Jump to content
  • Create Account

Twins/Tigers Players Vote to Postpone Tonight's Game


 Share

My 2 cents worth. I would like it if they would keep politics OUT of sports. I watch it for entertainment, nothing more nothing less. It should be an escape for the fans not a platform for political groups and their agendas. I get enough of that on the News, I don't need it in sports. 

We made the professional athlete rich by going to games or watching them on TV. 

We can make them poor by doing the opposite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Given the number of sporting events that had already been cancelled, the fact that the guys knew that the game was going to be made up anyway (baseball has doubleheaders and MLB had literally no choice but to go along with it or be savaged by the thought-police), and the fact that they were all going to be paid anyway, I sure hope that NO ONE in this thread is calling either the Twins or Tigers players “brave”.  They literally were risking nothing with their decision.  At best, they are copy-cats.  At worst, they only made the decision to fit in with the rest of the boycotters.

 

Pohlad donating $25M...sure he’ll write it off, but that was an actual, tangible, sacrifice.

Just did a search on this thread and the word "brave" has been used exactly zero times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not quite the same thing, but my company did tell people to take Juneteenth off even though it was not a regular day off for us.  They wanted people to take the day off and volunteer or reflect at what was happening and the on-going issues that had created the situation or simply use as a mental health day to deal with all the stress that was happening at the time.

 

I am sure some of it was a calculated PR move, but there have been what I take are sincere efforts to spot light things that go under the radar for a lot of us and highlight things that people of color have to thing about that would not even occur to me.  They had a number of employees candidly speak on what it is like to be the only person of color on a team or on a project or even in some offices, as well as warnings they have to give their kids if they ever get pulled over or how they can spot a clerk watching them when they are in a nice store etc.

 

Obviously, this is not going to solve all of the problems, but it is generating some additional discussion, and maybe some of the athlete's statements will make this seem more like a real issue to people who do not experience it.

 

I do realize I am lucky in that I could just take a day off, not everyone is in a situation where they can do that or has a job where that is feasible.

 

I applaud your employer in doing that. And from the tone of your response, I gather that you saw it an overall beneficial thing to do. The cynic can say, “It was a PR move by the company,” but let’s count a few ways that it was actually good business:

  • A company’s biggest resource is often its staff. It seems that you and (and I’m guessing others) did some valuable reflecting.
  • By virtually any account, stress level has been up in virtually all walks of life, and addressing mental health is a significant cost for many employers. They took a step to address mental health by giving the gift of a day off that probably didn’t cost them very much.
  • They sent a message to a segment of their employees that they recognize that the challenges they face are real, further validating their appreciation for this group. 

The net of all these is that it likely contributed to a sense of well-being for the employees and to this being a desirable place to work. I draw some of these observations from my own situation. For several years, we’ve had MLK Day as a paid holiday. This year, they made it a required work day, but gave us an additional floating holiday in exchange (a net gain, since it gave us flexibility in when we take the day off). But instead of business as usual on MLK Day, we were closed for business and we spent the day in educational activities around systemic racism, including ways that systemic racism has been an issue in the industry we are a part of.

 

And it’s made a difference. Since then, I’ve heard people from senior management to entry level ask about the ongoing decisions we make and whether they are ethical. I’ve heard differences in our thinking about hiring practices. I’ve seen us make better decisions about how we engage with markets that have typically been under-served.

 

So now, the cynic says, “Well, they only did it to benefit themselves. They didn’t really care — they just wanted to make more money.” 

 

I think that’s a lame response as well. In both cases, it suggests that individual decisions are singularly motivated, when they are nearly always multifaceted.

 

In this case, I think not playing was a good move on a lot of fronts. PR? Sure. But I think it’s also a good move in adding to the conversation, which is what the majority of players who’ve spoken have seemed to say is their primary goal in not playing.

