2012 Toronto Blue Jays Thread

[hockeyfan1]

Jays end Las Vegas minor league affiliation and sign a 2 yr deal with the Buffalo Bisons.

More, here:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/2012/09/18/jays_buffalo_triple_a_deal_announcement/

 

[Kin]

So here's a question. I listened to some of the radio chatter yesterday and it seems like there's a pretty universal opinion that Escobar not only deserved the suspension but that it wasn't sufficient. The prevailing thought seemed to be that he should have been suspended for the rest of the year if not outright released.

So just out of curiousity, if the way the word was explained to me is correct and that it was a fairly common slur that rather than being offensive to homosexuals could be construed as offensive to women...is there the same reaction? Same response?

 

[Champ Kind]

I don't know, I suppose I'm just finding it hard to wrap my head around what seems to be the popular interpretation. I don't think Escobar, or anyone, is that dumb.

But the context is such that it leads one to no other explanation.  I mean, if he didn't intend it as a slur, as a taunt towards someone, why write in on your face?  If it indeed means the word "dude", or more importantly if he intended it as such, why would you write the equivalent of "You are a dude" on your face.  It is non-sensical.

This was a selfish move by a self-interested player.  Whether it was directed at a teamate, opponent, or spectator is open for debate.  The use of the this phrase, especially in the way that he did it, is disgusting.  And just so we're dealing from the same deck of cards, please take a look at this wikipedia entry and tell me if the word was taken out of context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Cuba

Pre-revolutionary Cuba was no paradise for gays and lesbians. There were gay bars where homosexual men could meet, but to be a maric?n (f****t) was to be a social outcast.

Laws made it illegal to be gay and police targeted homosexuals for harassment. Many gay men were drawn into prostitution for largely US-based clients. In this repressive atmosphere, homosexuality was linked to prostitution, gambling and crime.[24]

 

[Champ Kind]

So here's a question. I listened to some of the radio chatter yesterday and it seems like there's a pretty universal opinion that Escobar not only deserved the suspension but that it wasn't sufficient. The prevailing thought seemed to be that he should have been suspended for the rest of the year if not outright released.

So just out of curiousity, if the way the word was explained to me is correct and that it was a fairly common slur that rather than being offensive to homosexuals could be construed as offensive to women...is there the same reaction? Same response?

Frankly, the answer is no.  Had he written "You are a p****" then I suspect there would have been ridicule over what an idiot he is, but not the admonishment he's currently receiving.  But there's an association tied to the word he used, a history of torment, a normative assertion that degrades a good portion of the earth's population. 

Granted, these sorts of things are always difficult to pin down.  But let's give this the reasonable person litmus test and see what we come up with.  If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...

 

[Kin]

But the context is such that it leads one to no other explanation.  I mean, if he didn't intend it as a slur, as a taunt towards someone, why write in on your face?  If it indeed means the word "dude", or more importantly if he intended it as such, why would you write the equivalent of "You are a dude" on your face.  It is non-sensical.

I think you're misrepresenting what Guillen said there. He didn't say it's literal translation was "dude" or "bro" he said that it's often used in the same context. Take the literal, clinical term for a female dog that doubles as a censored swear on this website. That can be used in the context of an insult, yes, but it can also be used among friends without malicious intent as a greeting

This was a selfish move by a self-interested player.  Whether it was directed at a teamate, opponent, or spectator is open for debate.  The use of the this phrase, especially in the way that he did it, is disgusting.  And just so we're dealing from the same deck of cards, please take a look at this wikipedia entry and tell me if the word was taken out of context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Cuba

Pre-revolutionary Cuba was no paradise for gays and lesbians. There were gay bars where homosexual men could meet, but to be a maric?n (f****t) was to be a social outcast.

Laws made it illegal to be gay and police targeted homosexuals for harassment. Many gay men were drawn into prostitution for largely US-based clients. In this repressive atmosphere, homosexuality was linked to prostitution, gambling and crime.[24]

Can I say that the quote from wikipedia is out of context? I mean what went on in pre-revolutionary Cuba is interesting and all but being as Escobar was born around 25 years after the revolution I'm not certain it's all that relevant to the culture that he grew up in. That same Wikipedia article, in it's bit about post-revolutionary Cuba, paints a picture of a slightly more complex attitude towards homosexuality in Cuba.

