"A New York Treasure" --Village Voice

Good Teeth, Great Game

Angels Tigers Baseball

I don’t know if Bobby Abreu is a Hall of Famer–he’ll probably walk too much when all is said and done–but he sure is in the Hall of the Extremely Good. (Back in 2005, Rany Jazayerli of Baseball Prospectus called him “the most underrated player in the game.”) I enjoyed him as a Yankee and am thrilled that he’s had such a good season for the Angels. Talk about a value!

Plus, he’s got great teeth and a winning smile.

Tyler Kepner profiles Abreu today in the Times:

“When you see a player every day, you really get a feel for him,” Angels Manager Mike Scioscia said. “At times, you’re maybe a little disappointed in what a player brings and you thought it was a little different package. With Bobby, it’s been nothing but exclamation points.”

Tags:  Bobby Abreu  Tyler Kepner

Share: Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email %PRINT_TEXT


Show/Hide Comments 1-100
1 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 14, 2009 2:04 pm

A lot of people are making a big deal out of how well Bobby Abreu played this year, but the reality is he was actually a better hitter last season (albeit a much better fielder this year). I've seen more than a few places suggest the Yankees should regret letting him go, but Swisher wound up having a better season. Also, I don't think Abreu's 2009 exceeded the Yankees projections. Instead, the Yankees correctly read the market and indentified room for improvement. I am happy Abreu has done well in Anaheim, but it would be a mistake to exaggerate the quality of his season.

2 Yankee Mama   ~  Oct 14, 2009 2:19 pm

No better smile in the Bigs. I always liked him, but he never met a wall he didn't fear. Glad to hear his defense was better.

Neyer has a post commenting on Kepner's piece right now over at ESPN. Hard to disagree with his analysis.

3 Alex Belth   ~  Oct 14, 2009 2:24 pm

Rob writes:

The Yankees were right. Even with Nady playing only seven games all season, they were covered because of Swisher, who is -- due mostly to his relative youth -- a slightly better hitter and fielder than Abreu. Swisher wound up earning slightly less than Abreu this season, too, so the Yankees won this "trade" all the way around. They got better and they got cheaper.
Of course, so did the Angels, who paid Garret Anderson $12.6 million last season. The Yankees were smart to let Abreu go, and the Angels were smart to sign him at a discounted price in a depressed market. They presumably figured he would bounce back from the worst season of his career, and he did.

Oddly, the headline on the story about Abreu reads, "Stats Tell Only Half the Story for Abreu."

Only half? Really? I can excuse a bit of poetic license, but you have to figure that stats tell at least 90 percent of the story for Abreu, right?

The Angels drew 66 more walks this season than last season, which pushed them from 12th in the league to 7th. This improvement is due almost entirely to two players: Abreu, and Chone Figgins. Abreu drew 67 more walks this season Garret Anderson drew last season, and Figgins drew 39 more walks this season than last season. Obviously, the rest of the team actually drew fewer walks this season than last season.

Abreu brings more walks to the table, and it's possible that his presence has contributed to Figgins drawing more walks, too. Does Abreu bring less tangible to the table? A winning attitude, perhaps?

Perhaps. But in the five seasons before Abreu arrived, the Angels averaged 94 wins per season. This season they won 97 games. This season, statistically speaking, Abreu was worth roughly three wins. Sometimes the stats really do tell most of the story.

4 Diane Firstman   ~  Oct 14, 2009 2:25 pm

Remember that laser of a HR Tex hit to end a game last week ... well, here are the details.

" . . . left the bat at 110 mph, and left the park faster than any of the other 5,000+ home runs in 2009, after only 2.88 seconds!"

5 Yankee Mama   ~  Oct 14, 2009 2:32 pm

[4] Holy crap! Glad he's on our side.

6 Ben   ~  Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm

I actually loved Abreu before he came to the Yanks. I heard the fans in Philly didn't appreciate him, and I thought, I'd love to have that guy. His numbers were so impressive and consistent.

But after a few seasons in pinstripes, I really came to see what their frustration was all about. It wasn't just the jogging after balls to the wall - because I don't remember seeing him give up an extra base due to his pace. It was his overall consistency and that drove me noodles. The guy gave exactly what I expected numbers wise, and had the kind of temperament that many players would envy - easy going, unflappable. But he made me yearn for Paul O'neal. Production be damned, show me some passion!

Oh well. I'm glad he's doing well. But I'm also much happier as a fan watching Swisher. He's such a nut. Ever notice how pissed he looks after a close call at first? He's like the eternal 5th grader - Godamnit I was SAFE!

7 Sliced Bread   ~  Oct 14, 2009 2:39 pm

off the top of my head i'm thinking Abreu was the Yankees best mid-season pickup since David Justice.

I loved his at-bats. Smooth, quiet power. Eldorado fins, leather upholstery. .. Hated to see it go, but I don't mind bangin' around in a 2009 Swisher with the cherrybomb mufflers and chrome mud flap girls.

8 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 14, 2009 2:40 pm

[6] All things being equal, I want the passion too. For whatever reason, when O'Neill would slam a helmet or Swisher lets loose with an F-bomb, it makes me feel a little better too.

9 a.O   ~  Oct 14, 2009 2:42 pm

No outfielder with a wall phobia can e properly characterized as having great game.

10 Ben   ~  Oct 14, 2009 2:48 pm

[8] Yeah. I can't explain it. Cause I loved guys like Olerud and Bernie, also very consistent and mellow players. But those guys seeme like flakes, and I loved their game for that reason.

Abreu was too calm and consistent, especially at the plate. He'd take a strike and step out a half step, take a swin and move back in. Same thing if it was a ball. With Bernie and Olerud, I got the sense that their calm was like a zen practice. They were trying to be calm. Abreu gave me the feeling that he just didn't give that much of a shit. This probably make him a healthier man - after all it's only baseball- but a less exciting one to watch play.

11 Raf   ~  Oct 14, 2009 2:52 pm

Production be damned, show me some passion!

To each their own, I suppose.

Everyone has different ways of showing "passion." It bothered me that O'Neill's helmet toss or water cooler attack is/was acceptable, but Rickey pumping himself up after stealing a bag (or several; cue the 1989 ALCS) isn't. Greg Maddux & Pedro Martinez were the best at their peak, I don't think anyone would accuse them of lack of passion, even though they didn't do much in the way of outward emotion.

12 Raf   ~  Oct 14, 2009 2:53 pm

[10] Olerud was a flake?

13 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 14, 2009 2:54 pm

[11] I don't recall Rickey being criticized for showing emotion (it was more the "loafing" that got him in trouble). Also, Maddux and Pedro (who did show emotion) could have gotten away with any behavior because with both there was no such thing as "all else being equal".