 

I’ve heard a lot of articulate statements from those involved. The one that stood out the most was Joe Girardi, who said something to the effect of, “I hope that there are kids who are asking their parents, ‘Why didn’t the Phillies play tonight?’ And I hope that there are parents taking those questions seriously and talking with their children about what’s happening in our world.” Players are recognizing that they are in position to encourage those conversations in ways that Indiana Twin and his friends on Twins Daily are not able to do. In my mind, that’s advancing the overall conversation, and it’s a responsible thing for them to do.

 

Did it cost the players anything to reschedule a game? Who cares? Why do so many things need to be seen as a zero-sum game? Why does it only count as a “statement” if someone has made a “sacrifice”? Why was it only worth doing if dramatic changes happen as a result? And why do we as humans sometimes see it as our job to make sure that if someone hasn’t “sacrificed” enough in some other way (at least as judged by me), they at least sacrifice by receiving our scorn for something that they have done with good intentions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a suggestion for the next player/team boycott over police actions and this can apply to all leagues.  I work for a company that has a significant sales force. Often the corporate folks will disparage the sales people out in the field - why can't they sell while the sales people would say why can't the corporate folks support us better.   We have a ride with the rep option so that both sides can get a better understanding what the other does.    My suggestion would be for the next boycott shut down all all games for a day and the players, managers, owners take a shift with a police officer in their area.   This way each side will get a better understanding of what the other goes through.   It is called building bridges as opposed to lobbing grenades.   We have seen enough tweets and speeches on this topic to know it is an issue how about some action.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These players are paid to play ball.  They aren't paid to force their opinions down our throats.  I don't care what the subject is - do it on YOUR time - not during MY game.  Just like Hollywood actors, I don't care what an athlete's opinion is - it won't sway me one way or another - so shut up about your pet project du jour.  I don't care.  Just like this opinion - we all have one and they all stink.  Just because you are Lebron James and are a gazillionaire doesn't make your opinion more valuable than mine. 

 

This elitism has led to the downfall of Hollywood as the actors/directors care more about making "meaningful works of art" and telling the unwashed masses what to think than entertaining their audiences and then charging us $15 for a ticket to see their crap.  I don't care about how you are planting trees in South America or your newest electric car or what your purple/pink/blue/gold ribbon signifies while you talking on the red carpet.  If professional athletes aren't careful, they will kill the sport in the same way.  If you care more about making a statement than doing your job, you are going to piss off a major portion of your fanbase. 

 

I already have turned off ESPN radio because other than Dan LeBetard - who understands his show is meant as entertainment and a vehicle for MAKING MONEY - the rest of cast of fools think I need to hear from one athlete after another babbling about their opinions.  No - I listened to ESPN radio FOR FREAKING SPORTS!!!  These people need to understand who are paying their millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

These players are paid to play ball.  They aren't paid to force their opinions down our throats.  I don't care what the subject is - do it on YOUR time - not during MY game. 

The thing is, it's not "your" game. It's a collection of corporate and personal interests that provide a service that you or I, as consumers of said entertainment, can pay to support or not.

 

And it's a package deal, as those with a vested interest can choose to use their platform for any purpose they see fit. That could mean putting their heads down and playing baseball or it could mean using their large platform to push a message important to them.

 

Use your dollars as you see fit, but don't tell other people how to use platforms they built through hard work and dedication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He has tens of millions of dollars in endorsements, and is clearly set up better than had he stayed in the league as a backup qb. He’s not living under a bridge..

