Twins second baseman Orlando Hudson hinted that racism is why Jermaine Dye is out of work, reports Yahoo's Jeff Passan. Hudson's comments:
"You see guys like Dye without a job. Guy with [27 home runs and 81 RBIs] and can't get a job. Pretty much sums it up right there, no? You've got some guys who miss a year who can come back and get $5, $6 million, and a guy like Jermaine Dye can't get a job. A guy like Gary Sheffield, a first-ballot Hall of Famer, can't get a job. We both know what it is. You'll get it right. You'll figure it out. I'm not gonna say it because then I'll be in [trouble]."
Passan is correct in that the perception of racism in the free agent market is a problem. But let's look at individual cases referenced in the article:
- Gary Sheffield hit well in 312 plate appearances for the Mets last year, but was lousy the year prior. The 41-year-old is a big negative on defense. He battled knee, back, and hamstring injuries, and sat out a game in August when the Mets declined his request for a contract extension.
- Passan provides good examples in Kenny Lofton and Ray Durham. But Lofton was said to be asking for $2.5-3MM by some, $6MM by others. In the spring of '08 Lofton was a near 41-year-old part-time player with suspect defense. Durham, 37 at the time, turned down an $850K offer from the Nationals. He was still able to hit, but his defense was questionable. Isn't it possible that the common thread here is age and defense rather than race? Luis Gonzalez and Jim Edmonds couldn't find anything after the '08 season either.
- Passan names three white players who did get paid this winter: Aubrey Huff, Garrett Atkins, and Xavier Nady. Presumably Passan is implying that if these three got $3-4.5MM, Dye should've too. However, Huff and Atkins were both named by team execs are two of the worst signings of the offseason. It's very possible that the Giants and Orioles just made bad signings. One exec told me he preferred Hank Blalock, who signed a $925K minor league deal, to Huff. And the Cubs made similar offers to both Dye and Nady. Nady was coming off a lost season, but he's younger and had more first base experience.
- Dye has been picky; he said yesterday that to move his family to Washington, D.C. he'd require "a little bit more." When the Rangers were interested, there was word that Dye did not want a full-time DH job. Dye appears unwilling to settle for the $1.5-2MM players like Jim Thome and Russell Branyan received.
- Hudson referred to players who missed a year and got $5-6MM. Presumably he's talking about Ben Sheets, but the situation isn't comparable to Dye. Coco Crisp snagged $5.5MM (also from the A's) coming off a 49-game season cut short by surgeries on both shoulders. The pair of moves was about the A's making injury upside plays. Unlike the older free agents forced out of the game, Crisp is known for his defense.
- Hudson's point deserves consideration, but he has to acknowledge the shift toward defense and youth as well.
Mentioning the A’s: Dye would make sense for them as another high upside type guy. They need some power and he could mostly DH. Not saying they have money to do it, but it’s a thought.
As of this second, the A’s lead the AL in runs scored.
And are 9th in HRs
Runs > HR
HR = R(s)
When Baseball becomes a HR derby then I’ll agree with u
Yanks & Phils led their respective leagues in HRs last year and ended up in WS. Coincidence?
Yes.
The 2008 leaders missed the playoffs entirely (With the WS teams being 9 and 13), the 2007 leaders were both bounced in the first round (With the WS teams being 4 and 5), 2006 one missed and one bounced in the first round (With the WS teams being 8 and 14), 2005 the leaders were again bounced in the first round (WS teams being 13 and TWENTY-FOUR).
In fact, last year was only the second time (Last being 2004 Red Sox) in the last decade the top home run hitting team in the MLB that won the World Series.
So, yeah, coincidence.
But runs =/= home runs. One can score a run any multitude of ways.
A HR always = at least 1 run and sometimes as many as 4.
I don’t believe you understand the implication of the equation.
While yes, a home run produces a run, a run is not always a home run. The basic point being that one does not have to hit a home run to produce a run and there are, in fact, many ways of getting a run.
This is evidenced by the amount of runs the A’s are scoring while being dead last in home runs. Put it this way, would you rather your team jack straight solo three home runs or drop in seven singles in a row? If you’re a sensible man and/or have any math skills, you’ll pick the seven singles every time. Not only do you have one more run, you’re also in a position to easily score more.
Keeping the line moving > a couple of big home run threats.
But, you see friend, that’s obtuse reasoning. In politics it’s what’s called a straw man. How many times during a season will a team hit three home runs in a row or seven singles in a row? Not nearly as many as one single or one home run in a row. So, here’s the “implication of the equation” really nice and simple: what would you rather have – 1 home run or 1 single?