14 Shaun P.   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:03 pm

Abreu's EqA, 2008: .283 2009: .286
Abreu's EqR, 2008: 94 2009: 90 (albeit in ~20 less PA)

I'd call that pretty close. BP gives him a 2.9 WARP, - 6 FRAA. Slightly better than his two full seasons in NY (2.8 and 2.9) and around his defense in NY (-6, -9).

Swisher, on the other hand, had a .294 EqA, 90 EqR (in 70 less PA), and a 3.4 WARP (-5 FRAA). So yes, I think the Yanks definitely "won the trade".

Other sources, IIRC, have Swisher's defense as significantly better than Abreu's. YMMV.

15 Shaun P.   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:07 pm

In any case, I think Abreu is a fantastic player and if he can keep going for a few more years, he's a Hall of Famer in my book.

16 Alex Belth   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:07 pm

I remember seeing shots of Olerud in the dugout and he just had that thousand yard stare. Don't know if he was a flake but he seemed "off" in a way that is usually reserved for pitchers.

I LOVED the hairy spaz's Paulie O used to throw.

17 Ben   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:10 pm

[11] O'neal is just the easy antithesis. I don't mean you have to be a spaz to be passionate. And by Girardi's account, Abreu was indeed very passionate about his game. I guess I mean something more like colorful, or accessible. I just found Abreu boring to watch.

[12] That's just an opinion. I never met the man. I remember seeing him in the dugout during a Mets postseason loss. The season was ending. They were down to their last out. Everyone was hang-dog. And they cut to a shot of Johnny sitting on the bench, smiling dreamily about something. I've never been able to shake that image.

18 Ben   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:11 pm

[16] DOH!

19 Mattpat11   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:11 pm

Speaking of great teeth or lack there of, under/over on vomit inducing extreme close ups of John Lackey's face during dinner time?

20 RagingTartabull   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:15 pm

Olerud always seemed a little off on some level, but I guess when you survive a brain aneurysm at 21 you tend to not get all that riled up about things like striking out with a runner on second.

Bernie...well they just broke the mold with Bernie, didn't they?

21 RagingTartabull   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:18 pm

I also have a soft spot for Olerud, because I will believe until my dying day that if we never hear the words "bruised instep" during the 2004 ALCS we manage to get that 4th win.

22 Raf   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:21 pm

[13] I remember articles during the 89 ALCS coming after him and Dave Parker

[17] Didn't want to sound as if I was coming after you. When I hear of "flaky" players, it's usually refers to guys like Bernie who was pretty well known as a space cadet. Olerud for the most part seemed pretty bland as a player, if I were to describe him "flake" wouldn't be one of the first things to come to mind

23 monkeypants   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:21 pm

[8][11] All things being equal, I prefer guys who show less emotion or passion or whatever, not more...at least during the game. I don't like regular helmet throwing tirades from an aesthetic standpoint, and I am always worried that such a player can be baited or goaded into allowing his emotions to "get the better of him".

In the end, though, I don't much care.

24 Raf   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:22 pm

[19] I'll see your Lackey and raise you a Pascual Perez

25 Diane Firstman   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:27 pm


I'll see your Perez, and raise you Ted Simmons ...

AND ... the most human representation of a goat I've ever seen, Jim Kern

26 RagingTartabull   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:28 pm

via the LoHud:

Game 1:
Sabathia vs. Lackey

Game 2:
Burnett vs. Saunders

Game 3:
Pettitte vs. Weaver

Game 4:
Sabathia vs. Kazmir

27 Diane Firstman   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:31 pm


Interesting .... there were people wondering if the Halos would go lefty - lefty in the first two games at the Stadium.

28 Yankee Mama   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:33 pm

[27] It makes sense for the Angels. They want Weaver for the home game.

I'm getting antsy.

29 thelarmis   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:38 pm

ooh, i don't have any time here to comment, but i can't let a post go on my boy boBBy without chiming in for a quick sec...

i've long been a fan of boBBy's and was thrilled to have him for a season and a half. i'm glad he's done well for the halos and i sure hope he plays a few more years. all that said, i hope he - and the rest of his mates - tank something fierce in the ALCS!!! : )

i hope he ends up Hall worthy, i really do. and i also hope walks don't keep him out. they best not keep out Rock Raines!!!

personally, i just hope he reaches 300 homers, so he can be in my favorite 300-300 club. i think he needs 44 homers, which would be about 3 good seasons for him, at this point.

and yeah, his smile is electric.

30 Diane Firstman   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:42 pm

A moment of silence please ... a great "entertainer" has passed on ...


31 Sliced Bread   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:45 pm

Saunders in Game 2? Clearly, Scioscia is fucking with our minds.
If his plan is working, at this moment Girardi is suddenly and mysteriously compelled to start Gaudin in Game 1, have Molina catch the entire series, with A-Rod and Tex bunting every at-bat.
Make the bad man go away!

32 RagingTartabull   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:46 pm

wow interesting stuff just now on 1050, Peter Gammons was on with Michael Kay

1) The Sox have "every intention" of trading Papelbon next winter as he's going into his walk year

2) Torre is "definitely gone" after his contract is up in LA because "his life is a living hell", he "hates ownership", and "it's all going to come out as soon as he retires"

that was a fun 10 minutes

33 Diane Firstman   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:51 pm


1) Papelbon's "usual" numbers were good this year, but his peripherals were down quite a bit.
2) Hmmm ... will we see "The Dodger Years" come out in April 2011?

34 Raf   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:54 pm

[30] Another piece of my childhood, gone

35 RagingTartabull   ~  Oct 14, 2009 3:55 pm

[33] The Papelbon doesn't shock me one bit. I think he's clearly on a downward slope, the Sox are obviously grooming Bard, and Theo is on record as being a believe in the whole Bill James "closers are replaceable" mantra.

the Torre thing on the other hand was legitimately shocking, he seriously used the term "a living hell" to describe Torre's experience in LA.

36 BuckFoston   ~  Oct 14, 2009 4:01 pm

Anyone see BoBBy's numbers fro the ALDS. He was monstrous even without power. He pretty much singlehanded killed the Sox, on base 9 out of 13 AB's, he only made 4 outs in the 3 games. No one else scares me as much on the Angels, not even Vlad. Abreu is going to be motivated, he can shorten his swing when necessary (especially with 2 strikes), he has a great eye for the strike zone, he goes the other way often, how the Yankees handle him will be key.

37 BuckFoston   ~  Oct 14, 2009 4:04 pm

As for Torre, how could he not be unhappy in LALA land? He was the effin' king of NY. You think those Dodger fans that leave their games in the 7th inning care about baseball or Torre? He was the man when he was here.

