You’ve heard me go on and on about Chief Wahoo before. If you think I’m just being an alarmist liberal pansy about it, however, I’d ask that you educate yourself a bit and understand what Wahoo is really all about.
You can do that by reading my friend Peter Pattakos’ excellent article about it in the latest edition of Cleveland Scene. I think this quote from a team executive is telling:
“When people look at Chief Wahoo, they think baseball,” says DiBiasio. He calls the issue “one of individual perception” and explains that the franchise’s “acknowledgment to the sensitivities involved” is evidenced by the fact that it “does not animate nor humanize the logo.”
But the questions raised by the organization’s stance on the symbol are as glaring as Wahoo’s skin tone. If it’s a matter of individual perception, why would the perception of those who “think of baseball” when they see the logo matter more than the perception of those who see a demeaning vestige of America’s racist past? If the Indians recognize that it would be wrong to animate the logo, why keep it around at all?
And if they try not to “humanize” Wahoo, are they not admitting that, in its current form, it’s rather dehumanizing?
I know there is zero chance that this comments thread won’t turn into the same old Wahoo debate we always have. But what those often tend to lack is actual history and information. To that end, I ask that you read Peter’s article. You’ll learn about the origin of Wahoo and the nature of the opposition to the logo.
You’ll be shocked to learn that, yes, real people are deeply and personally affected by Wahoo. It’s not just liberal pansies like me.
Veteran hurler Jake Peavy has not signed with a team. It’s not because he’s not still capable of being a useful pitcher — he’s well-regarded and someone would likely take a late-career chance on him — and it’s not because he no longer wishes to play. Rather, it’s because a bunch of bad things have happened in his personal life lately.
As Jerry Crasnick of ESPN reports, last year Peavy lost millions in an investment scam and spent much of the 2016 season distracted, dealing with investigations and depositions and all of the awfulness that accompanied it. Then, when the season ended, Peavy went home and was greeted with divorce papers. He has spent the offseason trying to find a new normal for himself and for his four sons.
Pitching is taking a backseat now, but Peavy plans to pitch again. Here’s hoping that things get sorted to the point where he can carry through with those plans.
This is fun: The San Francisco Giants recently made their last payment on the $170 million, 20-year loan they obtained to finance the construction of AT&T Park. The joint is now officially paid for.
The Giants, unlike most other teams which moved into new stadiums in the past 25 years or so, did not rely on direct public financing. They tried to get it for years, of course, but when the voters, the city of San Francisco and the State of California said no, they decided to pay for it themselves. They ended up with one of baseball’s best-loved and most beautiful parks and, contrary to what the owners who desperately seek public funds will have you believe, they were not harmed competitively speaking. Indeed, rumor has it that they have won three World Series, four pennants and have made the playoffs seven times since moving into the place in 2000. They sell out routinely now too and the Giants are one of the richest teams in the sport.
Now, to be clear, the Giants are not — contrary to what some people will tell you — some Randian example of self-reliance. They did not receive direct public money to build the park, but they did get a lot of breaks. The park sits on city-owned property in what has become some of the most valuable real estate in the country. If the city had held on to that land and realized its appreciation, they could flip it to developers for far more than the revenue generated by baseball. Or, heaven forfend, use it for some other public good. The Giants likewise received some heavy tax abatements, got some extraordinarily beneficial infrastructure upgrades and require some heavy city services to operate their business. All sports stadiums, even the ones privately constructed, represent tradeoffs for the public.
Still, AT&T Park represents a better model than most sports facilities do. I mean, ask how St. Louis feels about still paying for the place the Rams used to call home before taking off for California. Ask how taxpayers in Atlanta and Arlington, Texas feel about paying for their second stadium in roughly the same time the Giants have paid off their first.