He never was  or would be living under a bridge.   Do you really think he was doing it selfishly?     He had the president of the USA calling him a thug along with half of social media calling him every other name and he continued.   He had no idea of a lawsuit at the time and knew it could hurt his chance of resigning yet he continued.    He may have come out of it financially fine but at the time it took the courage and knowledge of consequences that you were calling for as a prerequisite to be taken seriously.   Why do I have the feeling if someone brought up MLK you would say he did it for the PAC money.     I get your point about virtue signalling.   To me those that only started holding their hats over their hearts during the Anthem after Koepernick were virtue signalling that they were true patriots.    Now it takes no courage to kneel during the Anthem because everyone is doing it.  Its virtue signalling if you are only doing it because everyone else is doing it.   It actually takes courage at times not to kneel and to show respect for   the military or the country.  That's not right either.   Protesting against injustice should not automatically come with sacrifice.    That right was gained by those before us sacrificing for that right.   If anything the cost and sacrifice should be placed upon those that have benefited from or perpetuated the injustice.   In essence that is what is happening now.    On an individual basis there is still the responsibility for ones actions and there should be consequences for violence and destruction brought upon those committing it..   On a collective basis though if a significant portion of the population feels marginalized and then ignored for so long its going to boil over eventually and you will get what you get.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read all the comments on this, a few too many to get caught up.  Here is my stance.  I am in support of the players choosing to do this, it is their right not to play.  I am happy the Twins ownership is in support of them.  However, I also agree that being the season it is, it appears to a hollow protest because the owners are out really nothing because no fans refunds, and the game will be made up so neither side sacrificed anything. They do not need to sacrifice anything to help bring more attention to issues though.  Now, the sacrifice of something is what shows how strong they feel about a particular issue.  I am not saying the players or the owners do not feel strong about this issue, but without the threat of loss you will never know how strong they truly feel. 

 

Personally, I am glad sports are starting to use their platforms to push the issues they want.  I get very upset when people respond with "just shut up and play."  These are human beings that get paid well to entertain us, and we put up large amounts of money to do that, but they should still get to have a voice and be heard.  If you do not like what they have to say, then do not support their sport, but to try to shut them down and say just play the game is demeaning to the person.  

 

I love sports, and baseball in particular.  However, it is just a game and my personal entertainment.  I can be entertained through other means.  If the players and owners want to cancel their seasons in full in protest to help push change they feel is needed, then I support.  I am not entitled to have them entertain me.  Last night instead of watching baseball I watched other tv, played games, read a book.  I will survive if sports do not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have a suggestion for the next player/team boycott over police actions and this can apply to all leagues.  I work for a company that has a significant sales force. Often the corporate folks will disparage the sales people out in the field - why can't they sell while the sales people would say why can't the corporate folks support us better.   We have a ride with the rep option so that both sides can get a better understanding what the other does.    My suggestion would be for the next boycott shut down all all games for a day and the players, managers, owners take a shift with a police officer in their area.   This way each side will get a better understanding of what the other goes through.   It is called building bridges as opposed to lobbing grenades.   We have seen enough tweets and speeches on this topic to know it is an issue how about some action.

 

I think this idea gets halfway to the finish line. You are asking the players to extend themselves into the lives of a police officer without asking the police officer to experience the discrimination the players are fighting to change.

 

There is not a conversation taking place currently. You have one side pleading for change and the other side saying no changes are needed. Until it is recognized on both sides there is need for change, no action will occur and no bridge can be built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The country is split in half politically and my unscientific analysis sees this comment section at about the same ratio.  Rocco says this was a unanimous decision by a showing of hands.  I question whether all locker rooms are this liberal or do some feel bullied or coerced into voting with the crowd.  Would a private vote have had the same result?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The country is split in half politically and my unscientific analysis sees this comment section at about the same ratio.  Rocco says this was a unanimous decision by a showing of hands.  I question whether all locker rooms are this liberal or do some feel bullied or coerced into voting with the crowd.  Would a private vote have had the same result?

I don't know, and don't particularly care, either.

 

I assume any collection of two or more people will have a spectrum of viewpoints on any given subject; achieving consensus takes real effort and at very least this has encouraged people to consider the 'why' involved. That would align well with my definition of moral progress. I'd be surprised if it aligns well, or at all, with others and won't be too disappointed to find out it didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The country is split in half politically and my unscientific analysis sees this comment section at about the same ratio. Rocco says this was a unanimous decision by a showing of hands. I question whether all locker rooms are this liberal or do some feel bullied or coerced into voting with the crowd. Would a private vote have had the same result?

I question why someone would feel justified to describe the actions of those in the Twins locker room as "liberal."

 

How about "on the side of humanity?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I question why someone would feel justified to describe the actions of those in the Twins locker room as "liberal."

 

How about "on the side of humanity?"

Or even “caring about their teammates?”