38 Diane Firstman   ~  Oct 14, 2009 4:06 pm

But but ... Joe looked so HAPPY in those Amex commercials!

39 The Hawk   ~  Oct 14, 2009 4:08 pm

[6] This is very close to how I feel. I think Abreu epitomized the type of player the Yankees were supposed to have, yet on this team it wasn't a really good fit. Maybe he's too unflappable - it's uninspiring. I can't get behind this idea that Swisher is a better hitter, but he's the better player for the Yankees.

40 Yankee Mama   ~  Oct 14, 2009 4:09 pm

[38] That was the first year when cruising around in a convertible was such a novelty. Of course, the endorsement check from Amex had to put a smile on his face.

41 RagingTartabull   ~  Oct 14, 2009 4:10 pm

I gotta admit, it made me smile a little bit.

We had to sit through all of last year (and a good portion of this year, at least when the book came out) and listen to Joe tell us every 5 minutes how he was "finally having fun again!!"

Yeah well....

42 Chyll Will   ~  Oct 14, 2009 4:22 pm

Capt. Lou as a Superfriends-like cartoon - Plus!

Capt. Lou as Super Mario - not so much...

One of the few personalities that made pro wrestling okay to like for kids of discriminating parents on Saturday afternoons >;)

43 Chyll Will   ~  Oct 14, 2009 4:25 pm

[41] I'm not the only one who saw the headline, heard the teaser and said to myself, "L.A.'s getting to him already, huh?", right?

44 RIYank   ~  Oct 14, 2009 4:43 pm

Hm, don't forget that Gammons is, you know, kind of a horse's ass. I'm sure he has some BoSox connections, but I would not take that report as gospel. There's no doubt they'll shop Papelbon around, but he's not out the door yet.

I heard a couple of disgruntled citizens of RSN today (on WEEI) bemoan the fact that Boy Theo didn't trade for BoBBy in 2006.

Papelbon's a bum. Abreu is awwwwsome. RSN, victim of SSS Syndrome.

45 OldYanksFan   ~  Oct 14, 2009 4:49 pm

When we had Bobby, he was making what... $18m/yr?
To keep him (arbitration) would have cost at least that if not more,
If Cashman offered him $10m, my guess is Bobby would have been insulted.
I read one article that had Bobby as the worst fielder in baseball. Not just outfielder... fielder.
When we got him, his career OPS was over .900. For us, his OPS was under .840.
With the Halos, he had a .825 OPS. Add to that poor defense, and I wonder how much better then average that totals out to.
I loved the guy and his patience... but Cashman letting him go was 100% the right move.
I'm afraid the same will be true this year with JD and Matsui. The were both VERY good Yankees, but there time has come with this team.
[29] We had him 2.5 years.

46 OldYanksFan   ~  Oct 14, 2009 4:58 pm

Bobby: .293 15 103 .390 .435 .825
Swish:: .249 29 082 .371 .498 .869

There is a difference between a great hitter and a great producer.
As a pure hitter, Bobby is better... much like Ichiro is better then ARod.
But as far as producing runs, Swisher was better in 2009, and ARod might be a smidge better then Ichiro.

As for fielding, Swish ain't a ballerina, but was MUCH better then Bobby. Abreu had a better arm and more speed, so maybe that makes the non-hitting part f the game a wash.

And Swisher had .122 OPS pts from BBs. Amazing!

47 RIYank   ~  Oct 14, 2009 5:51 pm

Has anyone mentioned that mlb has announced the umpiring crew for the ALCS?

Crew Chief: Tim McClelland
Dale Scott
Jerry Layne
Fieldin Culbreth
Laz Diaz
Bill Miller.

48 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 14, 2009 7:11 pm

Hallo all, a football Q! NOT a political question here, and am NOT encouraging any debate on the content of his work..am just wondering, does the NFL have the right to deny Rush Limbaugh a piece of the Rams because of his "controversial" persona? The NFL is a private corporation..I do not know the rules for becoming an owner but it seems that the other owners have every right to say "No" to someone..or do they? Would it be possible to challenge them in court if, for example, they declined someone on the basis of his/her race? Just wondering..this thing confuses me..

Oh, I am sure everyone here can guess what I think of Rush so no need to get into that..am just interested from the sports/business perspective..(similar to baseball, didn't the other owners reject Mark Cuban buying the Cubs?)

49 Chyll Will   ~  Oct 14, 2009 7:16 pm

Laz Diaz? Really?? Is MLB in league with FOX to market umpires?

50 RIYank   ~  Oct 14, 2009 7:51 pm

[48] Yes, they do have the right. Yes, he could challenge them in court if it were because of his race, but not if it's because of his political views. (There are specific laws forbidding discrimination by race... you may have heard of these!)

51 Raf   ~  Oct 14, 2009 7:52 pm

am just wondering, does the NFL have the right to deny Rush Limbaugh a piece of the Rams because of his “controversial” persona?

With Al Davis there?

52 JeremyM   ~  Oct 14, 2009 8:02 pm

Didn't ownership and the GM meet with Torre when they were going through a bit of a rough patch, even when they were up in the divison by several games with the clock running out? I read something about that. The story was that they lit a fire under him and ripped him, which couldn't have sat well with Torre. The grass isn't always greener....

Too bad on Captain Lou, what a character.

53 Chyll Will   ~  Oct 14, 2009 8:27 pm

The other end of it is, would players be willing to play for an ownership which includes an outspoken "individual" like Rush Limbaugh; i.e. how does this effect their negotiations with FAs and draft picks who would either hesitate or openly boycott that team? Al Davis has been the owner of the Raiders long before his seeming dementia caught up with him, so the situation is a little different. Limbaugh has been openly and outspokenly hostile towards people of color in football and other arenas and that's a matter of public record, so the NFL would have to weigh the cost/benefits of his participation in ownership, no matter what the percentage. It always comes down to money and how any participant impacts the NFL brand, image or economically (and often both).

Even in times of economic hardship, and I'm sure that's why the NFL has given it so much consideration without an indication of where they stand (though players, coaches and at least one owner has said they don't want him), I bet Limbaugh has as much chance of chance of being part of any ownership in the NFL as, say, Joe Francis...

54 Rich   ~  Oct 14, 2009 8:45 pm

Abreu's only problem is that he was paid like a HR hitter with plate discipline (a rare combination) and he isn't that anymore, even though he can still SLG. That's why he is no longer a Yankee.

55 Diane Firstman   ~  Oct 14, 2009 8:45 pm

Limbaugh dropped from ownership group ...

56 Rich   ~  Oct 14, 2009 8:48 pm

am just wondering, does the NFL have the right to deny Rush Limbaugh a piece of the Rams because of his “controversial” persona?

