Peter Gammons on Bonds
Does anyone know what he is talking about? It isn't the fact that he writes with run-on sentences (I remember one diary on this site that was about Gammons' prose). I just don't have access to the entire blog. Can someone who has read it summarize?
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
13 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Re: Peter Gammons on Bonds
Oh, Barry brings much of that on himself with his swagger and "I'm Barry Bonds -- you're not" attitude. But to take moral stances on evil seen and heard without balance is, at best, the mirror image of what alienates Bonds from the public.
Huh? i'm not an "insider" so I can't continue reading what's left of the article, but that last sentence just makes no sense to me.
Also, notice him puppet the media party line by referring to that famous SI cover of Bonds that was about 15 years ago or so. See, these media types just get a storyline template in their heads and they don't ever stop using it. No wonder Bonds hates the media, they treat him like shit and he doesn't put up with it so they continue to treat him like shit. What a bunch of dolts. too bad a respected (by some) guy like Gammons has to do the same parroting as the other anti-Bonds media tools.
by nostocksjustbonds on Dec 9, 2006 12:54 PM PST reply actions
Re: Peter Gammons on Bonds
by nostocksjustbonds on Dec 9, 2006 12:55 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Peter Gammons on Bonds
Peter Gammons getting on top of Bonds....
Peter Gammons getting familiar with Bonds....
Damn, those are unfunny
Re: Peter Gammons on Bonds
by Brother Bummer on Dec 9, 2006 1:09 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Peter Gammons on Bonds
Bonds' 'media hypocrisy' a reality
posted: Saturday, December 9, 2006
As Barry Bonds closed in on Babe Ruth's home run mark last spring, he said that one thing that bothered him was "the media hypocrisy" that cited and condemned him and a precious few others in an era when likely thousands of players used performance-enhancing drugs.
Fast-forward to the winter meetings at Disney this week. Bonds was brought into the Dolphin Hotel by agent Jeff Borris because there was such a scant Bonds market, yet the buzz through the few days was for pitchers -- and sometimes players -- getting contracts no one this side of Denny Neagle dreamed possible. Scouts, coaches, managers and even general managers privately discussed declined velocity, odd injuries, and more detriments in some of those pitchers and players, and yet there was no outrage at the cash outlay to those players, not the way bystanders cheered for teams to pass on Bonds.
Oh, Barry brings much of that on himself with his swagger and "I'm Barry Bonds -- you're not" attitude. But to take moral stances on evil seen and heard without balance is, at best, the mirror image of what alienates Bonds from the public.
When the Hall of Fame voting approached, New York columnists railed against Mark McGwire, worse than they railed against Jason Giambi before he began hitting home runs again. There was a column about the joy of getting the ballot and not voting for McGwire. "Cheater" is the evil-doer phrase of the era. Yet, when the Mets re-signed Guillermo Mota -- and that 3-0, 1.00, 18, 10, 2, 2, 5, 19 line after he couldn't pitch in Cleveland bears repeating -- to a two-year contract while under suspension, it did not pique the moralist majority, not even those who chide the Yankees for Giambi, payroll, or other issues to root for the Mets.
Sammy Sosa suggested to Pedro Gomez that he might like to return -- no interest, even in Chicago. Rafael Palmeiro no longer exists, as McGwire no longer exists in St. Louis. Those who cite the Shakepsearean Jose Canseco on McGwire and Bonds were not heard during the wonderful run of the Detroit Tigers on Pudge Rodriguez.
And this week there was an "it's a wonderful life" spin to the $10 million-plus signings, many of which had as many questions raised as in the magical worlds of Bonds, Sosa and McGwire.
The Mets need Mota, and have every right to sign him. Those teams that signed players and pitchers whose growth, recovery and power -- hitting and throwing -- have increased dramatically have been questioned in the stands and the back rooms of ballparks across America. The drug use is all part of the culture of which most people in the industry and the media know little.
