March 16, 2007

Gary Sheffield is, first and foremost, a very good baseball player. Always has been, for the most part in his career. Beyond that, I'm extremely happy he and his big mouth are gone from the Yankees. He wants to rant about "the Corporation" and how people in sports are used, etc., but the first chance he gets, after leaving New York, he puts out a book in order to benefit, financially, from everything. He calls Torre "an owner's manager," yet he doesn't have the balls to say this stuff while he's there. He's a hypocrite, and no matter what he says, I'll always feel he's bitter about not being in New York. He says that if winning is all you want to do, then go to New York. Gee, isn't that kind of the point, Gar? That "Corporation" he wants to run down, to whatever extent, paid him extremely well and allowed him to live quite comfortably. I shouldn't be surprised, but he's just another in a long line of out-of-touch athletes who overestimate their importance to society in general.

posted by dyams at 10:23 AM on March 16, 2007

ESPN: You have said that you never knowingly took steroids. But while working out with Bonds after the 2001 season, you wrote that you received some cream from his trainer Greg Anderson -- which you applied to some busted stitches -- and you also took some vitamins from Bonds, who got them from Anderson, who got them from BALCO head Victor Conte. Later, you made a check out to BALCO, linking you to this scandal forever. For the record, were those substances -- the vitamins and cream -- tainted? And if not, how can you be sure? Now that's journalism. Um, what about the cheque? Sheff: I know they weren't tainted. Tell me how rubbing something on me will make you feel any different? That's the most preposterous thing I've ever heard. Tell me this: Have you ever gone to a store and had a steroid-based cream put on you? Can't say that I have. OK then, so are you on steroids? No. OK, that's my point. If it's that simple, why do I have to debate this with anyone? I'm so glad you cleared that up for me, Mr. Sheffield.

posted by Amateur at 11:22 AM on March 16, 2007

George has built himself an evil empire and aims to destroy all who oppose him. Debo270, I'll be happy to sell you that tin-foil hat, and as a Spring Training Special, you get 20% off the regular price and your team's logo embossed on it for free.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:38 AM on March 16, 2007

lbb, that was funny as hell.

posted by dyams at 11:43 AM on March 16, 2007

I'm not going to mock you, but I will defend George. He runs a multi-million dollar organization, and he expects the best. He pays well, but expects results. That's the way many big, successful businesses are run. The guy owns the team, he's not their father. He's always been tough on managers and some players, but he has always been concerned for the product he provides to Yankee fans. Is he a tyrant, in some respects, who goes to far? Of course. Does this bother me as a Yankee fan? Not at all. As for his players, the ones who want to play, produce, and hopefully win on the biggest stage in baseball want to go to New York and seem to get along fine with George. Are his business tactics making it hard for some smaller-city franchises? In some ways. But liking the Yankees, or hating the Yankees, it what keeps a great deal of interest in major league baseball (not all of it, I know). In a nutshell, Steinbrenner makes money and spends money. Would I feel better if he made a lot of money but didn't invest it back in the team? No. Finally, it seems the past year or so, and on into this year, George has finally seen the light with respect to keeping young talent and not going after every high-priced veteran that can be seen as a possible-quick fix. That's a big (and positive) change. Gary Sheffield is all for "The Corporation" and big business when it's about him signing a contract for ridiculous sums of money. He needs to stop being a hypocrite, accept where he's at in his career, and play the damn game.

posted by dyams at 12:41 PM on March 16, 2007

I've never particularly liked Sheff because I always felt he was arrogant.I still do but I admire him for his intelligence and candor.How many pro athletes could write their own book?(How many can write at all?) Sheffield brings up the subtlety of racism in baseball and how Whites are not usually even aware of it.This is not to be confused with C.C. Sabathia's rant the other day.

posted by sickleguy at 12:59 PM on March 16, 2007

He's a hypocrite, and no matter what he says, I'll always feel he's bitter about not being in New York. Well, he trashes every team he leaves behind, always feeling disrespected, so I'm not sure if his bitterness is a sign of anything. I still do but I admire him for his intelligence and candor.How many pro athletes could write their own book?(How many can write at all?) Did you even read what Amateur quoted? I don't have a problem with Sheffield, but he most certainly isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. And to answer your question, any athlete can write their own book if a publisher thinks it will sell. It doesn't prove (nor disprove) anything regarding Sheffield's intelligence. Sheffield brings up the subtlety of racism in baseball and how Whites are not usually even aware of it. No, he complains that because of racism he's never been the poster child for his team, ignoring Ortiz in boston, ignoring that the reason no team would make him the face of their organization is because of his own actions and history. If he wants to make racism the scapegoat, well, Sheffields always been great at blaming others. Par for the course.