It's a private organization that can exclude anyone they want.

Politics aside, Limbaugh is a lowlife POS for mocking a person with Parkinson's Disease. Let it happen to him or a member of his family and see if he still thinks it's funny.

57 Rich   ~  Oct 14, 2009 8:49 pm

[55] I don't think an ownership group that once thought he was fit to be included in their group should be awarded a team.

58 RIYank   ~  Oct 14, 2009 8:58 pm

[56] But think of all the money the Rams could have saved on painkillers! All the oxycontin a D-lineman could ever swallow.

Okay, that's it, I'm done with this topic.

59 Rich   ~  Oct 14, 2009 9:01 pm

[58] That assumes that he would be willing to share his Dr. Feelgoods, which is not something most addicts are willing to do. ;)

60 seamus   ~  Oct 14, 2009 9:09 pm

Abreu was one of my favorite recent Yankees. I was sad to see him go. And I've rooted for him all year. I like likable people. And Abreu is a likable person. I wouldn't want him to be more like anyone else.

61 RIYank   ~  Oct 14, 2009 9:10 pm

[59] No, I refuse to participate any further on this topic. Though were I to do so, I know exactly what I would say next.
But, no.


62 The Hawk   ~  Oct 14, 2009 9:10 pm

I don't think it's Limbaugh's politics that kept him out of the NFL. Of all those owners, I'm sure plenty of them are dyed in the wool conservatives. It's the way he expresses himself that's the problem, and specifically his race-baiting ways. He's controversial and has historically been in a way that not only fans might find objectionable but also, with 70% of players being of African descent, that most players would have a problem with too. It's just not in the interest of the NFL - a brand that aspires to Disney-like heights of squeaky-cleanliness - to have a guy like that associated with them.

Personally I couldn't be happier. I think he's an awful, obnoxious person. That bit about "Obama's America" he did vis a vis some kids getting into a fight was beyond ridiculous.

63 seamus   ~  Oct 14, 2009 9:12 pm

I was glad to see some players and an owner speak up about the Limbaugh situation. His attitudes towards people of color should make him completely incompatible with the NFL or any other respectful institution.

64 Rich   ~  Oct 14, 2009 9:15 pm

[62] You're right. I recently saw a report about the political contributions of NFL owners. Most give more to Republicans, particularly the Chargers. Ironically, the Rams are one of the few teams (or perhaps the only team, I can't recall) that gave more to Democrats.

65 Rich   ~  Oct 14, 2009 9:52 pm

OOT NYT to keep Boston Globe

66 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 14, 2009 10:03 pm

Yeah, I found it odd that a guy who said an NFL game was like watching "the Crips vs the Bloods" would want to buy a team..imagine him meeting some od the players?!?!

The delay till Friday is excruciating, infuriating and most definately UNACCEPTABLE! Bud Selig, go eat some bratwurst and let the adults be in charge, tell the networks to F-Off and make post-season baseball develop naturally!

67 ms october   ~  Oct 14, 2009 10:32 pm

i like abreu. i was sad to see him go - but there wasn't much of a fit for him this year and at what he probably would have cost the yanks.

anyway, good news about the 3 man rotation everyone - steve phillips doesn't like the idea of it.

68 seamus   ~  Oct 14, 2009 10:36 pm

[67] oh bless our souls!

69 RagingTartabull   ~  Oct 14, 2009 10:54 pm

re: the whole Torre/Dodgers is a living hell thing from this afternoon


70 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 14, 2009 10:54 pm

In many ways, the opposition to Rush was based largely on his race because if a black man had said the same things as he has (or made similar comments pertaining to white players...think Michael Irvin about Tony Romo), there wouldn't be an objection. The head of the NFL player's union has strong ties to the Democrat party, so his motivation was obvious, but the NFL in its usual phony fashion simply latched onto the publicity to portray itself as progressive. At least Goodell's quote about members of the league being role models was good for a laugh. I guess it's one thing to beat and kill animals and people, but another to have strong opinions.

71 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:07 pm

[70] Anyone care to reply to this one? Should I refrain our of loyalty to William's yankee fandom??

If you think the main problem with Rush is just "strong opinions"...I would say let's just argue about Joe Girardi then!

72 RagingTartabull   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:07 pm

[70] The major difference between Irvin and Rush, and the reason why it is not an apt comparison, is because Irvin wasn't trying to become an NFL owner. He was an ex-player and part time cable tv pundit making an asinine "point"...he wasn't attempting to put himself in a position of authority in the league.

Rush has made abundantly clear his disdain for the majority of players in the NFL (young, presumably liberal, black men) time and time again, so for those same people to make it clear that they wouldn't like to be his employee isn't all that shocking. I personally don't think he's a racist, although I do think he panders to them.

The NFL has a long proud history of right wingers in positions of power (read up on Lamar Hunt sometime), but no one can blame them for not wanting to get into bed with someone who brings nothing to the table except controversey and headaches. At least the dog killers and wife beaters sell tickets.

73 ms october   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:12 pm

[70] also if a black man had said the same things he has it would not have the same implications and meanings. there is a completely different set of histories and current power dynamics.

and i personally don't think the nfl portrays itself as progressive nor dos it try to. the punishments that goodell has seemingly enjoyed handing out are are swifter and more punitive toward black players than white players with similar infractions.

i blame you mr. ok jazz for even taking us down this road and you don't even like football :}

74 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:14 pm

[73] An egregious error for which I humbly apologize...

Blame Bud Selig, if we had baseball today I wouldn't have been feeling bored! :)

75 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:17 pm

[71] I understand you object to his political philosophy, but baseless characterizations don't really hold much weight. I am not interested in debating the merits of his commentary because no one is coming at the issue from a position of objectivity, but there is value in recognizing one's own bias.

[72] But Irvin does work for the NFL! In fact, his position as a TV commentator is much more high profile than a limited partner in an ownership group (I wonder what other controversial limited partners exist?).

If anything, Limbaugh is a vocal advocate of the NFL, so I am not sure why you claim he has disdain for a majority of the players (I assume its the blood and crips line, which I'd bet is far from the most controversial statement on the NFL's real behavior problems).

As to your last point, I agree completely. The NFL can pretend all it wants that it is taking a moral stand, but all it was doing was grandstanding on an easy issue. Limbaugh offers no advantage, so it's easy to dismiss him. It is comical, however.

76 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:19 pm

[73] I completely reject the notion that racism is less dangerous and vile when expressed by a "minority", so we'll have to disagree on that point.

Do you have an example about how the NFL is harder on black players?

77 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:24 pm

[76] "We didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

Confirmed by several different sources to be a direct quote from Mr. Limbaugh.
I believe no further comment is necessary on this vile, drug-addict piece of shit.