Anyways, that's kind of sideways to my point. The word wasn't described to me as such and from my admittedly brief research it seems like it's a word with multiple interpretations. Should Escobar have been aware that the loose translation of one of those meanings is a very offensive word? Probably. Want to throw the book at him? Go ahead.

 

[Derk]

I meant to post something last night about this, but got distracted.

Gregg Zaun went off on the Jays locker room last night saying that there is a consequence free environment and that the relative youth has brought a sense of entitlement to do what ever they want without worry (as long as they are one of the "chosen ones"). He cited Lawrie's numerous baserunning blunders and followup comment "That's how I play the game and I am not gong to change" to support his cause. He also said that there is an attitude of immaturity (for lack of a better word) in the locker room and that this was totally inappropriate. He also suggested Farrell couldn't really control it because of the sheer number of young guys having to play.

(That was paraphrased, and I apologize if this stuff was mentioned previously and I missed it, or if I misremembered anything - stressful day today, so my memory might be a little wonky!).

To Nik: I noticed that too. It sounded as though pretty much everybody has taken the word as the gay slur and not as the other interpretation. Not once did I hear that it might have been translated differently as per your account and the Star article that was linked here yesterday. I would have thought that would have been brought up as part of the discussion of the issue.

 

[Kin]

Frankly, the answer is no.  Had he written "You are a p****" then I suspect there would have been ridicule over what an idiot he is, but not the admonishment he's currently receiving.  But there's an association tied to the word he used, a history of torment, a normative assertion that degrades a good portion of the earth's population. 

Well, if I had my argumentative shoes on today I'd wonder why anyone would be any more ok with a word that degrades 51% of the world's population but you're in luck and they're at the cobblers.

But again, and this is sort of the whole crux of my perspective here, the word that Escobar used is a Spanish word with multiple translations. One of them, yes, is very offensive. There are others that mean a similar thing but probably don't rate as high on the outrage-o-meter. There are ones where it wouldn't rate at all.

Now, I freely admit, I'm speaking largely from a position of ignorance here. Maybe, in Spanish culture, homosexuals find the word that Escobar used to be every bit as offensive as the one you're interpreting it as. If so, again, have at him. I'm just saying I'm not sure that it is and, if anything, the spanish speaking world seems divided on the concept of what the word means.

 

[TimKerr]

I meant to post something last night about this, but got distracted.

Gregg Zaun went off on the Jays locker room last night saying that there is a consequence free environment and that the relative youth has brought a sense of entitlement to do what ever they want without worry (as long as they are one of the "chosen ones"). He cited Lawrie's numerous baserunning blunders and followup comment "That's how I play the game and I am not gong to change" to support his cause. He also said that there is an attitude of immaturity (for lack of a better word) in the locker room and that this was totally inappropriate. He also suggested Farrell couldn't really control it because of the sheer number of young guys having to play.

(That was paraphrased, and I apologize if this stuff was mentioned previously and I missed it, or if I misremembered anything - stressful day today, so my memory might be a little wonky!).

I honestly don't know if Greg Zaun has any inside knowledge about anything that goes on in the Jays lockerroom or anywhere for that matter.

I've tried to listen to his 'analysis' and frankly he adds nothing to any of the telecasts. I think he is just trying to capitalize on this situation and try to make more of it then there actually is.

Lawrie is a bad example as well. He plays hard and tough and that is his style. No one tells hockey players to 'take it easy' or you might get injured. So why should Lawrie change? Is he risking injury? Sure, but players hurt themselves getting out of the shower. So just play your best.

 

[Champ Kind]

Can I say that the quote from wikipedia is out of context? I mean what went on in pre-revolutionary Cuba is interesting and all but being as Escobar was born around 25 years after the revolution I'm not certain it's all that relevant to the culture that he grew up in. That same Wikipedia article, in it's bit about post-revolutionary Cuba, paints a picture of a slightly more complex attitude towards homosexuality in Cuba.

Anyways, that's kind of sideways to my point. The word wasn't described to me as such and from my admittedly brief research it seems like it's a word with multiple interpretations. Should Escobar have been aware that the loose translation of one of those meanings is a very offensive word? Probably. Want to throw the book at him? Go ahead.

