Jump to content

Dan Duquette: Orioles Fans Hate Jose Bautista, Prefer "Working Class" Players


Phantom

Recommended Posts

I disliked Bautista as much as the next O's fan, but...99% of that was because he beat us like a red-headed step-child so many times.  I don't mind not getting him, but Dan's reasoning was pathetic.  And by speaking up, Dan made O's fans look like morons in the baseball community.  We can do that without his help.

Dan is running out of last straws.    

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 hours ago, 24fps said:

Speak for yourself.

I agree I would not have embraced Buatista any more than I would have embraced ARod, Ortiz or Donaldson. I don't like these kind of player. Hot dog, diva, Me first players. I like team players who aren't interested in putting on a show to call attention to their brands, but rather work hard, grind whatever, to help the team win. Trumbo is a decent contrast, AJ would be a better one. Call it team player, blue collar, working class what you will, it's a worthwhile distinction IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ruzious said:

I disliked Bautista as much as the next O's fan, but...99% of that was because he beat us like a red-headed step-child so many times.  I don't mind not getting him, but Dan's reasoning was pathetic.  And by speaking up, Dan made O's fans look like morons in the baseball community.  We can do that without his help.

Dan is running out of last straws.    

  

Based on this thread Dan doesn't have to say a thing to make some O's fans look like morons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, e16bball said:

Seriously. 

If "construction worker" was going to be used as some sort of racial shorthand or implication, it certainly would not be used to describe the white American player in contrast to the Hispanic player. 

This is so plainly not racial that it's almost painful to debate it. It is a flat comparison of two power-hitting RF/DH players who were available free agents at the same time. The clear message is that Trumbo is a stoic, understated, no-nonsense player who goes about his business quietly, without any fanfare and not making waves. Is anyone arguing with that characterization of Trumbo? The flip side of the message is that Bautista is not those things. Does anyone disagree that Bautista does not fit that description?

You know who does fit that description, though? Frank Robinson. Brooks Robinson. Eddie Murray. Cal Ripken. Adam Jones. Buck Showalter. All among the most beloved people to ever don an Orioles uniform. Not because of their race or nationality -- because of their ability, of course, but also their attitude and approach to the game. The attitude that essentially defines the "Oriole Way." Jose Bautista is an obnoxious, confrontational, self-aggrandizing, attention-grabbing jerk. As a person. As an individual. Not as a racial symbol. Could anyone possibly suggest that he better fits the mold of the tradition the Orioles have created over decades in Baltimore? That his approach to the game more resembles the players and managers Orioles fans have most loved and rooted for than does Trumbo's?

It was a poor choice of words to say "working class," which brings more issues of social strata into the context than necessary. But the point he was making was one about two individual players with entirely different approaches to the game.

And if there's really any doubt about underlying implications about the Orioles or Duquette having a latent racial preference, just bear in mind that this very offseason, at the exact same time they were choosing Trumbo over Bautista, they let go of their smart, gritty, no-nonsense, team-first catcher. Who is white. And replaced him with a new catcher. Who isn't white -- but who does happen to be smart, gritty, no-nonsense, and team-first. So I suppose it is accurate to say that they have a preferred type of player. It just has nothing to do with race.

Well said.  This is the best post by anyone on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Phantom said:

I agree. I have no problem with him comparing those two. I have no problem with comparing their attitudes. I have a problem with applying the term working class to either.

Then you would have had a huge issues with the old Colts and Orioles. Working class isn't a race. Why is it being made into something it's not? 

When did working class only include white people. This is why there is so much tension in the world. People making a big deal out of nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, dan-O said:

I have no idea what "blue collar worker" means when describing a baseball player. Describe his talents, his stats, his attitude. Anything other than this meaningless collection of phrases. 

Unfortunately many of us have a clear idea of what Duquette was saying, understand his impulse to avoid being carpingly literal every minute of the day and don't feel the need to identify racial connotations where overwhelming evidence indicates none exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dan-O said:

 

I have no idea what "blue collar worker" means when describing a Major League baseball player. Describe his talents, his stats, his attitude. Anything other than this meaningless collection of phrases. 

 

o

 

1) lClaims to be a "self-made man", having grown up poor, and having had to walk to school with no shoes, in the snow, 5 miles, and uphill both ways (the new geography.)

2) lEndlessly thanks his parents for everything that they gave him, as he would not be where he is today without the invaluable things he got from them ...... you know, the shoes that they almost gave him when they just barely missed being able to buy him because they were too poor.

3) lNever stops telling the press that his job as a baseball player really is not that important, and that the real heroes of our society are the schoolteachers, the firefighters, the police officers, etc. (but of course, he doesn't offer to trade his $10 Million annual salary from his "not very important" job with those $60 or $70 thousand dollar annual salaries of the "real heroes.")

4) lAlways talks about how he loves the "real fans", the ones who come to the games in their sweatshirts and team caps ....... while he proceeds to buy $800 suits for himself at Lord & Taylor.

5) lClaims to always work hard, and keeps his nose to the grindstone ........ while his agent argues with the front office that he in fact deserves $14 Million a year for his services, as opposed to the "lowball" $10 Million salary that they are currently paying him.

 

o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
    • What if they don’t want to be extended?
    • I don't want the O's to lose much, but I do want there to be a massive streaming deal with Amazon or some other company the O's are left out of.  This blackout nonsense is bullsh!t. 🤬
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...