78 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:31 pm

[77] Let me guess...that quote was confirmed by an "objective" watchdog group that just happens to have ties to the Democrat party? Of course, one could find inflammatory quotes attributed to many high profile people, but something tells me you don't think they are vile pieces of shit? Again, recognizing our own bias is a fundamental part of such discussions.

79 JeremyM   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:32 pm

Anyone else feel like Scioscia may have outsmarted himself with his pitching rotation? Probably wishful thinking, but still, a nice thought. But I think Kazmir is more likely to throw a gem than Saunders.

80 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:34 pm

[78] Expounding on that point, I recall an email that was being sent around showing real quotes from President Obama's books that were, well, racist. Of course, the lack of context completely distorted the meaning, which is why it is intellectually lazy to form opinions based on snippits and sound bites.

81 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:36 pm

[78] Confirmed by the Washington Post, St.Louis Post-Dispatch and the Detroit Free Press for starters.

I would like to note, I am NOT bringing politics into this discussion, YOU are. I was merely talkign about Limbaugh and the situation with the Rams, a sports-related discussion. I think Limbaugh's history of racial remarks would make him LEAST appropriate person to own a team in league that is 70% African-American. Think black players would appreciate the following?

"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."
"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

But you go ahead and defend this guy if you like, it is a free country after all.

82 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:44 pm

[81] Actually, my post didn't mention anything about his politics or express an opinion about them. Instead, it was about the NFL's grand standind and double standard. Also, I haven't called anyone a vile piece of shit.

As I mentioned in [80], all the snippits in the world might make you feel better about your opinion, but they really lack credibility. I don't need to or want to defend Rush, but I do feel the need to check baseless claims bases on political bias.

83 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:47 pm

[81] Also, can you cite where they confirmed the quote? Here is a link that calls the existence of the quote into question:


84 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:48 pm

[82] William, it was you who first brought up the Democratic Party..I never once mentioned anything political.
Also, Rush's radio broadcasts are easily available...what exactly is "baseless"?
Those quotes are verbatim..you have no comment on them at all?

Lastly, I have no political bias here, I hate the Democrats and Republicans equally and have not voted in an election for 16 years..just the facts, man. Look at Rush's comments and tell me he would be a good person to have as an owner in a league made up of predominantly African-American players...

Claiming you don't need or want to defend this guy is odd considering that is exactly what you are doing...

85 RagingTartabull   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:51 pm

[82] I don't think to say that Rush has made, at the very least, race-baiting comments is somehow baseless and lacking in credibilty.

I don't wanna rummage through the interblogs looking for full transcripts of Limbaugh programs through the years where he has pandered to the bigoted segment on his audience, but I think we all can agree that they exist. Does that mean that, for instance, Al Sharpton isn't just as much of a buffoon as Rush? Of course not...they're two peas in a pod as far as I'm concerned.

The difference is that Al isn't trying to buy a professional sports team

86 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:54 pm

Finally, below is the transcript with the "bloods and crips" line. If you read it in its context, it is far from a controversial statement. In fact, I think Jason Whitlock has probably gone miles beyond what Rush said. Also, if you read the entire thing, Rush expresses more admiration for football players than disdain.

Again, my point is not to defend Rush, but to point out that some of the criticisms in this thread are not based on facts, but bias (which is fine, as long as we are williing to admit as much).

87 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:55 pm

[83] Ok man, I am wrong, you are right..Rush is a defender of civil rights, a victim of left-wing agendas and PC police..how could I have been so mistaken?? I'll tear down my Gandhi poster and light up a cigar for this color-blind paragon of liberty and justice for all!

And will order my copy of Tim McCarver's new album of standards too!

88 RagingTartabull   ~  Oct 14, 2009 11:58 pm

[86] Even if your point isn't to defend Rush, thats what you are doing. And thats fine, good for you...it adds to the fun of the conversation.

But to say that the critiques of him are somehow motivated by bias rather than facts, and then base your defense of him around Brent Bozell and the MRC...well, pot meet kettle.

89 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:01 am

[84] I brought up the Democrat party because the organizations that have "verified" your facts have such affiliations, as [83] can atest.

I can't speak to your voting record, but based on your frequent political musings, I think we can also guess your leanings. I am not accusing you of doing anything wrong, but just pointing out that perhaps you might not be objective on this issue (by the way, I am not claiming that I am either). Furthermore, just because I think it is silly to object to Limbaugh as an owner doesn't mean I am defending everything he says. I would make the same argument for Keith Olberman, for example.

[85] To be honest, I rarely listen to Rush, but everytime one of these Rush is a racist stories crops up, the claims turn out to be baseless. Also, I guess I don't see why the NFL would object to someone who has said controversial things as an owner, but would hire another person to be a commentator on a league owned network.

90 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:07 am

[87] I don't care who is wrong or right...just that your claim be based on facts. Whether it is a post about baseball or politics, a baseless claim should be challenged. Of course, your sarcasm in response to the links I posted leads me to belive that you simply prefer to accept the quotes as being genuine, which is ok too. I've made my point and you have made yours...I guess that's fair and balanced.

[88] Defending Rush's bid to be an owner yes; defending his politics, not really (although in another forum, I would be happy to do just that).

As for Bozell, he isn't objective, but the link doesn't merely claim the quotes are fabricated....it challenges those who say otherwise to prove their claim. The link was provided to show that Rush has flatly denied the quote.

91 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:08 am

[89] Fair enough, but you are still dodging the main issue..even if only 10% of the comments ascribed to Rush involving "questionable" comments on race were true..why would the NFL want to be close to this guy? Is it wise to let such a polarizing figure into your club? Same goes for Olbermann...I may like some of the things he says, but I certainly don't want him buying the Yankees!

92 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:10 am

[90] The tapes of the radio broadcasts exist out there and were cited in the newspapers I mentioned..papers you dismissed as untrustworthy because of their ties to the Democratic Party...

William, it would be endless but feel free to email me in private anytime you want to debate Rush's politics. When it's slow here at ACME Investigations I can respond at length (obviously from my jazz chat with thelarmis!) but will cease here out of repsect for the Banter rules...

93 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:14 am

[91] I guess my point is that the NFL is "close" to alot of people with very questionable character and ethics, that I find it amusing that Goodell would take such a strong stand against a potential limited owner for saying that McNabb is overrated because the media wants him to succeed (by the way, is that such a bad thing? Black QBs have been discriminated against for so long, that it would be a good thing if the media and fans pulled for McNabb).

Finally, if you are goign to object to Limbaugh and Olbermann, where do you stop? Ultimately, I think this was a non-issue exploited by every party for personal gain.