 

Many of the narratives surrounding being empathetic to those around us saddens me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who should initiate the first step towards a resolution....are not.

 

It surprises me that the mayors, city councils, the police, protester leaders, BLM, Civil Rights leaders, Governors, the local business owners, etc.....in other words - all the stake holders.....have not tried to initiate any talks. It's a national issue...how about the President?? Disappointing.

 

The least it would do is expose the violent participants on both sides. Simple requests for discussion....and a little "beer summit" as Obama called them.....would raise some unity and civility...for awhile. We could at least see who comes to the table.....and hear some specific solutions.

 

Taking a day off from baseball is a nice nod to the cause.....but nothing more. Not that it has to stop there.

 

By contrast --- We are currently in talks with the Taliban for God Sake!!!! Why not engage in "peace talks" with our own citizens??

 

What is wrong with us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I question why someone would feel justified to describe the actions of those in the Twins locker room as "liberal."

How about "on the side of humanity?"

 

This comment is very frustrating to me, and the fact that it got several likes makes it especially disappointing. 

 

Conservatives have a different view of the world and how to improve things but that does not mean we are against humanity. 

 

I don't know exactly the best way to solve the problems facing our country but assuming that people who disagree with you are lesser people surely is not the right approach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One player stood up first, and said, "I don't think we should play today."

Baldelli said that player was Taylor Rogers. He was followed by Nelson Cruz and Trevor May in voicing their similar thoughts to the team.

I don't think Rogers has gotten enough credit for this. It was a bold move, one many white people are often afraid to make (myself included) but it's also a necessary move.

 

If white people hold a firm belief that there is social injustice in this world, it's important to not make our black friends and family do all the heavy lifting. Find ways to lift that burden and be the person who says "no" so they don't have to do it every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This comment is very frustrating to me, and the fact that it got several likes makes it especially disappointing. 

 

Conservatives have a different view of the world and how to improve things but that does not mean we are against humanity. 

 

I don't know exactly the best way to solve the problems facing our country but assuming that people who disagree with you are lesser people surely is not the right approach. 

unfortunately in 2020 you can't hold an "unpopular" or "controversial" opinion without being thrown to the wolves, called the R word, or told you're "on the wrong side of history". that's why everyone just goes along with it and doesn't make any waves.

 

I would be SHOCKED if everyone in each clubhouse held the same opinion about the last few days. You have guys from literally all over the world, some from third world countries where everyday, just trying to live is literally life and death...surely you have guys with LEO's in their family or inner circle...you can't tell me everyone is going to be on the same page. Yet no one says anything because you'll be cast into the fire. I applaud any player who goes the extra mile to improve the situation, but postponing a game is simply a hollow gesture and does not impress me. not that anyone needs my approval, just sayin'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This comment is very frustrating to me, and the fact that it got several likes makes it especially disappointing. 

 

Conservatives have a different view of the world and how to improve things but that does not mean we are against humanity. 

 

I don't know exactly the best way to solve the problems facing our country but assuming that people who disagree with you are lesser people surely is not the right approach. 

Chief didn't do anything of the sort. Read the post again.

 

What's truly disappointing is that someone assumed players unanimously voting to support their fellow teammates is some kind of "liberal" thing.

 

And it's disappointing you glossed over that in favor of asserting Chief had the political agenda by pointing that out.

 

Only one person even hinted at partisanship in this decision and it wasn't Chief, yet you focused on Chief's comment instead of the partisan comment.

 

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

unfortunately in 2020 you can't hold an "unpopular" or "controversial" opinion without being thrown to the wolves, called the R word, or told you're "on the wrong side of history". that's why everyone just goes along with it and doesn't make any waves.

