PDA

View Full Version : Hamilton AL MVP



919191
11-23-2010, 02:14 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp

RED VAN HOT
11-23-2010, 02:26 PM
It feels as if the Reds won MVP in both leagues.

redsmetz
11-23-2010, 02:30 PM
Fourth time a player has won the MVP award after leaving the Reds (and each began their ML career with the Reds): Hank Sauer, Jim Konstanty, Frank Robinson & now Josh Hamilton.

Glad to see Hamilton win it.

RedsManRick
11-23-2010, 02:53 PM
I wonder how many players have won the MVP while missing basically the entire month of September.

westofyou
11-23-2010, 03:13 PM
I wonder how many players have won the MVP while missing basically the entire month of September.

Frank Thomas and Jeff Bagwell in 1994 for sure

westofyou
11-23-2010, 03:15 PM
Fourth time a player has won the MVP award after leaving the Reds (and each began their ML career with the Reds): Hank Sauer, Jim Konstanty, Frank Robinson & now Josh Hamilton.

Glad to see Hamilton win it.

Sauer had an oven mitt for a glove and couldn't get Walters or Mcketchnie to give him any rope, Konstanty... worst MVP pick of all time IMO

blumj
11-23-2010, 03:16 PM
I wonder how many players have won the MVP while missing basically the entire month of September.
None? I thought Carlos Quentin might have won in '08 if his injury hadn't been, or hadn't been known to be, self-inflicted, but we'll never know now.

RedsBaron
11-23-2010, 03:17 PM
If you go to Baseball-Reference.com and check for the most comparable player in baseball history to Joey Votto, you will find that it is....Josh Hamilton. Check for the most comparable player to Josh Hamilton, you will find that it is Joey Votto.

RedsBaron
11-23-2010, 03:28 PM
Sauer had an oven mitt for a glove and couldn't get Walters or Mcketchnie to give him any rope, Konstanty... worst MVP pick of all time IMO

That's a whole other thread. Jackie Robinson should have been named NL MVP in 1952 rather than Sauer, and Konstanty was a poor pick in 1950, but there have been quite a few other terrible MVP selections. How did Marty Marion win the MVP instead of his teammate Stan Musial in 1944? How was Charlie Gehringer selected as MVP in 1937 instead of Joe DiMaggio? How was Maury Wills named the 1962 NL MVP instead of Willie Mays?

TheNext44
11-23-2010, 04:19 PM
Couldn't be happier. Another uplifting chapter in one of baseball's greatest stories. I hope there are many more chapters to come. :)

wolfboy
11-23-2010, 04:20 PM
That's a whole other thread. Jackie Robinson should have been named NL MVP in 1952 rather than Sauer, and Konstanty was a poor pick in 1950, but there have been quite a few other terrible MVP selections. How did Marty Marion win the MVP instead of his teammate Stan Musial in 1944? How was Charlie Gehringer selected as MVP in 1937 instead of Joe DiMaggio? How was Maury Wills named the 1962 NL MVP instead of Willie Mays?

Willie Hernandez in 1984 always seemed like a head scratcher to me.

HeatherC1212
11-23-2010, 04:34 PM
Congrats to Josh!! :D

KronoRed
11-23-2010, 04:39 PM
Neat.

WMR
11-23-2010, 05:00 PM
:bang:

Happy for Josh but hard not to be driven a little crazy playing the what if game.

Ron Madden
11-23-2010, 05:10 PM
Good for Josh Hamilton! :thumbup:

KronoRed
11-23-2010, 05:42 PM
:bang:

Happy for Josh but hard not to be driven a little crazy playing the what if game.