94 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:16 am

[92] Please provide a link to one of the newspaper stories claiming the quote was verified. I would love to see it. If they exist, Rush would look very silly, considering he has denied saying it. I would think the existence of such evidence would be a huge story.

With that, it is probably best to let the issue drop. I hate when this list goes political, but sometimes feel the need to respond once the seal is broken.

95 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:23 am

[94] Tried in my first post to say I did NOT want to get into a Rush debate, was ONLY interested in the NFL question..

If he has been slandered, let him sue..

Good example of why to keep sports and politics separate, don't ya think? Imagining either Limbaugh or Olbermann as a vocal owner...yikes...the level of blowhardedness would be off the charts..

96 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:29 am

[95] You did use that preface, but thenthe politics ensued.

As for Rush, he is in fact seeking retractions and considering legal actions if they aren't forthcoming. Being that you used that quote as the basis for calling him vile, I figured you might have evidence to support its veracity (or at least be interested to know that it isn't true). I can't blame you for citing it, however, as the quote has been rampant all over the media (a form of group think that is kind of scary).

I guess I'd just to think that we'd all apply the same level of scrutiny to politics as we would to someone suggesting that Nick Punto is a good baseball player.

Does anyone know where you can see a list of minority owners? My gut tells me more than a few controversial figures would be among the rolls.

97 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:34 am

[96] Incorrect, no politics ensued. There is nothing political about me saying I think Rush Limbaugh is a vile piece of shit. It's a personal thing!

Let's see him sue the Washington Post and St. Louis Post Disptach and Jack Huberman as well for publishing it in his book. I believe you will find the same numebr of lawsuits as those against jose Canseco..that being zero

98 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:39 am

[97] So, you are fine with using an unsourced quote to back up your opinion? Considering that so many in the media haven't bothered to verify the quote, I guess I shouldn't expect regular blog commenters to subscribe to a higher standard. In many ways, such behavior provides all the defense that Rush needs.

99 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:46 am

[98] The quote about slavery was reported by three large newspapers and published in a well-known book..what is "unsourced" about that?

You've got a long wait if you think he will ever challenge that in court..and you citing some right-wing website hardly boosts your claim to be balanced..

100 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:52 am

[99] I've repeated asked for the link, but you haven't come up with one. Also, the well known book provides no documentation or source...it simply says Rush said it. Do you really think no one else heard the comment besides Huberman?

Whether Rush decides to sue every irresponsible media outlet is irrelevant...what we know is not one has been able to verify the quote. They are simply reporting what Huberman claims in his book. So, basically, you and media simply take Huberman, who is a frequent Rush critic and political opponent, at his word with no evidence? Really? You are ok with that?

Show/Hide Comments 101-147
101 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:55 am

By the way, Jack Huberman's blog is entitled "Well to the Left Of Attila The Hun"...yep, sure sounds like the kind of source I would want to trust when it comes to unsubstantiated claims. Maybe he was the source behind Selena Robert's book?

102 monkeypants   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:55 am

[97] You know Rush Limbaugh personally??? Otherwise, I believe that you are confusing the terms "political" and "partisan". Surely you do not approve of Limbaugh for political--not "personal"--reasons, though your position may not derive from partisan feelings or motives (i.e., in support of one or another political party or faction).

As to the original question--

I could not really care what criteria the NFL uses to allow or disallow owners. But then, philosophically I would tend to grant far more latitude for private organizations to use whatever criteria they want (and that includes erring on the side of the private organization rather than to rely on laws to promote specific hiring practices). At the same time, this episode conforms to my ideal of how social stigma (rather than law) should be used to temper objectionable speech: you are free to say what you want, but you should have to face to potential stigma of the community. Rush says inflammatory things, it gets him ratings, it cost him a football team.

William is right, that the NFL's hypocrisy is laughable...they manage to make the MLB owners look good by comparison, and that says something!

103 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:03 am

More background on the infamous "quote". I hadn't really given it much thought before this thread, but wow, how incredibly unprofessional is the media? I guess if the rumor is more interesting than the fact, print the rumor.


104 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:04 am

Rush acknowledged in a 1990 newsday feature that he did say
" Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." to an African-American caller. How charming.
William, when he sues the Washington Post for slander please let me know. They reported the slavery remark, let's see if they retract it..

[102] Monkeypants, it's personal! I highly dislike cigar-smoking, radio personalities with odd first names..my one example of prejudice.

105 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:11 am

[97] By the way, one of your "sources" has printed something close to a retraction atop one of the articles that mentioned the quote. It reads:

Editor's note (10/14):

A quote from the following column attributed to Rush Limbaugh about the merits of slavery in the United States came from the 2006 book "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America" by John Huberman. The book does not provide specific details about the quote.

Limbaugh, who is part of a group bidding to buy the St. Louis Rams, said Monday that he did not make that statement, which has been widely reported in recent days.

The Post-Dispatch continues to research the origin of the quote. -- Reid Laymance, Sports Editor


106 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:13 am


28 examples of remarks that may or not be recially "charged"..surely, that is enough to show that the NFL, a league made up of 70% African-American players, is right not to want such a guy owning a team? What on earth is illogical about this?

107 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:14 am

[104] He has admitted to the comment and apologized for it. It took place in the 1970s, I believe. If such a comment renders one vile, then Rush has a lot of company.

I guess I can't force you to admit that the quote you used has never been verified, but it does make me wonder why you continue to hold onto it so closely.

108 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:17 am

[106] Media Matters? Seriously? Ok forget it...clearly it is pointless to continue. I'll let the St. Louis Post Dispatch's clarification stand on its own merits. Obviously, so many seem to want to label Rush a racist that they are willing to accept unsubstantiated claims. It's funny, if Rush was such a racist, you'd think his opponents wouldn't have to rely on fabricated quotes.

109 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:18 am

[107] Making that kind of statement even once is unthinkable to me, whether 30 years ago or not.

That doesn't look like a retraction and apology to me..it says they are still researching it. If I was falsely accused of defending slavery by a newspaper, I would be in court within minutes. Especially if I had Rush's money..let's see his next move then, shall we? Maybe dig through his radio archives to find the exact quote, and others?

110 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:23 am

[108] Man, you cited "NewsBusters" for god's sake..

111 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:23 am

[109] I don't know...when a newspaper has to come out and say that it used an unsubstantiated quote, I think that's a big deal, but I guess ethics in the media has become a dinosaur.

112 monkeypants   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:24 am

[109] You would be in court in minutes and lose, because libel laws in the US are such that it is almost impossible for the plaintiff to win: you have to prove not only that the newspaper (for example) reported something false, but also that it did so knowingly. The near-impossibility of proving this is the reason why there are so few libel cases in the US. So, the fact that Rush will (probably) not bring a suit probably has little bearing on (what he perceives to be) the accuracy of the report.

