira draws a paycheck, etc. All I ask is that free agents who choose money over "community" not whinge about "respect" on their way out the door. Take the money. It's your job, it's a business. As long as you don't use unethical practices - this thread's discussion - I have no issue with it. But don't run your business and then ask me to treat you like something other than what you are. If you want more "respect" than is given your average athlete, act differently than that person.

Last I checked, no one was asking John Smoltz to eat poo. I'm unaware of any "and you'll eat poo and like it" rider in any of his contracts to date.

It was one of the incentive clauses. That's why he preferred the incentive clauses in the Boston offer over Atlanta's offer. While eating poo was attainable, the "and like it" part just wasn't achievable. Plus, he felt that clause showed disrespect.

sam,

obviously, the ballplayers don't consider you a hot chick. and what drives you doesn't drive them. their definition of success is just different than yours. you may not LIKE it, which is your right, but obviously, it is not affecting their decisions. if everyone else thought exactly like you, then we all know that they would talk/pretend to act different

and what smoltz thinks is being disrespected/humiliated and what YOU think is being disrespected/humiliated are 2 different things.

for example, to change the subject slightly

do you think a ballplayers wife should be forced to have to work for the ball club, remembering that she receives no compensation for her work? do you think she has any right to feel disrespected/humiliated about this treatment? would you feel disrespected/humiliated if your wife's employer demanded that you work uncompensated for them?

people view the same events differently

But don't run your business and then ask me to treat you like something other than what you are. If you want more "respect" than is given your average athlete, act differently than that person.

That is fair enough, but the whore I was referring to is the fan who is self-centered enough to believe that a player who takes less than market value to stay with a particular team is somehow taking the correct steps to becoming a community icon.

bads85 Posted: January 12, 2009 at 05:06 PM (#3050038)

That is fair enough, but the whore I was referring to is the fan who is self-centered enough to believe that a player who takes less than market value to stay with a particular team is somehow taking the correct steps to becoming a community icon.

- i think that agreeing to be underpaid in order to stay with a team IS the fans definition of community icon

That is fair enough, but the whore I was referring to is the fan who is self-centered enough to believe that a player who takes less than market value to stay with a particular team is somehow taking the correct steps to becoming a community icon.

What would be a reasonable benchmark or definition, then? I have no problem with John Smoltz taking more money from Boston. His life, his decision. Why do I have to listen to him crying about "respect" on the way out the door? Because he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to take the money from Boston but preserve his "local hero" status in Atlanta. He wants the money and the self-righteous glory. I see no benefit to myself or society in general in giving in to that sort of decision-without-consequence scenario. Actions have consequences. Deal with the consequences of yours. If your action is to take the money elsewhere accept the consequences and move the #### on.

Negotiations are never over until somebody signs a sheet of paper.

I wouldn't quite go there. I do believe in handshake agreements, which is why the Furcal/Atlanta shennanigans are very damning (for the agent and Furcal).

Of course, as a general principle of law -- excepting cases governed by the Statute of Frauds -- an agreement does not need to be in writing to be binding. A handshake agreement is a fully-binding contract, assuming that the essential details have been agreed upon. (An agreement to agree, however, is not a contract; if the oral agreement omits necessary terms that can't be filled in, then it's not legally binding.) However, in baseball, contracts are governed by the CBA, and it's not a binding contract until it's in writing.

(Yes, I know that you were making an ethical claim, and I'm not addressing that; I'm just providing additional information.)

and what smoltz thinks is being disrespected/humiliated and what YOU think is being disrespected/humiliated are 2 different things.

John Smoltz is a man. Nothing more, nothing less. The differences between he and I can be summed up thusly: Smoltz could once throw a baseball 90+ MPH; your average 8th grader could turn on my cheese. That's it. The idea that he, or any other randomly gifted athlete (or movie star, or president) deserves his own stratosphere of "respect" separate from that of everyone else is offensive and absurd. If John Smoltz thinks he was humiliated by Atlanta's offer this winter he's a ####### moron.

That doesn't make me any less correct.

Just because you claim you are correct, doesn't mean you are.

It must be interesting to be the only sane person in an insane world.

John Smoltz is a man. Nothing more, nothing less. The differences between he and I can be summed up thusly: Smoltz could once throw a baseball 90+ MPH; your average 8th grader could turn on my cheese. That's it.

