Columnists: Fans shouldn’t call Cano a greedy sellout. That’s OUR job!

38 Comments

I’m amused by the Yankees fans who chanted “SELL OUT!” at Robinson Cano last night because if they actually believe that they’re pretty oblivious about the team they root for. But I pretty much stop at amusement. Fans can say what they want and, as I said yesterday, whether you boo or jeer isn’t exactly a big deal. It’s certainly not the stuff of genuine outrage. The most it inspires me to do is to smile, make a wisecrack and move on.

The New York columnists are a tad more miffed at this. Or at least they’re pretending to be today in an effort to fill column inches. Joel Sherman says it was wrong, wrong wrong for fans to boo Cano. Bob Klapisch has a lecture ready too. He calls fans “misguided” for booing Cano and called the booing and jeering “classless.” Then he decided to lecture the plebes in the cheap seats:

Cano didn’t sell out – he made the only possible move. There isn’t a single Yankee, let alone a Bleacher Creature, who would’ve done otherwise. That’s the other lesson that apparently needs to be taught in the Stadium’s hinterlands. The ballplayers you root for are businessman surrounded by agents, lawyers and accountants. They are capitalists nurturing their No. 1 asset, their careers. All of them – yes, even Derek Jeter – play baseball for the money. Cano is no better or worse than his peers. He did nothing wrong by picking the Mariners over the Yankees.

Get that? Don’t call Cano a sellout. If you do, you simply don’t get it and, in any event, you are in no position to judge.  Which would be an awesome message if Klapisch himself didn’t write this back in December when Cano signed with the M’s, under the headline “Robinson Cano deal was all about the money”

Cano is gone, having chosen the Mariners for the coldest reason of all – they made him richer than the Yankees ever would . . . Yankee fans can rightfully call Cano a mercenary, but what law did he break?”

To be fair to Klapisch, it’s not a 100% inconsistent column. He said then, as now, that it’s a business. And that Cano’s leaving had just as much to do with the Yankees’ miscalculations as Cano’s greed. But he is very sharp with Cano about said greed, saying Cano “got his wish for enough cash to run a fund a third-world economy,” saying that his contract negotiations were all about him “shopping at an ATM” and making it clear that, by going to Seattle, he has tarnished his legacy, has shown he’s not interested in winning and has ceased to be relevant as a baseball player.

All things which, if the Bleacher Creatures could reduce them to signs and chants last night, Klapisch himself would likely be condemning today. For you see, fans sitting out in “the hinterlands” aren’t qualified to makes such judgments about ballplayers. Only credentialed columnists are.

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.