March 29, 2009

No Bling Allowed, and Cut Your Hair!: A Sharpie, some expletives and a demand for a trade.

posted by BoKnows to baseball at 12:43 AM - 19 comments

Wow. I'm sure the sox would take him back. Lugo and Lowrie, 2 for 1.


posted by justgary at 01:58 AM on March 29, 2009

Lugo and Lowrie, 2 for 1.

Gotta tell 'ya, I don't see that one happening.

Seriously, though, it's too bad the Marlins feel the need to upset things at this juncture. They have a good young lineup, some really good starting pitchers, and if history is any indicator, they'll win a World Series soon then get rid of their entire roster.

posted by dyams at 09:58 AM on March 29, 2009

The Marlins changed their approach. They now get rid of their players *before* winning the Series instead of afterwards.

posted by rcade at 11:22 AM on March 29, 2009

I do actually have some sympathy for Gonzalez and the concept that how you dress is a reflection of the respect you have for yourself and the team. But it's proven to be a bit of an old school concept and most younger people don't agree that you should be judged as such and should be allowed to show some individual personality.

I don't really have a problem with players wearing chains and earrings and whatnot, but I reserve the right to think they're sort of blinging douchebags. On the other hand, I'd hate to see a situation where Manny would have to cut his hair.

Also don't the Yankees do this? No beards and other such rules? If Ramirez was a Yankee, would he react in the same way?

I'd bet no. He'd cut his hair.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:29 AM on March 29, 2009

I don't mind the hair so much, as long as it is within the realms of good taste. Whos good taste is not for me to judge. The Team has to decide that. I gotta say, I really disliked Manny's hair when he was with the Sox. Always reminded me of when Monica had dreads on 'Friends'. I also think no bling should be allowed on the field. I don't want to see these guys tucking away their diamond encrusted necklace between pitches. Especially during these hard times. I can't afford to take my family to the games anymore, and it's because the players make so much that they have to flaunt it in our face. (that doesn't mean I don't go to the games, I just don't take the family) As loose as my dress code is at work, I still have one, and it's not asking to much for thses guys to have one also. Don't give me that "I'm a grown man" crap. There are dress codes everywhere.

posted by scuubie at 03:19 PM on March 29, 2009

If Ramirez was a Yankee, would he react in the same way?

No, he'd cut it in a minute.

If they upset Ramirez enough I could see that happening. There's been talk of moving Jeter, and I don't think the money would faze New York, even in this economy.

posted by justgary at 09:12 PM on March 29, 2009

Also don't the Yankees do this? No beards and other such rules? If Ramirez was a Yankee, would he react in the same way?

I'd bet no. He'd cut his hair.

Agreed, however the Yankees' hairless tradition has two things on Gonzalez:

a) They've had it for a very long time and it would exist before Ramirez even played there b) They have a history of putting winning teams on the field

Ramirez would be buying into an existing policy which many world series champions have participated in. Gonzalez's policy of putting a neat, well-groomed team on the field who isn't very good doesn't have the same allure to it. I am all for a coach having the ability to keep his players in line but it seems really shortsighted to alienate one of the only stars on a team of unknowns over a preference issue as to how people should look in a baseball uniform.

posted by dfleming at 09:15 AM on March 30, 2009

I don't even know what no bling means. Can you wear a necklace with a cross on it if you play for the Marlins?

As dfleming says, Ramirez wouldn't have signed with the Yankees if he found it to be a problem. The Marlins sign him to a long-term contract, then change the rules.

posted by bperk at 09:56 AM on March 30, 2009

I'm not really sure why Ramirez cut his hair first, then protested. It seems he should have left things alone, and used his leverage as the only star on the team to force a dialogue. There's still a week before the season starts, and I'm sure as opening day approaches, the ownership would be willing to pressure Gonzalez to give up his policy rather than risk putting those 2500 asses in the seats on opening day (I'm predicting brisk sales this year.) Seems a bit more professional than scrawling profanity on your self with a sharpie, and probably more effective.

posted by tahoemoj at 11:10 AM on March 30, 2009

Also, reminds me of the 80's, when bearded, intimidating Dave Parker left the Pirates to come back to Cincinnati, where he had to shave for the no-facial hair policy. He looked like the soccer dad next door instead of one of the most feared hitters in the game. Good stuff.

posted by tahoemoj at 11:13 AM on March 30, 2009

Also don't the Yankees do this? No beards and other such rules? If Ramirez was a Yankee, would he react in the same way?

A few people here have already put this question into perspective but let me add my take on this.