That, and he's not a Communist.

It must be interesting to be the only sane person in an insane world.

It's a burden.

That, and he's not a Communist.

Me and Adam Smith.

I'm reminded of an old Augusta Stevenson children's book about Ulysses S Grant. (My dad had a lot of these books and I read quite a few. They theoretically, but almost certainly not actually, described the lives of young famous Americans, using almost certainly apocryphal yarns to help describe the people they would eventually grow up to be). In (something like) the first chapter of the Grant book, his dad asks him to go buy a horse for him from a stranger in town. (My memory may not get this exactly right, but since Augusta Stevenson almost certainly made it up, does it really matter?) His dad says to the young Grant: "I want you to take a look at a horse for me. The man's been asking for $18 for a horse. Offer him $16, but if you think he's worth it -- I trust your eye for horses -- you can go up to $18." Ulysses finds the man and says, "My dad sent me to buy the horse from you. I was told to offer you $16, but I can go up to $18 if I think he's worth it, and he certainly is! In fact, I think he's not worth a dollar less than $20 and my dad would be glad to pay it!" The man laughed (good-naturedly, appreciatively) at Grant's unerringly honest nature. And raised his asking price to $20 (and got it from Grant's dad, who joined in the laughter at the story, albeit slightly less happily since he was $2 poorer than he had ever intended to be).

The story is from Grant's own memoirs. His dad gave him a maximum price ($18 is about right), Grant blurted it out, and that ended up being the price he got the horse for. Of course, as Grant pointed out, he did get the horse.

John Smoltz is a man. Nothing more, nothing less. The differences between he and I can be summed up thusly: Smoltz could once throw a baseball 90+ MPH; your average 8th grader could turn on my cheese. That's it.

And there appear to be other similarities too, which include imposing your value system on other people's actions. While materialism might be a key motivating factor, humans do have different utility for different tangible rewards, and some value intangible rewards too.
What Smoltz was expecting and what Smoltz got, we know only of the tangible terms by hearsay. To judge him based on that is as close-minded as Smoltz's earlier much circulated comments.

I am of the viewpoint that Smoltz doesn't belong on this Braves team, but I would certainly have liked the matter to be dealt with in a classier manner. There was no need for McGuirk to get involved, or Chipper to mouth off. But equally, there is no need to be judgemental of Smoltz in this matter without clarifying the episode, or diss his claims of being disrespected, as his value system might be different than yours.

The story is from Grant's own memoirs. His dad gave him a maximum price ($18 is about right), Grant blurted it out, and that ended up being the price he got the horse for. Of course, as Grant pointed out, he did get the horse.

Holy crap, you mean that really (at least according to Grant) happened? What about having a phrenologist predict he'd be president? Is that also in his memoirs? (I'll be amazed if it is, but I'm currently amazed that the horse-buying story actually happened... assuming Grant wasn't above his own self-deprecating myth-making and made up the story himself. It just seems too apt an encapsulation of much of Grant's persona to be true). And are his memoirs worth reading? Not in a historical sense -- I'd assume most memoirs of important men are reasonably worth reading -- but are they an entertaining read? I've heard it suggested that they were, but would love further corroboration.

Man, I'm going to have to track down those old Augusta Stevenson books at some point. I hope my parents didn't give them away...

I'd like to ask the ethic panel about my recent job selection:

I was interviewing for 2 positions with 2 different hospitals. Hospital A I was 90% sure I was going to get, the Hospital BI was say 25% sure I was going to get. I liked both positions (my mom wanted me to go to hospital B, and she's annoying about stuff, so I was leaning towards the latter just so she wouldn't be annoying for the next 5 years)

At both interviews, they asked me if I was accepted I would sign on. I said absolutely. (If you give them a hint of doubt that you will not show up, they will not accept you. Those are the rules of the game.)

To tell you the truth, I don't think I was the most qualified, therefore I simply assumed that there was no chance I would be accepted for both positions. I ended up being accepted for both positions.

Hospital A had already sent me their acceptance letter and a contract for me to sign, and then the hospital B told me I was accepted. I ended up signing with Hospital B and told the hospital A that I was accepting another position.

Obviously, had I known I was going to be accepted by the hospital B, I would not have applied to hospital A and told them i was absolutely coming. I don't think I was applying "in bad faith", because had I not been accepted by hospital B, I would have signed with hospital A.