The Ungrateful post has been updated. I tacked on a Manny post that I was set to post this morning -- before I got pissed off and wrote something else.
There was an op-ed article in the Washington Post this Sunday by an Alaskan, who wrote touchingly about everything Ted Stevens had done for the state, and why even the fact that he is now indicted (and almost certainly accepted bribes, not to mention all of his other slimy dealings), Alaskans would always owe him a debt of gratitude. I immediately thought of Manny Ramirez and the sentiment on JOS. It seems to me one can be completely grateful and appreciative of past deeds by an individual while deploring, condemning, and being critical of more recent conduct that is harmful. Then the question becomes, is there ANY conduct that justifies erasing the earned gratitude for past deeds? I'm not certain whether the JOS position is 1) no, 2) yes, but quitting on one's team in a pennant race isn't it, or 3) quitting on the team WOULD be justification, but we won't believe that's what happened.
Frankly, I'm not sure of my own answer. I will say that the Ted Stevens essay bothered me, but I've always hated the guy, so I'm biased. Emotionally rather than rationally, I can say that right now, I am not favorably disposed to Manny Ramirez as a Red Sox fan. If the Sox win without him, I'll probably feel differently.
I'd go with 2.5, I think (somewhere between 2 and 3) -- I think he did far, far less to sully his past than did, say, Pete Rose. (Or Ted Stevens.)
Manny hit a point, as he had before, where he was very unhappy. This time, depending on which side you believe, he behaved in a manner that the front office couldn't live with, he behaved in a manner that his teammates couldn't live with, the front office decided they could do without him and demonized him to get the fans on their side, and/or Scott Boras deliberately goaded him to be so unpleasant and un-keepable that the Sox would trade him and not exercise their options.
The truth is probably a little bit of all of these. He'd had these times before when he was down on the team, but this time, for these reasons, the situation was unsalvageable. I don't think his behavior was, by itself, something the team couldn't have lived with if the team could have gotten him out of his funk. Blame on both sides.
I take your point that there could be behavior that would cloud his past contributions -- but I don't think he did so.
I love Manny for all that he gave us. I hate him for being outspoken at the end and ruing the relationship with the organization to where they traded him away. He may be right he may be wrong only time will tell but why couldn't he just shut up and play and let us keep him close? That is why I would call him a selfish prick. I will hardly ever speak ill of him again and never for a reason other then that.
4 comments:
There was an op-ed article in the Washington Post this Sunday by an Alaskan, who wrote touchingly about everything Ted Stevens had done for the state, and why even the fact that he is now indicted (and almost certainly accepted bribes, not to mention all of his other slimy dealings), Alaskans would always owe him a debt of gratitude. I immediately thought of Manny Ramirez and the sentiment on JOS. It seems to me one can be completely grateful and appreciative of past deeds by an individual while deploring, condemning, and being critical of more recent conduct that is harmful. Then the question becomes, is there ANY conduct that justifies erasing the earned gratitude for past deeds? I'm not certain whether the JOS position is 1) no, 2) yes, but quitting on one's team in a pennant race isn't it, or 3) quitting on the team WOULD be justification, but we won't believe that's what happened.
Frankly, I'm not sure of my own answer. I will say that the Ted Stevens essay bothered me, but I've always hated the guy, so I'm biased. Emotionally rather than rationally, I can say that right now, I am not favorably disposed to Manny Ramirez as a Red Sox fan. If the Sox win without him, I'll probably feel differently.
Interesting analogy and question, Jack.
I'd go with 2.5, I think (somewhere between 2 and 3) -- I think he did far, far less to sully his past than did, say, Pete Rose. (Or Ted Stevens.)
Manny hit a point, as he had before, where he was very unhappy. This time, depending on which side you believe, he behaved in a manner that the front office couldn't live with, he behaved in a manner that his teammates couldn't live with, the front office decided they could do without him and demonized him to get the fans on their side, and/or Scott Boras deliberately goaded him to be so unpleasant and un-keepable that the Sox would trade him and not exercise their options.
The truth is probably a little bit of all of these. He'd had these times before when he was down on the team, but this time, for these reasons, the situation was unsalvageable. I don't think his behavior was, by itself, something the team couldn't have lived with if the team could have gotten him out of his funk. Blame on both sides.
I take your point that there could be behavior that would cloud his past contributions -- but I don't think he did so.
I love Manny for all that he gave us. I hate him for being outspoken at the end and ruing the relationship with the organization to where they traded him away. He may be right he may be wrong only time will tell but why couldn't he just shut up and play and let us keep him close? That is why I would call him a selfish prick. I will hardly ever speak ill of him again and never for a reason other then that.
My only question remains...if Ortiz was still on the DL and lost for the season, would the Sox have still traded Manny??
Hmm...it begs are BIG question now with reports that Ortiz's wrist is still not 100%.
A question that will never be answered but one that must be considered.
Post a Comment