posted by justgary at 01:32 PM on March 16, 2007

Ya know, I'm sure i'm missing some, but I've thought for at least 10 minutes, and I can't come up with even 1 team that has a white guy as the ''face'' of their team. Atlanta maybe, chipper Jones....and that's a stretch

posted by louisville_slugger at 03:48 PM on March 16, 2007

louisville_slugger... Going back a bit, Cal Ripken was and one could argue that Doc Halladay is in Toronto. Wasn't Piazza the face of the Mets just a couple of years ago, and Jonny Damon in Boston? Of course some of those could be debated. On the wider topic, has Sheffield said anything that isn't that obvious? Aren't most manager's "owners-managers" outside of the Marlins last year?

posted by jc at 05:10 PM on March 16, 2007

You know, I've been drinking and that punctuation and grammar still makes no sense. It doesn't validate according to W3C standards either: you have an unclosed ' intercepted by a ". And no one is the face of the Expos.

posted by yerfatma at 09:36 PM on March 16, 2007

Sheffield was, is, and always will be an arrogant player. Regardless of talent he's been a cancer on all the ballclubs he played on. My brewers saw the promising player that he was and on the flipside saw the selfishness- and the damage that one player can do to a TEAM in one season. We applauded when he left, just like the yankee fans did and detroit fans will too. His allegations about racism in baseball has always been a crutch for him to defend his poor, selfish attitude (sound familiar Barry Bonds?) whereas people hate him because he's a jerk and a quiter and not because he is black. I know there is racism still in baseball, but to have Sheffield as the mouthpiece for all African American baseball players, i think it does a disservice to them because the true problem gets overshadowed by his history.

posted by firestompinmed at 11:41 AM on March 17, 2007

The best Yankee teams were back in the 80's when my Royals contended each year with them. Not even close. It is true, however, that the best Royals teams took the field in the late '70's and early 80's, but while Brett, McRea, Otis, Patek, Wilson, Porter and Herzog et al were good, they did not have near the sand in their craw that the Ruth/Gehrig, DiMaggio, or Mantle led Yankee teams of earlier decades had. Just an opinion.

posted by mjkredliner at 06:28 PM on March 19, 2007

And George's way works so well that the Yankees have won every more world series over the past decade than any other team. Well, no, but half? Um, wait, not even 3 out of 10 in '98, '99, and '00. The Yanks not only represent the biggest payroll, but the gap between their salaries and the majority of the league is massive. Yet, in the end, the best they can do is field a collection of individual superstars who collectively go to the post-season every year and give their team a chance at a title in a post-season that more-or-less comes down to a crapshoot for everybody. What they haven't achieved is being a team impressing you, apparently. And, baseball is a team sport. The best third worst era of Yankee teams were back in the 80's (after the teams in the early 1900's and the late 1960's) when my Royals contended each year with them. And back then the Yankees--albeit it with a higher payroll--had much less the salary disparity than the rest of league. But, they were the a team to beat. The TEAM to beat that was beaten far more often than the club of the last decade. And that's why they were are a dynasty then now. D+ How can the Royals expect to compete in the American League when the city of Kansas City can't even afford history books. Regardless of talent he's been a cancer on all the ballclubs he played on. I'm going to disagree. I was very happy the Yankees traded Sheff, but not because I thought he was a cancer. He played hurt through his entire first year with the Yanks without taking a seat or griping one bit about it. When he came back from his wrist injury last year, instead of getting petulant about his right field spot, he went right to work to learn a new position and make himself valuable to the team. He was a bad first baseman, but he wasn't a cancer. Yes, he made a gripe about his contract, but in the world of New York media I thought that got precious little ink, which leads me to believe he wasn't making it that big an issue (at least not publicly). The only reason I was happy he got traded was because he was the Yankees' most tradable commodity and he brought the greatest return they could have expected of the outfielders they had. The Yankees could have continued with the first base experiment, but I am thrilled they did not. The fact that they got so much young pitching in return made the deal a huge part of what has to be considered one of the best Yankees off-seasons in the era of free agency.

posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 11:32 AM on March 20, 2007