But runs =/= home runs. One can score a run any multitude of ways.
and its only the 2nd week of the season. slow your roll bud.
High upside? A slice of humble pie is first necessary for that high upside to be a possibility. Dye needs to realize that one must prove his worth from time to time (preferrably his FA year and in contract negotiations). See Bobby Abreu.
High upside? A slice of humble pie is first necessary for that high upside to be a possibility. Dye needs to realize that one must prove his worth from time to time (preferrably his FA year and in contract negotiations). See Bobby Abreu.
While the A’s could use Dye as a RH DH to platoon with Chavez, and I would not mind having Dye back in that role, I don’t think the A’s would do it, nor do I think Dye would take the A’s price, since they’d be just as likely to offer a low figure as everyone else.
The A’s currently have a platoon of Eric Chavez and Jake Fox at DH. But this is widely thought to be simple a stopgap till Michael Taylor and Chris Carter are ready to be called up, in which case Carter would come up and take the DH spot, while Taylor would take the Left Field or Right Field spot, knocking out whomever was doing worst in the OF at the time, or via a trade of an OF (presumably Crisp). Dye there would make the situation a bit more complicated.
Cust is making almost $3MM at AAA. He is Chavez’s built-in replacement. Not Carter nor Taylor nor Fox.
Carter is the DH of the future, and is a better hitter than Cust or Chavez. So come June or July, if Carter is mashing at AAA, the A’s could very well bring him up, and the only place left is DH.
Cust is, at this time, Chavez’s replacement. But Fox is the compliment and a possible replacement as well. He is cheap, has great power, and should hit, despite his opening struggles. He is also, more importantly, right handed, which Cust and Chavez are not. The A’s have had a long history of being too lefty heavy, thus the need for a RH Bat, and why Carter and Taylor are so attractive to the A’s. Also remember that Chavez has had very bad platoon splits vs Lefties in his career, so platooning Chavez with Fox is not a bad idea, and might not be a bad one to do with Cust as well.
The A’s may or may not decide to continue with their year-a-level strategy with Carter. But if Chavez staggers a bit, either with another injury (likely) or bad play (also likely), and Carter is tearing up AAA like he did AA and AAA, then I fully expect to see him as the starting DH in Oakland, and moving Chavez to the bench utility role he expected to play out of spring training.
As for Cust, I see him coming up in the not so distant future once the team realizes that Eric Patterson has no place on a ball field, and should be sent packing to the Reds so Dusty Baker can have another Patterson to mancrush on after losing Corey.
While the A’s could use Dye as a RH DH to platoon with Chavez, and I would not mind having Dye back in that role, I don’t think the A’s would do it, nor do I think Dye would take the A’s price, since they’d be just as likely to offer a low figure as everyone else.
The A’s currently have a platoon of Eric Chavez and Jake Fox at DH. But this is widely thought to be simple a stopgap till Michael Taylor and Chris Carter are ready to be called up, in which case Carter would come up and take the DH spot, while Taylor would take the Left Field or Right Field spot, knocking out whomever was doing worst in the OF at the time, or via a trade of an OF (presumably Crisp). Dye there would make the situation a bit more complicated.
No, the A’s do not need another DH. Last I checked the AL only allows for one DH in the lineup at a time.
You are incorrect. I just joined a Yahoo fantasy league, and they insist that I have 2 DHs. Clearly, they are responding to rule changes from that new committee. Otherwise I cannot explain this…
No, the A’s do not need another DH. Last I checked the AL only allows for one DH in the lineup at a time.
Back to your original point: the A’s spent $2.65MM on Jack Cust to have him play at AAA while Eric Chavez decides to be healthy. J. Dye would be a completely awful signing as his defense would interfere with the new team focus of manufacturing runs and excellent defense to compliment the already great pitching.
Plus he played in Oakland before and couldnt hit well at the Coliseum. He also is asking for way too much money. He is just a pointless signing for Oakland.
Plus, the A’s lead the AL in runs scored, dont mess with what works.
They lead in runs but not in runs per game.
Seriously, don’t pop off about leading the league in runs scored in the second week of the season. Stats of any kind at this sample size are beyond meaningless. Heck, the Toronto Blue Jays lead the AL East right now.