I think you're wrong about this article being out of context.  I know it's long and I respect you more than most for actually being informed prior to writing but it's no secret that machismo is very strong in most Latin cultures.  Castro himself said Cuba must become less homophobic:

...in his autobiography My Life, Castro has criticized the "machismo" culture of Cuba and urged for the acceptance of homosexuality. Furthermore, he has made several long speeches to the public regarding discrimination of homosexuals. Many gays were attracted to the socialist promise of an egalitarian society; some of them important figures among the left-wing intelligentsia, such as the writers for the popular journal Lunes de Revoluci?n.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of an open, tolerant society.

So anyway, I think we're in agreement here, fundamentally.  I just find myself offended by intolerance more easily now than when I was younger.  I see the implications, I empathize with those affected, and I'm affected by those who seek to hurt others.  Maybe it's because I'm a dad of three little ones and wonder if it they'll ever have something like this directed at them.  Maybe it's because I love sports but, in some cases, hate parts of the culture that goes with it.  At any rate, I'll leap off my high horse now, but I do think he deserves the book to be thrown at him if for no toehr reason than to hopefully begin to chip away at the dirty secret of locker room culture that makes the use and reference of these terms ok.

 

[maplesyrup]

I honestly don't know if Greg Zaun has any inside knowledge about anything that goes on in the Jays lockerroom or anywhere for that matter.

FWIW, I know for a fact Zaun hangs out with some of the guys socially. 

 

[Kin]

I think you're wrong about this article being out of context.

Well, to be fair to me I just said that the quote was because it was referencing a time in Cuba's past that probably doesn't reflect the environment the Yunel Escobar grew up in. If I wanted to just start firing buckshot around for all I know Yunel Escobar learned the word elsewhere.

  I know it's long and I respect you more than most for actually being informed prior to writing but it's no secret that machismo is very strong in most Latin cultures.  Castro himself said Cuba must become less homophobic:

edit because I phrased my point very poorly here.

Well, while I have no doubt that Castro's right when he says that the sad truth is that he could say that about just about anywhere and be right. Think about Escobar for a second. He left Cuba and came to the states where he started playing baseball in Virginia, then Georgia and then Mississippi. Any of those places any better on the subject? Think you'll hear the governor of Mississippi saying that his state needs to get less homophobic any time soon?

I don't know, I suppose there's a degree of incredulity I have that a league is going to draw the line on slurs when they're largely centred in a country that hasn't come around on the idea of equal rights yet.

So anyway, I think we're in agreement here, fundamentally.  I just find myself offended by intolerance more easily now than when I was younger.  I see the implications, I empathize with those affected, and I'm affected by those who seek to hurt others.  Maybe it's because I'm a dad of three little ones and wonder if it they'll ever have something like this directed at them.  Maybe it's because I love sports but, in some cases, hate parts of the culture that goes with it.  At any rate, I'll leap off my high horse now, but I do think he deserves the book to be thrown at him if for no toehr reason than to hopefully begin to chip away at the dirty secret of locker room culture that makes the use and reference of these terms ok.

Well, here's the thing. It's a tricky subject for me. Not because I disagree with the sentiment here, trust me, I can get my liberal outrage lather worked up with the best of them, but because I'm really big on words and I really struggle with the idea of their taboo-ness or the idea that by banning words you do much to address the underlying cultural issues.

 

[Kin]

Lawrie is a bad example as well. He plays hard and tough and that is his style. No one tells hockey players to 'take it easy' or you might get injured. So why should Lawrie change? Is he risking injury? Sure, but players hurt themselves getting out of the shower. So just play your best.

I think there's kind of a difference between Baseball and those other games though that's just a matter of practicality. Position players are expected to play in 162 games over a season. That's a lot of wear on the body just there. If the Jays are going to get what they want out of Lawrie that depends on him actually being in the line-up and taking risks for little reward doesn't help the team in the long run. Look at the Nationals shutting down Strasburg or the Giants telling Posey not to block the plate.

The thing about Baseball is that there's a game tomorrow and you can't help the team if you're not in it.

 

[TimKerr]

Lawrie is a bad example as well. He plays hard and tough and that is his style. No one tells hockey players to 'take it easy' or you might get injured. So why should Lawrie change? Is he risking injury? Sure, but players hurt themselves getting out of the shower. So just play your best.

I think there's kind of a difference between Baseball and those other games though that's just a matter of practicality. Position players are expected to play in 162 games over a season. That's a lot of wear on the body just there. If the Jays are going to get what they want out of Lawrie that depends on him actually being in the line-up and taking risks for little reward doesn't help the team in the long run. Look at the Nationals shutting down Strasburg or the Giants telling Posey not to block the plate.