Well he wouldn't have won the MVP for the Reds :D

Ron Madden
11-23-2010, 05:55 PM
Well he wouldn't have won the MVP for the Reds :D



Can't have all those left handed hitters to close to one another in the lineup. ;)

Unassisted
11-23-2010, 06:04 PM
Well he wouldn't have won the MVP for the Reds :DAnd the jealousy over Hamilton's kid-glove treatment in the Reds clubhouse would have prevented them from winning the division this year. So that's two reasons not to look back. :beerme:

WMR
11-23-2010, 06:08 PM
And the jealousy over Hamilton's kid-glove treatment in the Reds clubhouse would have prevented them from winning the division this year. So that's two reasons not to look back. :beerme:

Yeah, that's plausible. :yikes:

BCubb2003
11-23-2010, 06:54 PM
Volquez will have to win the Cy Young now.

redsmetz
11-23-2010, 06:58 PM
Volquez will have to win the Cy Young now.

Fine by me. We've never had one before.

WebScorpion
11-23-2010, 10:29 PM
Fine by me. We've never had one before.
We had a pitcher (Bucky Walters) win the MVP in '39...if the Cy Young award had existed, I'm sure he'd have won it. ;)

Congrats to Josh! Great season!

VR
11-24-2010, 12:26 AM
Two of the most underpaid MVP's in history.

Votto was the 13th highest paid Red....Hamilton the 10th highest paid Ranger.

Orenda
11-24-2010, 01:31 AM
I wonder what is going on in wayne krivsky's head right about now. Its amusing to think he kept Hatteberg around because he had doubts about Votto, and then he deals Hamilton for EV. Now they are both MVP's

PuffyPig
11-24-2010, 06:56 AM
I wonder what is going on in wayne krivsky's head right about now. Its amusing to think he kept Hatteberg around because he had doubts about Votto, and then he deals Hamilton for EV. Now they are both MVP's

There were many here who had doubts about Votto. He was continually offered in trades, once with Bailey for Gerut, many times for guys like Bladon.

Guys like Votto, Stubbs, Bailey etc would be long gone if this board ran the Reds.

Some were even against drafting Hamilton.

Unassisted
11-24-2010, 10:04 AM
Yeah, that's plausible. :yikes:It is to me. How would Rolen have reacted to Hammy and his handlers? Not well, I imagine. Rolen was the glue that held the clubhouse together. Mess with him, you affect the outcome in a big way.

VR
11-24-2010, 10:29 AM
It is to me. How would Rolen have reacted to Hammy and his handlers? Not well, I imagine. Rolen was the glue that held the clubhouse together. Mess with him, you affect the outcome in a big way.

Scott Rolen would have been first in line defending Hamilton. He's a class act, not a baddass selfish prima donna.

Unassisted
11-24-2010, 10:40 AM
Scott Rolen would have been first in line defending Hamilton.
At the expense of team unity? I don't buy it and I'm not saying that Rolen would be the prima donna. He wouldn't have wanted to see one outfielder put on the pedestal that Hamilton's handling effectively put him on. What kind of message would that have sent to the young guys?

vaticanplum
11-24-2010, 11:07 AM
At the expense of team unity? I don't buy it and I'm not saying that Rolen would be the prima donna. He wouldn't have wanted to see one outfielder put on the pedestal that Hamilton's handling effectively put him on. What kind of message would that have sent to the young guys?

Why do you necessarily think that a little special treatment for someone who's open about his personal struggles would cause problems with team unity? Seems like a pretty negative view of the guys on the Reds. The Rangers seemed to handle it ok this year.

RedsBaron
11-24-2010, 11:11 AM
Hamilton hit .359 wiith a .411 OBP, .633 SLG, 32 HRs and 100 RBI. He had trouble playing a full 162 games because he gets injured going all out (yes, his prior life may have left him more susceptible to injury but there is no evidence that Hamilton spent 2010 boozing it up or doing drugs). I have no problem putting anyone "on a pedestal" who does that. Josh Hamilton isn't a case of a player being allowed not to hustle or having no curfew because he is a gifted athlete. If a teammate cannot handle having a someone who plays like Hamilton, that teammate is the problem, not Hamilton.

westofyou
11-24-2010, 11:22 AM
Why do you necessarily think that a little special treatment for someone who's open about his personal struggles would cause problems with team unity? Seems like a pretty negative view of the guys on the Reds. The Rangers seemed to handle it ok this year.