I kind of agree with this. Everybody calls Arod greedy and unclutch. When Mauer gets 180 million and Teixeira gets 160 million and are white players who ‘play the game the right way’. EVERYBODY wants to get every last penny they are entitled to- it seems the owners favor white players at the back end of there career. The majority of baseball fans are white so it makes good business sense.
hey there……just wanted to say A) Mauer is probably the best proven catcher in the league right now and is a hero in Minnesota, hence their reason for keeping him. And favors white players? top 2 highest paid baseball players in HISTORY are spanish (A-Rod) and BLACK (Barry Bonds)………and a close third would be Manny Ramirez (who last time i checked isn’t white either correct?)
lets not forget the highest paid pitcher…
CC Sabathia ( Black )
A-Rod pre-2010 postseason was/is greedy and unclutch.
Should I whip out his 04/05/06/07 postseason stats for proof?
Not all Hispanics are Spanish. It would be like saying all Americans are from California.
Not all Hispanics are Spanish. It would be like saying all Americans are from California.
mauer and teixiera are not at the back end of their career. why dont you go check out what jim thome and jason giambi are doing these days, and there is your white equivalent to dye.
mauer and teixiera are not at the back end of their career. why dont you go check out what jim thome and jason giambi are doing these days, and there is your white equivalent to dye.
http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=405796
A breakdown of the 2005 sports census – baseball.
African American player (approx 10% of all MLB) or Latino (31%) or Asian (2.25%) Take Dice-K and Ichiro for example, they really curve the pay scale for Asian players…
Didn’t Ken Griffey Jr. raise the question about the lack of interest of African American youth in baseball and cited the recent MVP win by Ryan Howard and Jimmy Rollins wondering why black youth were not looking to baseball?
http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=405796
A breakdown of the 2005 sports census – baseball.
African American player (approx 10% of all MLB) or Latino (31%) or Asian (2.25%) Take Dice-K and Ichiro for example, they really curve the pay scale for Asian players…
Didn’t Ken Griffey Jr. raise the question about the lack of interest of African American youth in baseball and cited the recent MVP win by Ryan Howard and Jimmy Rollins wondering why black youth were not looking to baseball?
As of last season:
65% of the NFL is black
82% of the NBA is black
Why aren’t whites playing in basketball or football?
I didn’t know aging, declining and injury-prone players were members of a different race now.
Amazing, right? It’s like they all contacted reverse-Albanism or something.
I think Hudson is sticking up for Dye because he knows that soon he will end up like him; old with crappy defense and greedier than ever.
I think Hudson is sticking up for Dye because he knows that soon he will end up like him; old with crappy defense and greedier than ever.
Haha. Splendid. I don’t know though, I think there is definitely a correlation between race and the ability to get signed after putting up solid numbers in your previous season. Examples: Ray Durham, Kenny Lofton, Gary Sheffield, Jermaine Dye, etc. Despite being productive, they seem to have had more trouble than stars of other races in getting a job.
The question doesn’t seem to be that this is happening. It’s why this is happening. It could be:
1. Racial bias by GMs (“He wouldn’t fit in our clubhouse.”)
2. Cultural bias by GMs (“He has different goals/views.”)
3. Sense of entitlement by aging African-American players (“I deserve more than this.”)
4. Pickiness by aging African-American players (“Want to stay near my roots”, etc)
5. Personality issues of certain African American players biasing the sample (Sheff, Bonds, etc)
There are a lot of reasons why it could be happening. But it’s definitely been happening. Sure they’re declining, but I would think they should still be employed. Durham didn’t get signed after a career year basically. I’m less surprised by Dye than Sheff, honestly. Haven’t heard a peep about the guy after he put up a 0.372 OBP last year.
Dye could get a job if he was willing to take the same kind of money that Thome (white, by the way) got and play what he’s playing (DH if he’s lucky). But he’s not willing to do either.
But honestly, here’s Dye’s major problem: He simply imploded last year. For the last three months of the season, he was a .200 hitter. Total, he hit .250. His defense has been consistently poor in the outfield for several years. You put all that together and that’s a LOT of risk to giving the guy the sort of money he seems to want (more than the $4MM or so the Cubs seemed to offer), particularly when he’s not willing to minimize his disadvantages by accepting a DH role.
Sheffield? The guy’s a headache. He’s just like Manny: A good player (Sheffield in particular already hit his decline though Manny may be there as well) who just runs his mouth until he gets run out of every town he plays in. Manny got another chance in LA. Sheffield got one with the Tigers and another with the Mets. And a similar situation with Sammy Sosa his last year in Chicago (bad play + selfish behavior) still yielded him two more chances, with the Orioles and Rangers.