Re: Peter Gammons on Bonds
Anyway, to summarize in brief, I believe the point is that it's quite hypocritical how everyone is making a big deal out of criticizing Bonds, McGwire, and the other hitters presumed to have used performance-enhancing drugs, but nobody so much as raises an eyebrow when the Mets sign Guillermo Mota, who is actually coming off a drug suspension.
I say I believe that's the point, but it's a bit muddled because he also brings up how nobody said anything about Pudge Rodriguez' association with Canseco during the Tigers' run last year. So maybe the point is meant to be more broad, something along the lines of: People only care about steroids when it doesn't interfere with another, better story.
The really short summary is that he's saying Bonds is right about the "media hypocrisy." But man does he have a tortured way of saying it.
Re: Peter Gammons on Bonds
by VidaWantsYourCar on Dec 9, 2006 1:37 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Peter Gammons on Bonds
by nostocksjustbonds on Dec 9, 2006 1:48 PM PST up reply actions
Re: Peter Gammons on Bonds
In the normal course of events, Gammons would more than likely let this go. Afterall, he would not want to rock the boat with the rest of the country-clubbers. But even he can't stomach the years of non-stop blatant, blind, and prejudicial, hatred, and overkill. Especially when it is obvious that his contemporaries are no less guilty of hypocrisy and cynicism and condecension than their counterparts in Congress and Law Enforcement.
Steroids, HGH and the rest of it should be lumped together with ligament transplants, Tommy John Surgery, and lazer surgery for vision enhancements. The legality? Bullshit. Steroid illegality came about because of the East German threat to the "purity" of the Olympics. The numbers of laws, codes, and regulations, local, state and federal, in this country are in 7 figures. Most of them we don't even know about and many are as stupid, vapid, and oppressive as any found in American History...they just don't get enforced.
Get roids under medical supervision and everybody can go home, and stop bothering the rest of us.
by E Ticket on Dec 9, 2006 1:53 PM PST reply actions
Re: Peter Gammons on Bonds
By the way, no surprise to us with minds that actually think for ourselves, but David Pinto at Baseball Musings has an interesting post that shouldn't surprise us: positive tests for "doping" are, well, all screwed up and NOT at all black and white.
Fight on Barry, fight on.
by Kent @ McCovey Chronicles on Dec 10, 2006 8:42 AM PST up reply actions
Re: Peter Gammons on Bonds
Re: Peter Gammons on Bonds
Re: Peter Gammons on Bonds
- "Grinding It Out- One Game at a Time."
- "The Crawl Towards History."
- "Can this stretch to 2008?"
- "$16m more?"
- "Bonds is not the centerpiece, we swear!"
Hope springs eternal, and if you can't root for your team in December, when can one wax positive? I'm hoping for All-Star years from Bonds, Vizquel Durham, and Cain, and maybe a total surprise like Molina or Lowry or Morris. At the same time, with an eye towards the future, Linden, Fradsden, and Alphonszo should get their 300-400 AB's this year, and the young pitchers should get lots of IP's and opportunity.
If everything breaks right for this club, 85 wins is not crazy talk. But that's everything breaking right. Considering the Giants sport basically the same roster as last year, minus Schmidt, 70-75 wins seems much more likely. While that looks bleak, a Bondsless Giants team staring 100 losses in the face would have been downright painful.
Instead of slipping into obvlivion soup in the NL West, I remain optimistic that Sabean will land Sexson and jettison Benitez. If Burrell or Sexson don't happen, then a Klesko signing makes sense. Throw in David Wells for the back of the rotation (one year deal), and at least 2 more bullpen arms, and the patchwork job is complete.
It's baseball. Anything can happen. Don't just sit around, Sabean, do somethign useful. Sign Matt Cain to a Lowry-type contract. Sign Foulke and O. Perez and Gagne for the pen. Hell, sign Barry Zito while you're at it, then we can start talking play-offs. And for goodness sake, sign Omar Vizquel to an extention!

by 





