The thing about Baseball is that there's a game tomorrow and you can't help the team if you're not in it.

The question of course for Lawrie is if you ask him to slow it down or take it easy are you impacting his effectiveness as a player.

Further, I think we are forgetting the important aspect here, Greg Zaun shouldn't be providing analysis for baseball on Sportsnet, simple as that.

 

[Derk]

I honestly don't know if Greg Zaun has any inside knowledge about anything that goes on in the Jays lockerroom or anywhere for that matter.

I've tried to listen to his 'analysis' and frankly he adds nothing to any of the telecasts. I think he is just trying to capitalize on this situation and try to make more of it then there actually is.

Lawrie is a bad example as well. He plays hard and tough and that is his style. No one tells hockey players to 'take it easy' or you might get injured. So why should Lawrie change? Is he risking injury? Sure, but players hurt themselves getting out of the shower. So just play your best.

Interesting perspective - I mostly appreciate Zaun, but I don't get to listen to him that often. I figured that he had a bit more credibility than other media guys because he had been on the team and he could have close contacts within the dressing room. To each their own.

Regarding Lawrie, the comment was specifically directed at his baserunning decisions, not his all out hustling style of play. The main thrust of his comment was that no matter how hard you play, there are still some fundamentals that are important that are being missed / ignored (getting thrown out running to third on a ground ball in front of you was one example). He feels that the "That's how I play" comment is incompatible with playing smart baseball, particularly where baserunning is concerned. He also feels that there have been no repercussions at this point because of some players "untouchable" status.

I found the whole conversation compelling, particularly given all the mistakes that have been repeated. If the same mistakes keep happening into next season, then he may have a point. Until then...

 

[TimKerr]

I honestly don't know if Greg Zaun has any inside knowledge about anything that goes on in the Jays lockerroom or anywhere for that matter.

I've tried to listen to his 'analysis' and frankly he adds nothing to any of the telecasts. I think he is just trying to capitalize on this situation and try to make more of it then there actually is.

Lawrie is a bad example as well. He plays hard and tough and that is his style. No one tells hockey players to 'take it easy' or you might get injured. So why should Lawrie change? Is he risking injury? Sure, but players hurt themselves getting out of the shower. So just play your best.

Interesting perspective - I mostly appreciate Zaun, but I don't get to listen to him that often. I figured that he had a bit more credibility than other media guys because he had been on the team and he could have close contacts within the dressing room. To each their own.

Regarding Lawrie, the comment was specifically directed at his baserunning decisions, not his all out hustling style of play. The main thrust of his comment was that no matter how hard you play, there are still some fundamentals that are important that are being missed / ignored (getting thrown out running to third on a ground ball in front of you was one example). He feels that the "That's how I play" comment is incompatible with playing smart baseball, particularly where baserunning is concerned. He also feels that there have been no repercussions at this point because of some players "untouchable" status.

I found the whole conversation compelling, particularly given all the mistakes that have been repeated. If the same mistakes keep happening into next season, then he may have a point. Until then...

I actually mostly agree with you and he may actually have a point. I think I am just clouded by my dislike of him on TV. Honestly, it really isn't based on anything concrete. He is just one of those guys.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Please tell me @greggzaun is not the official Twitter account of Zaun and just a parody.

 

[TimKerr]

Please tell me @greggzaun is not the official Twitter account of Zaun and just a parody.

It appears it is his actual Twitter account and if so it validates my feelings towards him.

That account is just, just...... wow

 

[Derk]

I just took a look at his twitter feed. As someone who hasn't really jumped into twitter, I find that incredibly difficult to follow.

 

[Derk]

One other thing, I did manage to find this article by Bruce Dowbiggin that summarized what Zaun said about the team a lot better than I did.

 

[TimKerr]

One other thing, I did manage to find this article by Bruce Dowbiggin that summarized what Zaun said about the team a lot better than I did.

Would Zaun be saying anything if the team actually succeeded this year? I mean they had one of the worst injury streaks in baseball history and lost all but one of their starting pitchers. Every position player of consequence has been injured for a significant amount of time.

If these injuries never happened and the Jays were contending would this 'consequence-free clubhouse' talk turn into 'young guys, just having fun' and 'competing the best they can'

Also, the article said the Jays and/or Rogers was going to comment on this on Wednesday. I haven't read or heard anything said, has anyone else?