 

I would be SHOCKED if everyone in each clubhouse held the same opinion about the last few days. You have guys from literally all over the world, some from third world countries where everyday, just trying to live is literally life and death...surely you have guys with LEO's in their family or inner circle...you can't tell me everyone is going to be on the same page. Yet no one says anything because you'll be cast into the fire. I applaud any player who goes the extra mile to improve the situation, but postponing a game is simply a hollow gesture and does not impress me. not that anyone needs my approval, just sayin'

Might depend on what your "unpopular" or "controversial" opinion is. Some opinions absolutely deserve to be disregarded. But right now your entire argument is based on strawmen baseball players not wanting to go along with their teammates and we've had no reports that any Twins player felt that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Might depend on what your "unpopular" or "controversial" opinion is. Some opinions absolutely deserve to be disregarded. But right now your entire argument is based on strawmen baseball players not wanting to go along with their teammates and we've had no reports that any Twins player felt that way.

"we've had no reports"

 

lol that's my point. you won't get those reports. is it really a strawman to point out how unlikely it is that 30 some odd people from incredubly varied backgrounds in 32 clubhouses are ALL going to be in total agreement about this? come on, that's a bit naive 

 

sure, some opinions can be disregarded, but i highly suspect, like some here have done, that you lump all opinions that aren't 100% in agreement with this in a certain category that might start with the letter R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"we've had no reports"

 

lol that's my point. you won't get those reports.

 

sure, some opinions can be disregarded, but i highly suspect, like some here have done, that you lump all opinions that aren't 100% in agreement with this in a certain category that might start with the letter R

I have no problem calling out racist posts and racist posters. I'm a civil rights attorney. I happily do it. Our office's unofficial motto is "we'll sue the racism out of you." 

 

But why wouldn't we get those reports? ESPN reported on that exact thing on other teams. Do you think the Twins beat reporters don't want to pursue that line of a story? Or are you implying that the voices in the locker room are cowed? I'm not sure you'll find a lot of support for either of those ideas, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have no problem calling out racist posts and racist posters. I'm a civil rights attorney. I happily do it. Our office's unofficial motto is "we'll sue the racism out of you." 

 

But why wouldn't we get those reports? ESPN reported on that exact thing on other teams. Do you think the Twins beat reporters don't want to pursue that line of a story? Or are you implying that the voices in the locker room are cowed? I'm not sure you'll find a lot of support for either of those ideas, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

I've seen ONE player, the giants reliever, say he didn't support this movement. Again, i'd have to believe, its nearly impossible that however many people there are in the twins clubhouse, let alone 999/1,000 players in mlb would agree on such a controversial topic. even if you asked the question "is killing someone wrong?" you'd have a lot of "yes but in certain situations"... but maybe i'm an overly pessimistic person

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"we've had no reports"

 

lol that's my point. you won't get those reports. is it really a strawman to point out how unlikely it is that 30 some odd people from incredubly varied backgrounds in 32 clubhouses are ALL going to be in total agreement about this? come on, that's a bit naive 

 

sure, some opinions can be disregarded, but i highly suspect, like some here have done, that you lump all opinions that aren't 100% in agreement with this in a certain category that might start with the letter R

I'll say this once to everyone:

 

Stop guessing at the motivations and "true" opinions of organizations, players, and posters on this website.

 

This thread has been a pretty good conversation thus far. Let's keep it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This comment is very frustrating to me, and the fact that it got several likes makes it especially disappointing. 

 

Conservatives have a different view of the world and how to improve things but that does not mean we are against humanity. 

 

I don't know exactly the best way to solve the problems facing our country but assuming that people who disagree with you are lesser people surely is not the right approach. 

 

I'm going to try and reiterate what I said at the top of the thread ... human decency isn't liberal or conservative points of view, or shouldn't be, it should be both, not an either/or. Justice, equality, fairness ... these are issues of human decency and respect. The minute we start labeling things as 'liberal' or 'conservative', we've drawn a political line and many us automatically gravitate toward one or the other. When we do that, we are doing a disservice to these issues, because the issues get lost in the left vs right bantering that happens. The poster you quoted was quoting another poster as saying 'the liberal clubhouse' ... the poster who labeled the clubhouse as liberal drew that political line. I don't think the clubhouse is liberal or conservative by taking the stance they did.These are issues of human decency and the 'left/right' finger pointing and labeling needs to not be part of the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

Featured Video

×
×
  • Create New...