Ramirez was signed to a long term deal with Florida before Gonzalez decided this year that he would attempt to implement the 'Yankee Way'. The difference is, as dfleming already said, the Yanks have had this rule of short hair and no facial hair in their organization for a very long time. Gonzalez is trying to change things up but if a player already knows that the Yankees are the only team to enforce that rule, they know about it going in. The Marlins aren't even on the same level as the Yanks (Cap-wise) except that they're both MLB clubs. I can respect what Gonzalez is trying to do but to anger your star player for some idiotic rule that he's trying to instill is bass ackwards. Hanley Ramirez doesn't look messy, his look hasn't affected the way he plays and his "bling" hasn't gotten in the way of him making some spectacular plays at the SS position. Just about any team in need of a solid SS would take Ramirez with his shorts dreads and diamond encrusted necklace any day...but my Mets already have a solid SS with short dread-like hair (or maybe he changed it again this year...?) and a necklace so we're good.

posted by BornIcon at 11:19 AM on March 30, 2009

OK, so if I'm understanding correctly, the reason that Ramirez is in the right here is that:

a) There was no appearance rule prior to his signing.

b) The Marlins aren't on the same level as the Yankees, who are justified in having such a rule.

I'm not really in agreement. The first item essentially makes the case that you can't change such rules mid-contract. Except some players will always be in mid-contract, so it really means, no changing the rules. The Yankees had to establish the rule at some point. There was a first time before there was a long time. And, as I recall, this was Steinbrenner's rule, instituted when he bought the Yankees - which was also when they sucked.

And the look never impacts the play. That's not why a team engages this rule. I think it's more about professionalism, and for a young team like the Marlins, it makes a certain amount of sense.

Also - don't the Marlins have a 'history' of putting a good team on the field? They have won two world series in the past decade.

The second is patently false. Both are on exactly the same level. They play in the same league. What you're implying is there are two standards. Players are expected to go the Yankee way, but are free to bitch and moan about the same rules applied to any other franchise? That's bullshit, it implies that this can't change.

I don't think Ramirez is a punk or even looks unkempt compared to some others, but I think the Marlins have every right to institute this rule, and I think the responsible thing to do is for Ramirez to embrace it.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:07 PM on March 30, 2009

You just said it yourself about the Yankees. It was Mr. Steinbrenner, the owner, that instituted the rule. Not Billy Martin or Lou Pinella..or Buck Showalter..or Joe I missing another Yankee skipper during Steinbrenner's era? If so, I apologize.

In the Marlins case, it's the skipper, Fredi Gonzalez that trying to make this a rule. If current Marlins owner, Jeffrey Loria made this a final rule, then that'll be a different story. Has anyone heard if Loria has backed Gonzalez on this?

Secondly, I said that the Marlins aren't on the same level as the Yankees, Salary Cap-wise, not as for what kind of product they put out on the field as they are noth MLB clubs so anything can happen between the lines.

posted by BornIcon at 08:32 AM on March 31, 2009

That's the problem I have with it too. Managers are fired pretty quickly these days. Unless the hair rule is coming from the ownership, why alienate one of your only star players for a manager who might not be around in a year?

posted by rcade at 09:10 AM on March 31, 2009

Point taken on the manager issue but I still don't see the big deal. So if Loria backs the manager, then we're okay with it?

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:06 PM on March 31, 2009

when in Rome....

posted by irunfromclones at 11:19 PM on March 31, 2009

So if Loria backs the manager, then we're okay with it?

It doesn't affect me whatsoever, like everyone else here on SpoFi, I'm only giving my opinion on this subject so I'm ok with whatever decision is made.

If my boss told me that there was a dress code at my job, then of course I would follow those rules. If a co-worker told me out of the blue that he/she thinks that we should have a dress code, and there is none, am I to follow what a co-worker says just because that person thinks we should have one?

In this situation, if the owner decided that it was a rule that every player will abide by, then so be it.

when in Rome....

Pretty much...

posted by BornIcon at 08:25 AM on April 01, 2009

In this situation, if the owner decided that it was a rule that every player will abide by, then so be it.

Sure, that's obvious. But what if the dress code seemed capricious and unfair?

posted by yerfatma at 11:20 AM on April 01, 2009

But what if the dress code seemed capricious and unfair?

If the owner of the team that the player plays for, says that a dress code will be instituted within thru-out the organization, as the Yankees have for players on the field, then that's the way it is.

If the owner's dress code suggests that every player must wear daisy dukes, now that would be capricious.

posted by BornIcon at 12:12 PM on April 01, 2009

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.