Actually as a Red there were a few players on the team who didn't like the "special treatment" (one was BP) but as far as what that is it's all barroom talk, no one knows and life is not a vacuum either, no one knows what would have become of Hamilton or the Reds if they had stayed a pair.

And as for the earlier pondering of WK, I'm sure he's happy for both Votto and Hamilton, he had a hand in their climb to teh top, he never tried to take anything away from them by his moves. One thing for sure is the Cubs are the ones with egg on their face over the handling of Hamilton the past few years.

Unassisted
11-24-2010, 12:18 PM
Why do you necessarily think that a little special treatment for someone who's open about his personal struggles would cause problems with team unity? Seems like a pretty negative view of the guys on the Reds. The Rangers seemed to handle it ok this year.We saw that Dusty was not particularly good/timely about confronting negative issues involving Dunn and Griffey. (Suffice it to say that the clubhouse functioned better when he didn't have to.) Rolen seems better equipped than Dusty at keeping everyone pointed in the right direction. I don't believe Rolen's hard-nosed approach would have meshed well with the kid-glove treatment that Hamilton requires.

As woy pointed out, BP didn't like Hamilton and he's still a Red. Two more seasons of BP muttering about special treatment under his breath couldn't have done anything positive for his performance or clubhouse morale. It might have even led to BP being traded by now.

As for the Rangers, they were a different team, with a manager who admits having had drug issues of his own. That has to be a factor. Other than the manager, I don't know enough about the personalities in Arlington to explain why that clubhouse chemistry worked.

I like the balance in the current Reds clubhouse. Players have mentioned liking the current balance better than the old imbalance. It has produced results. I firmly believe that Hamilton would have thrown the chemistry out of balance and that he was part of what players who've commented disliked before. Until the tell-all biographies of current players come out in a few years, we won't really know. But we're all entitled to our opinions. :thumbup:

reds44
11-24-2010, 01:46 PM
Did anybody catch Sportscenter last night? Whoever the host was comapred Hamilton's battle with crack and alcohol to Joey Votto being depressed after his dad died.

l.o.l.

Unassisted
11-24-2010, 02:31 PM
Did anybody catch Sportscenter last night? Whoever the host was comapred Hamilton's battle with crack and alcohol to Joey Votto being depressed after his dad died.
America loves a "coming back from adversity" story.

I doubt that anyone needs help remembering Hamilton's battle and Votto reminded the press about his grief when he discussed his reaction upon hearing he'd won the award: "Not to be dramatic or anything, but after I was told I won I couldn’t help but cry (http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/11/22/votto-moved-to-tears/) because I knew how much something like this meant to me and would have meant to my father."

pedro
11-24-2010, 04:40 PM
Factor in the fact that Hamilton's "minder" is the brother of the Reds former manager and it's easy to see why Hamilton's presence (and thus Johnny Narron's) would cause tension and unease in the clubhouse.

For a guy like Phillips who does not drink or smoke and supposedly never has having someone around who he viewed as a ticking time bomb might not be something he liked. I can't say I blame him. Mix that in with some possible jealousy and it probably doesn't make for nice nice.

WMR
11-24-2010, 04:50 PM
Hamilton hit .359 wiith a .411 OBP, .633 SLG, 32 HRs and 100 RBI. He had trouble playing a full 162 games because he gets injured going all out (yes, his prior life may have left him more susceptible to injury but there is no evidence that Hamilton spent 2010 boozing it up or doing drugs). I have no problem putting anyone "on a pedestal" who does that. Josh Hamilton isn't a case of a player being allowed not to hustle or having no curfew because he is a gifted athlete. If a teammate cannot handle having a someone who plays like Hamilton, that teammate is the problem, not Hamilton.

Yes.

Phillips has a habit of being a big baby and he certainly was one in regards to the Hamilton situation. Be happy that you never had the problems Hamilton did and keep quiet and play the game.

