From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:34:30 GMT

In article <BALWB71Z@cc.swarthmore.edu> behrens@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eric Behrens) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.193127.18165@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU
>(Roger Lustig) writes:

>> Will Detroit need Fielder if he doesn't win the RBI title? Will Detroit
>> care wbout Fielder when his skills fall apart a little more?  That's 
>> *five years* we're talking about here.  

>> How many players in baseball history have been a draw for that long?  How
>> good were they?  The stats are *entirely* relevant, because they point
>> to the player's long-term prospects for helping the team.  As soon as
>> Fielder's downside becomes more visible, the fans will begrudge him
>> every dollar dollar of Little Caesar's money.

>Did Milwaukee begrudge Robin Yount?  Kansas City begrudge George Brett. 
>Pittsburgh begrudge Stargell?  Will Baltimore ever hate Cal Ripkin?  Will
>Minnesota ever begrudge Kirby?  I could go on.  

Not comparable.  These players have had long careers with their clubs,
and most (Ripken is an exception) became local heroes of the indispensable
type only after five or more years with the club, most of those years with
good performance.  

>Yet New Yorkers booed Reggie, even in some good seasons.  And Pittsburgh
>booed Barry Bonds, even in one of his best years ever.

So?  

>Performance makes you a star, but only personality can keep you popular.  I

Lousy play, however, can make you less popular, and can eventually get 
you released.

>am a diehard Pittsburgh fan.  I go to a lot of games at the ballpark.  I
>know there is no comparison in skill and athleticism, but I would much
>rather have had Cecil in Pittsburgh than Bonds.  The whole world loves a
>slugger.  Babe Ruth was pretty fat, folks.

a) You'd also like a pennant, I bet.  Who'd be better toward that?

b) No, he wasn't.  Not in his prime.

c) He got where he was by breaking HR records; the personality helped,
but he got booed at the end, too.

d) Barry Bonds isn't a slugger?

>The longer Cecil stays in Detroit, the more they'll love him, I'll wager. 

It's your money.  But a few years of lousy play -- which he's quite capable
of -- can change all that quickly.  Moreover, I thought they loved/needed
Whitaker and Trammell...isn't that enough love for one team?

>Dedication to a city IS appreciated by fans.  

Whatever that means.  Dedication, as we have seen, can be bought.

>The big thing about Cecil (aside from his waist band) is that he makes
>baseball fun.

Look, the 77 Yankees were a bunch of assholes, but they were fun to 
watch, too.  And they were a better team than the Tigers of today, too.

>Remember: IT IS, AFTER ALL, A GAME!!!

Yes?  Why does this come up after all arguments have run out?  Or are
you telling me that you're willing to give me $36 million as long as
something's a game?

>You did remember that, didn't you?

Yes.  I also remember that it's a *difficult* game, played by incredibly
talented players, and that there are very few of these around.

>I mean just because brussel sprouts would be BETTER FOR ME than Lucky
>Charms, I must confess to a preference for the green clovers and blue
>diamonds.

Fine.  What does this have to do with Cecil Fielder's salary?  I mean,
Mickey Tettleton's pretty boring.  Does that mean that Max Patkin should 
be catching for the Tigers?

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball