leashyourkids wrote:
This Chapman thing has gotten ridiculous. I've probably listened to 4 or 5 interviews with Ricketts/Theo/Jed, and I'm not sure that even 10% was spent discussing baseball. All that is being talked about is his domestic incident. Words like "moral dilemma" and "bad fit" are being thrown around liberally.
Is it just me, or is this a new phenomenon? At what point did a guy have to have a 100% clean background to play sports? What Chapman did was "wrong", I guess... but we really have no idea what happened, he had no criminal charges levied, and he served a 30-game suspension. Who cares at this point? Not only do I not think it affects baseball; I don't think there is any moral conflict... the guy made a mistake and he served his "time" for it. Can we start talking about his 105 MPH heater?
This phenomenon is due to the evolution of sports radio and 24hr sports broadcasting. Every evaluation of the player must first be accompanied by a character assessment. I don't want that guy because he is a "douchebag" or "cancer in the clubhouse". Terry Boers is the most egregious local offender in this regard. Bernstein is bad also. I used to want to call in tell them that it's a fucking sporting event and not a Nobel Peace Prize awarding ceremony.
I think part of the reason for it is that it's simply an easier and thus lazier way to discuss sports. It also will help attract the all important casual fan.
_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