It was never really about the drugs with Phillips though, IMO. Similar to his little tantrum about not being the leader or whatever.

Add that stat line to the Reds season and I'll take my chances with the chemistry issues. (As in jettisoning anyone who doesn't row in the same direction as everyone else.) JMO.

pedro
11-24-2010, 05:11 PM
Yes.

Phillips has a habit of being a big baby and he certainly was one in regards to the Hamilton situation. Be happy that you never had the problems Hamilton did and keep quiet and play the game.

It was never really about the drugs with Phillips though, IMO. Similar to his little tantrum about not being the leader or whatever.

Add that stat line to the Reds season and I'll take my chances with the chemistry issues. (As in jettisoning anyone who doesn't row in the same direction as everyone else.) JMO.


My guess is that Phillips wasn't the only one made uncomfortable by having the ex manager's brother around and in the clubhouse. I'd also think that that sentiment might not have been exclusive to the players. If his "minder" had been someone other than Johnny Narron perhaps it would have been an easier for the organization to deal with.

I do find it curious that Hamilton gets so much latitude despite the depths to which he sunk while Phillips, who really has been a model citizen for the most part gets called "a baby". At times I have to wonder if Hamilton being a jesus loving country boy might not have something to do with it.

WMR
11-24-2010, 05:18 PM
I somewhat agree on the Johnny Narron part, Pedro. Keep in mind in this alternate reality we are creating Dusty is still the Reds manager. Would the Reds have been able to axe Jerry and keep Johnny? I'm guessing there would be less consternation about Johnny if his brother wasn't the manager... maybe that alone diffuses the issue?

Question for you: What would Joey Votto say/do if he had the chance to add a prodigious talent like Hamilton to the Reds of last season (even if he needed a handler)?

I don't think there exists a fiercer competitor than Joey Votto and I bet he would say, in regards to adding Hamilton, "Just tell me where to sign." ;)

Also, if you judge them SOLELY on their behavior as Reds, isn't Hamilton a better citizen than Phillips?

VR
11-24-2010, 06:00 PM
As woy pointed out, BP didn't like Hamilton and he's still a Red. Two more seasons of BP muttering about special treatment under his breath couldn't have done anything positive for his performance or clubhouse morale. It might have even led to BP being traded by now.



BP and SR both have gold gloves. That's about where their comparisons end, especially as it relates to leadership.

Rolen knew where Hamilton had been, and what he was trying to do. There's a good chance they would have become fast friends, because that is what Scott's professional, team approach is all about.

Ron Madden
11-24-2010, 06:16 PM
I believe that winning leads to good clubhouse chemistry not that good clubhouse chemistry leads to winning.

pedro
11-24-2010, 06:16 PM
I somewhat agree on the Johnny Narron part, Pedro. Keep in mind in this alternate reality we are creating Dusty is still the Reds manager. Would the Reds have been able to axe Jerry and keep Johnny? I'm guessing there would be less consternation about Johnny if his brother wasn't the manager... maybe that alone diffuses the issue?

Question for you: What would Joey Votto say/do if he had the chance to add a prodigious talent like Hamilton to the Reds of last season (even if he needed a handler)?

I don't think there exists a fiercer competitor than Joey Votto and I bet he would say, in regards to adding Hamilton, "Just tell me where to sign." ;)

Also, if you judge them SOLELY on their behavior as Reds, isn't Hamilton a better citizen than Phillips?

I think the fact that it was Johnny Narron played into it for sure.

As for whether Hamilton was a better "citizen" than Phillips I'm not sure why one would say so. From everything I've read and heard Phillips is way more involved in the community than Hamilton is or was. As for in the clubhouse, who knows? I'm not in there, but I don't hear a lot of players falling over themselves to say what a joy Hamilton is to be around off the field so I assume he's not getting voted prom king.

RedsBaron
11-24-2010, 08:32 PM
We saw that Dusty was not particularly good/timely about confronting negative issues involving Dunn and Griffey. (Suffice it to say that the clubhouse functioned better when he didn't have to.) Rolen seems better equipped than Dusty at keeping everyone pointed in the right direction. I don't believe Rolen's hard-nosed approach would have meshed well with the kid-glove treatment that Hamilton requires.

As woy pointed out, BP didn't like Hamilton and he's still a Red. Two more seasons of BP muttering about special treatment under his breath couldn't have done anything positive for his performance or clubhouse morale. It might have even led to BP being traded by now.



Brandon Phillips is a Gold Glove second baseman and a good player to have on the field. While at times he seems to operate his mouth on a "ready, shoot, aim" mode, he also reportedly has good off the field qualities. All that said, if you build your team around his talents rather than around a more talented player just to acommodate Brandon, that seems crazy to me.
There have been no complaints that I know of regarding Hamilton's on-field effort. Hamilton hasn't been a guy who fails to hustle and give it his all on the field. The Rangers were sensitive to his off-field issues and got a MVP season in return.
That Joey Votto's battle with depression is an entirely different issue than Josh Hamilton's drug and alcohol addictions is absolutely true, but to the Reds credit they showed some sensitivity to that issue last year and were rewarded with a MVP performance.
If Brandon Phillips or any other Reds player needs the special treatment that Hamilton needs, and can in return produce an OPS of 1.044 I would hope the Reds would give them whatvever is needed.
My philosophy regarding handling players with "special needs" or issues is largely in accordance with the theories of three great managers: Sparky Anderson, Joe McCarthy and Abraham Lincoln.
As is well known, during the days of the BRM Sparky had one set of rules for his four superstars-Rose, Bench, Morgan and Perez-and a different set of rules for the other 21 "turds." If I had been one of the other 21 I probably would not have liked that, but the Big Four justified that treatment by their on field performance.
When Joe McCarthy became the manager of the Red Sox in 1948, there were questions about how well McCarthy, with his rigid dress code, would get along with Ted Williams, who refused to wear a tie. McCarthy responded by wearing a Hawaiian sports shirt open at the neck and saying: "If I can't get along with a .400 hitter then there's something wrong with me."
Lincoln responded to criticism of U.S. Grant's drinking by saying that he would try to find out what brand Grant drank so he could send a case to his other generals.
If Hamilton didn't hustle, that would be one thing. He does hustle. His problem is his addiction to drugs/alcohol. He doesn't need to be given excuses or made a hero because of his shortcomings, but showing some sensitivty and giving him help allowed him to produce at a MVP level. If you can't get along with a guy who busts his fanny and gives you a line of .359 .411 .633 then maybe you are the problem teammate.

RedsBaron
11-24-2010, 08:33 PM
I do find it curious that Hamilton gets so much latitude despite the depths to which he sunk while Phillips, who really has been a model citizen for the most part gets called "a baby". At times I have to wonder if Hamilton being a jesus loving country boy might not have something to do with it.

I find it curious that some people seem to have such a dislike for Hamilton. At times I have to wonder if Hamilton being a Jesus loving country boy might not have something to do with it.

pedro
11-24-2010, 09:52 PM
I find it curious that some people seem to have such a dislike for Hamilton. At times I have to wonder if Hamilton being a Jesus loving country boy might not have something to do with it.

Touche'.

Honestly I don't really dislike him and I do enjoy watching him play baseball. I just don't find his story all that inspiring and I have a general disinterest in the religious beliefs of all athletes, politicians and celebrities, it has nothing to do with him in particular.

I think people are defined by their actions, not what they say they believe in, and on that count I think it is unfair to demonize Brandon Phillips while deifying Josh Hamilton.

That's all.

