Cashman told Pettitte “don’t Brett Favre us”

17 Comments

I’ve chafed at the notion — increasingly repeated by some of you out there in Internet Land — that Andy Pettitte is “pulling a Brett Favre.”  He’s not. Favre retired and then un-retired and each time he did it he used his many, many friends in the football media to play the drama up to his maximal advantage.  Pettitte may be privately dithering, but he has gone home and he has stayed quiet and hasn’t been yanking anyone’s chain as far as I can tell.

Not that Brian Cashman hasn’t worried about him doing that a bit.  Here’s Cashman, speaking at a Chamber of Commerce breakfast today, as reported in the Trentonian:

“Andy has talking about being home for years. Being from Texas and having to be in New York for six months out of the year can be hard because he has kids and he’s missing important time with them. He’s opting not to play right now but that might change it might not. I told him don’t ‘Brett Favre’ us. You got to be all in and fully dedicated to play. Do I need him? I need him, but I don’t want him to play if his heart’s not in it.”

I know the Pettitte situation is unusual and that we all want some resolution to it one way or the other, but I think Cashman and Pettitte have handled it about as well as anyone could have handled this. No one has said anything dumb. To the extent anyone has said anything at all it has been to correct media reports that have overstated this or that.

I would have told Pettitte not to “Brett Favre” me too. And good for him for not doing so.

But any time you want to tell folks what you’re doing next season, Andy, that would be great. And remember: the “don’t Brett Favre us” rule probably applies to manner in which you tell Cashman what you’re doing too, not just the substance. So please: no texting.

(link via BTF)

Pete Rose dismisses his defamation lawsuit against John Dowd

Getty Images
4 Comments

Last year Pete Rose field a defamation lawsuit against attorney John Dowd after Dowd gave a radio interview in which he said that Rose had sexual relations with underage girls that amounted to “statutory rape, every time.” Today Rose dismissed the suit.

In a statement issued by Rose’s lawyer and Dowd’s lawyer, the parties say they agreed “based on mutual consideration, to the dismissal with prejudice of Mr. Rose’s lawsuit against Mr. Dowd.” They say they can’t comment further.

Dowd, of course, is the man who conducted the investigation into Rose’s gambling which resulted in the Hit King being placed on baseball’s permanently ineligible list back in 1989. The two have sparred through the media sporadically over the years, with Rose disputing Dowd’s findings despite agreeing to his ban back in 1989. Rose has changed his story about his gambling many times, usually when he had an opportunity to either make money off of it, like when he wrote his autobiography, or when he sought, unsuccessfully, to be reinstated to baseball. Dowd has stood by his report ever since it was released.

In the wake of Dowd’s radio comments in 2015, a woman came forward to say that she and Rose had a sexual relationship when she was under the age of 16, seemingly confirming Dowd’s assertion and forming the basis for a strong defense of Rose’s claims (truth is a total defense to a defamation claim). They seem now, however, to have buried the hatchet. Or at least buried the litigation.

That leaves Dowd more free time to defend his latest client, President Trump. And Rose more time to do whatever it is Pete Rose does with his time.