113 monkeypants   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:26 am

[111] At least they didn't come out and say it was fabricated but true...

114 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:26 am

[110] I didn't cite them as an authority...I used them to show that Rush denied making the statement, which I already explained. I know you can see the difference, just like I know you realize the quote is unsubstantiated, but it seems as if you disdain for Rush is getting in the way. I think I've made my point very clearly (and wasted a lot of time doing it), so I'll give you the last word.

115 Rich   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:28 am

William is right, that the NFL’s hypocrisy is laughable…they manage to make the MLB owners look good by comparison, and that says something!

Even hypocrites get things right sometimes, and again, although I am not detached on this issue, making fun of a person with Parkinson's should be a per se disqualifier for Limbaugh to even be accepted by civilized people. He is beneath contempt.

116 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:32 am

[114] You've made no coherent point and revealed nothing beyond an ability to spend lots of your evenining defending Mr. Limbaugh from one Tokyo-based jazz fan..clearly, something you felt worthy of your time?

EVEN IF that one quote is shown to be false..you think there are not 100 dozen other examples? Just pick up one of his books...

117 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:32 am

[115] Did you hear him make fun of Fox, or did the same reputable media sources tell you? Just curious.

118 Rich   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:35 am

[117] I have seen the video with my own eyes.


119 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:37 am

[116] I've clearly shown that the quote you cited is unsubstantiated. That's all. In spite of the evidence, you refuse to accept it. It would be futile to try and change each other's minds about the politics, but I'd like to think we can spot when something isn't verified?

As I mentioned before, if Rush is such a racist, it should be easy to cite an example instead of using a quote that is made up. If you claimed that Nick Punto was better than Arod, I would ask for an example. The same holds in this case.

More fascinating to me than the particulars of the issue (I don't really care if you like Rush or not) is your desire to believe something so strongly that you completely disregard an obvious reality. For some reason, that has been compelling...and now, for real this time, I'll give you the last word.

120 monkeypants   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:42 am

[115] Oh, I imagine that he is beneath contempt, as I imagine most shock-jock political pundits are (like Bill Maher)...though maybe he's worse. That said, I'm not sure if being an offensive asshole should bar one from ownership of a sports team. But that being said, as I mentioned above, I am of the opinion that it's the NFL's own business how they police their own ranks.

121 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:43 am

[118] That was a pretty lousy thing to do...no need to mock him to make his point.

122 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:43 am

[119] Yet again, how many examples do you need? The man once told an African-American phone caller to "take the bone out your nose". Do people who are not racist say or even THINK such a thing?

Fascinating to me the lengths to which some people will defend anyone..perhaps the debate itself is what is enticing?

123 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:46 am

[120] That brings things back to what I originally wondered about..did the NFL have the right (legally) to reject ownership from someone they think controversial? I really do find this Q interesting, as with Mark Cuban and the Cubs...didn't mean to get into the whole Rush debate, seriously. Apologies for anyone bored/offended..though I imagine most have long given up on this thread...

bk to baseball: did you all check out the Tim McCarver sings the Standards album?? I'm speechless...

124 monkeypants   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:48 am

[122] Just to play devil's advocate, do you only see people in two camps: racist and not racist? Is there never any gray area? Are people ever allowed to change? Or be forgiven?

So because a man says something vile and offensive 30 years ago means that he must be racist today?

I'm just curious.

And yet again, a late night discussion with you that, inevitably, centers on racism.

125 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:54 am

[124] Prof., that's not fair..you can't say you will play devil's advocate and then admonish me for a late-night blog chat about Limbaugh-san...my original Q "clearly" (I hope) said I was NOT addressing Rush's politics or worldview, I asked about the NFL situation..the thread took off on it's own accord, not via my post...so be fair! :)

That being said, of course people can change and be forgiven. No one saying that can't..I just don't see any evidence that Limbaugh has gone from that person to all of a sudden hanginout with Joan Baez and Buffy St. Marie...the guy makes is living by being divisive..

126 monkeypants   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:55 am

[123] I imagine that they do have the right legally, but maybe I'm wrong.

I personally am more interested in the philosophical/ideological question: to what degree should private organizations be allowed to hire/fire/include as members/etc individuals based on their own criteria, including those that the general public may disagree with?

I would tend to give far more latitude to the private entities, probably more than many here would be comfortable with, even if that led to unfortunate cases of individuals being excluded because of prejudice of some form or another.

127 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 1:59 am

[126] See [48] for my original Q, i tried to emphasize it was NOT about race issues or Rush himself!

It's a tricky matter and I wonder about that too in the realm of sports..which is so open to the public, yet they are still private corporations..

128 monkeypants   ~  Oct 15, 2009 2:00 am

[125] Being divisive and being racist are two completely different things. Indeed, in some contexts, being NOT racists would be a divisive stance, but that's another story.

I am only responding to your own evidence. You have cited a recent case that has been shown to be spurious (assuming William's assertion is correct). And then you cite a case from 30 years ago.

So all of the evidence that you have produced, that is verified, seems to be the one exemplum from the distant past. Moreover, you framed that one exemplum with these two statements: Yet again, how many examples do you need? and Do people who are not racist say or even THINK such a thing. Perhaps I misread your point, but you seem to be saying that ONE example is enough, and that this ONE example (from then) proves that Rush IS (now) a racist.

129 Rich   ~  Oct 15, 2009 2:01 am

[126] I think they have an absolute right, particularly when the individual in question poses a significant threat to their ability to continue to make money. There is no prejudice involved at all in Limbaugh's case. It's purely a matter of exercising sound judgment.

130 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 2:06 am

[128] Another example: http://mediamatters.org/research/200412100008

can send dozens more..you may be a real tough grader of term-papers, but I won't go down without a fight!

131 monkeypants   ~  Oct 15, 2009 2:09 am

[129] particularly when the individual in question poses a significant threat to their ability to continue to make money.

But this can get sticky, no? What if the potential owner is a strong proponent of, say gay rights, or speaks out against organized religion or some such view that might rub the average NFL fan the wrong way? Or maybe the potential owner is an outspoken critic of the president, or highly critical of American policies, or has even been accused of being unpatriotic. Should the owners have the right to not allow that individual to own a team, if they make their decision on the basis that such a figure may hurt league revenues?

Actually, I agree with you, but as I said above, I would tend to defer to the private entity to make its own rules, whatever they may be.

132 monkeypants   ~  Oct 15, 2009 2:14 am

[130] Interesting quote. He seems to be complaining that there is too much fighting in the NBA, such that we should refer to the teams as gangs of thugs. How precisely is this racist? Is it because the NBA is predominantly made up of African-Americans?