WMR
11-24-2010, 10:43 PM
Brandon Phillips is a Gold Glove second baseman and a good player to have on the field. While at times he seems to operate his mouth on a "ready, shoot, aim" mode, he also reportedly has good off the field qualities. All that said, if you build your team around his talents rather than around a more talented player just to acommodate Brandon, that seems crazy to me.
There have been no complaints that I know of regarding Hamilton's on-field effort. Hamilton hasn't been a guy who fails to hustle and give it his all on the field. The Rangers were sensitive to his off-field issues and got a MVP season in return.
That Joey Votto's battle with depression is an entirely different issue than Josh Hamilton's drug and alcohol addictions is absolutely true, but to the Reds credit they showed some sensitivity to that issue last year and were rewarded with a MVP performance.
If Brandon Phillips or any other Reds player needs the special treatment that Hamilton needs, and can in return produce an OPS of 1.044 I would hope the Reds would give them whatvever is needed.
My philosophy regarding handling players with "special needs" or issues is largely in accordance with the theories of three great managers: Sparky Anderson, Joe McCarthy and Abraham Lincoln.
As is well known, during the days of the BRM Sparky had one set of rules for his four superstars-Rose, Bench, Morgan and Perez-and a different set of rules for the other 21 "turds." If I had been one of the other 21 I probably would not have liked that, but the Big Four justified that treatment by their on field performance.
When Joe McCarthy became the manager of the Red Sox in 1948, there were questions about how well McCarthy, with his rigid dress code, would get along with Ted Williams, who refused to wear a tie. McCarthy responded by wearing a Hawaiian sports shirt open at the neck and saying: "If I can't get along with a .400 hitter then there's something wrong with me."
Lincoln responded to criticism of U.S. Grant's drinking by saying that he would try to find out what brand Grant drank so he could send a case to his other generals.
If Hamilton didn't hustle, that would be one thing. He does hustle. His problem is his addiction to drugs/alcohol. He doesn't need to be given excuses or made a hero because of his shortcomings, but showing some sensitivty and giving him help allowed him to produce at a MVP level. If you can't get along with a guy who busts his fanny and gives you a line of .359 .411 .633 then maybe you are the problem teammate.

Nice post, RB.

I don't think commenting that Phillips has a penchant towards acting childish is demonizing him at all. Describing him accurately? Yes. Wasn't deifying Hamilton either. Just pontificating on what it might have been like to have 2 MVP-caliber players on our squad.

TheNext44
11-25-2010, 02:57 AM
I think Hanilton was traded because the Reds needed pitching and at the time he was the most logical trade bait. He brought the most in return, and there doubts at the time concerning his physical durability (kinda still are) and possibility of a relapse (definitely still are).

The other options at the time were Dunn, who wouldn't bring back an arm like Volquez, Votto, who at the time wouldn't have brought back an arm like Volquez by himself, and Bruce, who was over 5 years younger.

Hamilton was traded not because of team chemistry, but because doing so was considered the smartest way to make the team better.

RedsBaron
11-25-2010, 09:02 AM
Touche'.

Honestly I don't really dislike him and I do enjoy watching him play baseball. I just don't find his story all that inspiring and I have a general disinterest in the religious beliefs of all athletes, politicians and celebrities, it has nothing to do with him in particular.

I think people are defined by their actions, not what they say they believe in, and on that count I think it is unfair to demonize Brandon Phillips while deifying Josh Hamilton.

That's all.
Pedro, it is also possible that Josh Hamilton's religious beliefs could have "rubbed" some Reds teammates the wrong way. I don't want to get into a religious debate here for several reasons, including that such a debate would violate forum rules, but I can recall that in Joe Posnanski's "The Machine" he wrote about how the holding of a chapel service in the Reds clubhouse in 1975 resulted in Joe Morgan yelling "Hey, what the hell is this?," with Pete Rose joining in the shouting. Services were moved to the weight room, since in those days the players never went there anyway (page 46 of the book). Okay, Morgan and Rose didn't want a chapel, which is hardly a shock, but his faith apparently helped George Foster's on field performance, and Foster became rather useful to have around.
I do not know if Hamilton's public religious faith has been a source of friction for some teammates. It is also possible that some teammates have been jealous of of the favorable publicity Hamilton has received. Some people celebrate the return of the prodigal son while others ask "why not give me credit for not having screwed up my life in the first place?" Again recalling the days of the BRM, Posnanski writes about the jealousy between Rose and Bench, with Bench often refusing to even talk to a sportwriter who had interviewed Rose first.

Orenda
11-25-2010, 10:32 AM
Does anybody think that Hamilton would have gotten another chance if he wasn't so upfront about his changes?

westofyou
11-25-2010, 10:35 AM
Does anybody think that Hamilton would have gotten another chance if he wasn't so upfront about his changes?

Steve Howes says... yeppers

pedro
11-25-2010, 10:37 AM
Pedro, it is also possible that Josh Hamilton's religious beliefs could have "rubbed" some Reds teammates the wrong way. I don't want to get into a religious debate here for several reasons, including that such a debate would violate forum rules, but I can recall that in Joe Posnanski's "The Machine" he wrote about how the holding of a chapel service in the Reds clubhouse in 1975 resulted in Joe Morgan yelling "Hey, what the hell is this?," with Pete Rose joining in the shouting. Services were moved to the weight room, since in those days the players never went there anyway (page 46 of the book). Okay, Morgan and Rose didn't want a chapel, which is hardly a shock, but his faith apparently helped George Foster's on field performance, and Foster became rather useful to have around.
I do not know if Hamilton's public religious faith has been a source of friction for some teammates. It is also possible that some teammates have been jealous of of the favorable publicity Hamilton has received. Some people celebrate the return of the prodigal son while others ask "why not give me credit for not having screwed up my life in the first place?" Again recalling the days of the BRM, Posnanski writes about the jealousy between Rose and Bench, with Bench often refusing to even talk to a sportwriter who had interviewed Rose first.

Those are good points RB.

kaldaniels
11-25-2010, 11:04 AM
Steve Howes says... yeppers

What did I tell you about yeppers.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/ic/blogs/channelsurfing/uploaded_images/michael_scott-723098.jpg

Orenda
11-25-2010, 11:09 AM
Steve Howes says... yeppers

good point.

mth123
11-25-2010, 12:02 PM
I'm with Pedro on this one. I've never understood the reverence that the public seems to have for guys who pushed themselves to the brink of self destruction and then recovered. Personally I have more reverence for guys who never fell into the trap in the first place. I could understand how a guy like Phillips who never smoked, drank or did drugs could be rubbed the wrong way by being around the story all the time.

Don't want to get too much into the religious aspect, but it rings hollow for me. Seems to me, if he believed as strongly as he claims, he'd be able to handle his own money, drive and exist without a constant companion to keep him on the right road. I doubt the incident in the Arizona bar would have happened either. Daryl Strawberry was telling everyone how his belief got him off the stuff shortly before needing rehab again and landing in hot water. Sometimes its just talk and we don't really know the difference. Addicts are usually con men as well....

Josh Hamilton is a pretty good baseball player. All the other stuff is just public image and we only know the story that we've been told and not necessarily the whole truth. For his sake, I guess I'm glad he's gotten himself to the point of being able to function and have a successful life, but IMO there are better targets for the hero worship.

Orenda
11-25-2010, 05:12 PM
Personally I have more reverence for guys who never fell into the trap in the first place. I could understand how a guy like Phillips who never smoked, drank or did drugs could be rubbed the wrong way by being around the story all the time.



Josh Hamilton is a pretty good baseball player. All the other stuff is just public image and we only know the story that we've been told and not necessarily the whole truth.

Why do you doubt Hamilton's story but accept Phillips story as true?

mth123
11-25-2010, 05:13 PM
Why do you doubt Hamilton's story but accept Phillips story as true?

Addicts are liars.

pedro
11-25-2010, 05:37 PM
Why do you doubt Hamilton's story but accept Phillips story as true?

Because usually when a person smokes, drinks and/or does drugs other people are usually aware of it and claims to the contrary will be publicly debunked. A persons faith on the other hand is largely private. It's impossible to really know what lies in another persons heart and head. Not that I doubt Josh Hamiltons faith but it didn't seem all that important to him until he fouled his life up. Personally I give more weight to the person who has never destroyed their life in the first place.