I for one abhor not only the fighting in hockey, but also the acceptance of fighting as "part of the game." I have used similar language, in conversations, to refer to thugs in the NHL whose sole purpose is to "intimidate" and cause fights. Am I racist for saying this? Or is it different because the NHL is predominantly white?

133 monkeypants   ~  Oct 15, 2009 2:16 am

OK, I've had my fun..off to bed, finally.

134 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 2:20 am

[132] "Thugs", "Crips&Bloods"..you not seeing the pattern there? Really??
I'm sure you wouldn't resort to making crude, ethnic references to hockey players when you object to their fighting...

[133] Yes, I'm about 2 hours behind on this reserach now, regret ever asking a simple NFL question!

Can we have baseball back soon?? :)

135 monkeypants   ~  Oct 15, 2009 2:24 am

[134] I’m sure you wouldn’t resort to making crude, ethnic references...

So you see a reference to gangs as inherently an ethnic reference. Interesting...

136 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 2:28 am

[135] "Thugs", "Crips& Bloods" clearly refer to African-Americans..you must know that...

137 Rich   ~  Oct 15, 2009 2:35 am

[131] There is no constitutional or statutory provision that protects the interests of a prospective NFL owner that I am aware of, although I supposed a creative attorney could test a novel legal theory in the courts.

I think the remedy lies in the marketplace. Let the owners make their decision on whatever grounds they see fit, and the public can react accordingly with their inherent economic clout, and the players' union can seek to address what they view as unfairness in the collective bargaining process, or in the courts, if the CBA affords them such a remedy.

138 Chyll Will   ~  Oct 15, 2009 2:56 am

Man, I miss ALL the fun >;)

I will say I believe it's disingenuous to deny others' claims by insisting on absolute documents of public record, many of which are inherently biased toward the writer (and target reader) views and opinions. Two people can look at a subject, a "fact" and draw two opposite conclusions based on their own experience. Thus the question is, do facts really exist? And if so, then is not our entire legal system fundamentally flawed concerning libel, slander and in the bigger picture, the obtaining and submission of evidence? Especially when the evidence can be dismissed as illegal, irrelevant, unsubstantiated or biased?

That's the real problem with discussions about racism, and why racism will always exist in some form or another... you can agree in theory it exists, but the application of the theory fails because racism is often defined and denied by a sliding scale of definitions. On one end, there are people who demand bodies or documented oration of circumstances, and yet sometimes these are denied as fact (Rodney King video, Emmitt Till, Abner Louima, Scottsboro 9); whileon the other extreme we have individuals who oscure the facts to play on the sympathies of empathetic and otherwise educated people (O.J., Tawana Brawley).

There is no acceptable standard of proof in reality, while the theory plays out in courts across the land, and police are trusted to determine the application and enforcement of these theories. The fact is, people will chose to believe what they want to, regardless of where the proof lies; often the source becomes the invalidation. The question is, are we programmed to be this way? Do we believe that the education we received is valid if we accepted it without question or comment? Are we willing to stand on and support/defend what we "know" based on evidence that some find unacceptable for their own documented reasons?

*For the record, I've only realized the meaning of life while dreaming, which I'm about to do some more of right now, g'nite >;) ZZZzzzz...

139 Mr. OK Jazz TOKYO   ~  Oct 15, 2009 3:38 am

[138] Elegantly put, Chyll. I wish I could be so clear and steady in my writing.

Oh for anyone interested, more lovely fully-cited quotes from our friend Limbaugh-san. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2549

140 RagingTartabull   ~  Oct 15, 2009 9:15 am

Hey did you guys know that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a woman in 1990??

Google it!

141 The Hawk   ~  Oct 15, 2009 9:48 am

I'll say it again - Limbaugh was rejected not for his politics but for his, big, impolitic, controversial, divisive mouth. There are few if any figures that are on his level of visibility so I don't know that there's a direct comparison to be made, even in theory, but if you think the NFL wants a headache like that from anywhere on the socio-political spectrum, you don't understand the NFL. I worked on a pitch for them last year and they are very, very conservative (in the don't-rock-the-boat way). Like I said before, Disney-esque.

And repeatedly playing a record called "Barack the Magic Negro" probably doesn't help his case.

142 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:11 pm

[140] Very funny...I guess if it's on the internet it must be true? I mean, why should be doubt the veracity of reports by special interest groups like the one in [139]? It's much better to just run with anything you see on the old world wide web. For example, I found out President Obama is a racist...I mean, it's right here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080301071238AAWthOe. The internet doesn't lie!

[138] I am sorry, but if one is going to accuse another of being a racist, they should be able to substantiate the claim. Otherwise, you wind up with a reluctance to actual deal with the issues, which only leads to them being swept under the rug.

[141] Apparently, George Soros is also involved in Checkett's bid, so let's see how the NFL deals with this "headache from the socio-political spectrum"?

143 Raf   ~  Oct 15, 2009 12:33 pm

I worked on a pitch for them last year and they are very, very conservative (in the don’t-rock-the-boat way). Like I said before, Disney-esque.

Which I find amusing, given the many times players from their league have come against the law.

144 The Hawk   ~  Oct 15, 2009 3:37 pm

[142] Your statement is predicated on some kind of equivalency between Soros and Limbaugh, which isn't gonna fly. I said "headache like that" - you left out what I just italicized - ie, on the level of Limbaugh, which Soros is not.

[143] Well, I'm sure they don't advocate these things. I mean the last thing I remember is that guy who killed someone in a DWI and the league suspended him for a year, which is more than the justice system did.

Not that I'm advocating for the NFL but especially lately they are pretty strict.

145 Raf   ~  Oct 15, 2009 4:23 pm

[144] I know they don't advocate it, it seems to me that the harder the NFL tries to crack down on "errant behavior" the wilder the players get. It's crazy. Growing up, the craziest thing I saw a football player get into was LT with cocaine. That was it. These guys nowadays are on a whole 'nother level.

146 Start Spreading the News   ~  Oct 15, 2009 4:48 pm

[143] William's attempt to dismiss "anything you see on the old world wide web" is a bit much. He equates fair.org to a response on answers.yahoo.com??? This false equivalency game is a cheap way of avoiding the rather large preponderance of evidence the Rush has a lot of negative attitudes about black people. [128] They are after all only "12% of the population. Who the hell cares?"

Rush's attitude could be a problem if he buys a team and a lot of his employees are black. He may not want his scrimmage to look like a Bloods/Crips reunion...

147 The Hawk   ~  Oct 15, 2009 7:20 pm

[145] Ha, yeah maybe that is true. Like in Star Wars "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers ".

feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email
"This ain't football. We do this every day."
--Earl Weaver