Eric_the_Red
11-26-2010, 12:39 PM
Because usually when a person smokes, drinks and/or does drugs other people are usually aware of it and claims to the contrary will be publicly debunked. A persons faith on the other hand is largely private. It's impossible to really know what lies in another persons heart and head. Not that I doubt Josh Hamiltons faith but it didn't seem all that important to him until he fouled his life up. Personally I give more weight to the person who has never destroyed their life in the first place.

Probably heading close to/in the Peanut Gallery, but I'd rather hear stories of faith and salvation from admitted sinners than those who claim to have never fallen.

pedro
11-26-2010, 12:50 PM
Probably heading close to/in the Peanut Gallery, but I'd rather hear stories of faith and salvation from admitted sinners than those who claim to have never fallen.

Personally I'd rather not hear them at all.

Eric_the_Red
11-26-2010, 01:06 PM
Personally I'd rather not hear them at all.

And I like hearing public figures like Hamilton share their faith. I think his story is a good example to spur discussion with kids. I'd rather have to explain to my son what Hamilton went through and how his journey shaped his beliefs than why Tiger Woods, Brett Favre and Ben Roethlisberger have been in the news.

pedro
11-26-2010, 01:22 PM
And I like hearing public figures like Hamilton share their faith. I think his story is a good example to spur discussion with kids. I'd rather have to explain to my son what Hamilton went through and how his journey shaped his beliefs than why Tiger Woods, Brett Favre and Ben Roethlisberger have been in the news.

I can understand that.

vaticanplum
11-27-2010, 12:12 AM
I'd like to see the reaction if I came to a boss with the argument that my co-worker who's doing stellar work, MVP-caliber if you will, is a drain on office chemistry and rubs me the wrong way with his beliefs. Suffice it to say that I don't think the reaction would stem to letting said co-worker go.

Clubhouses may be full of locker room drama, but that doesn't mean players should have leave to behave and whine like high schoolers. It's a workplace like any other and performance -- as long as it's come by morally -- is what matters.

Unassisted
11-27-2010, 12:44 AM
I'd like to see the reaction if I came to a boss with the argument that my co-worker who's doing stellar work, MVP-caliber if you will, is a drain on office chemistry and rubs me the wrong way with his beliefs. Suffice it to say that I don't think the reaction would stem to letting said co-worker go.
From the perspective of your boss's boss, the answer to your question depends on whether your office is meeting its team goals compared to other offices. If it's not, your boss will have an easy time selling a counter-intuitive personnel action, because boss's boss knows it's easier/cheaper to sack 1 employee than 2 dozen others in order to meet that office goal.

Razor Shines
11-27-2010, 01:49 AM
From the perspective of your boss's boss, the answer to your question depends on whether your office is meeting its team goals compared to other offices. If it's not, your boss will have an easy time selling a counter-intuitive personnel action, because boss's boss knows it's easier/cheaper to sack 1 employee than 2 dozen others in order to meet that office goal.

That's true, but I have a really hard time believing that Hamilton on this team would have thrown a monkey wrench in the whole works. I think the biggest key to this team's "chemistry" was adding a guy like Rolen more than subtracting anyone.

I don't believe the chemistry issues had much to do with Hamilton being dealt either. The Reds wanted pitching and I don't think they expected him to put up MVP type numbers. I think they expected him to put up very good numbers but not that good.

RedsBaron
11-27-2010, 08:00 AM
That's true, but I have a really hard time believing that Hamilton on this team would have thrown a monkey wrench in the whole works. I think the biggest key to this team's "chemistry" was adding a guy like Rolen more than subtracting anyone.

I don't believe the chemistry issues had much to do with Hamilton being dealt either. The Reds wanted pitching and I don't think they expected him to put up MVP type numbers. I think they expected him to put up very good numbers but not that good.

I agree. For a person who doesn't appreciate the awesome greatness of "Tombstone", that is a good post. ;)