Did Sheets get a lot of money for his situation? Yeah. Everybody was surprised he got as much as he did. But his was a different situation. He was injured. As long as teams were secure in the belief that it was behind him, there was little reason to expect he couldn’t be the pitcher he was last time he was healthy — to the tune of a 3.09 ERA and 198 IP. Thome got work, but he’s a part-time player at DH, which is pretty much the last thing you can possibly be before you’re ushered off the field.
Meanwhile, who are some of the best potential free-agents for next year? Aramis Ramirez, Victor Martinez, Jorge Cantu, Derrek Lee, Albert Pujols, Derek Jeter, Jose Reyes, Carl Crawford. None of them white. The top white potential free agents? Adam Dunn… and that’s pretty much it. All the rest are some degree of mediocre.
It’s possible that this offseason just HAPPENS to be the offseason of the non-white superstar, but that would be an awfully strange coincidence. More than likely it is simply evidence that there are plenty of good players who have gotten paid and will get paid again–of all races. If you look at the 2012 list, it’s similarly stacked. Fielder, who wants Tex money; Howard, already shattered arbitration awards; Cano, Beltran, Cameron, Abreu, Furcal – versus Cuddyer, Aaron Hill, DeRosa.
Yes, I’m aware that not all of these players are black, but many are — including most of the ones likely to cash in the biggest paydays of their particular offseasons. There is no racism against black players that I can see. There’s a bias against mediocre players coming off of bad seasons with huge paychecks, though. That’s not likely to change much going forward.
It should be noted however that racism is far less evident when the choices are already clear based upon talent. Research shows that racism tends to be most easily noted when applicants for jobs are of equal qualifications. I think it’s pretty obvious that unless you’re dealing with the KKK, at some point qualifications take precedence over race. So using the top players is a bit spurious. Clearly, the #1 deciding factor is talent. Teams would sign an alien from Planet Y to play SS if he was the top talent. Just because racism isn’t so blatant that a guy would pass up on Ryan Howard doesn’t mean that it doesn’t count.
The question is if teams would rather sign a guy like Dye or an equivalent player of some other race. I honestly don’t know the answer to that. In most jobs, the white guy has an advantage when the qualifications are equal. In some, like football or basketball, a white guy is at a disadvantage. If everything else is equal, there’s really only the stereotype left. If you try to imagine a banker in your head, is he black or white? Or on the converse, if you try to imagine a basketball player, what is the race? These things will bias which player seems better, when things are ambiguous. Baseball is tougher to figure out on that angle, but I would assume a white guy has the advantage. With that said, even though this is probably the case- I don’t see it as being the biggest factor.
You seem to think that the big factors are talent and personality issues, but I don’t think that’s the case. Dye and Sheff have plenty of talent, and neither of them had any conflicts last year to my knowledge. I don’t think those are the big factors.
My personal opinion tends to be that African American players (not to be confused with all black players) are just less likely to accept below market deals. Thome and Dye probably have similar value, but Thome settled for 2m and Dye is still looking for 3m. Almost every guy I can think of who has been locked out of baseball after a good season hasn’t just been black, he’s been African American. That is what seems to be the big pattern.
By my more general point was that there’s at least 5 big factors in here, and we just plain don’t know which ones are the big ones. We can only guess.
The irony is that his thought process on this issue is inherently racist.
How so? You can call it playing the race card, playing the victim, paranoia, not holding Dye and his agent accountable for misreading the FA market, etc….but I don’t see where you can call Hudson’s thought process “inherently racist”. Racism is a belief that there are inherent differences in races and that one’s race is superior to another. It also often implies an institutionalization of such beliefs as a doctrine or policy for government and other organizations. Hudson can call MLB or it’s teams racist and, whether he’s right or wrong, or whether you agree or disagree, he is using the word in it’s correct sense. To say the opposite, that Hudson is racist, implies that he believes himself superior based on inherent racial traits and that he has any power to practice this belief as policy or doctrine through the use of an institution. That’s nonsense. You can disagree, as I do, with Hudson on his belief that Dye is the victim of racism. I’m not defending Hudson because he is unwittingly trivializing the issue. But you cannot say this “thought process” is racist. Racism is a lot more than just a thought process.
He’s not playing the race card or any of those other phrases you used–he outright believes that these supposedly “left out” players are superior for reasons, apparently, linked only to race.
I was initially shocked Dye wasn’t picked up by some team in need of offense, but due to his apparent necessity to play in the same location as his family, his injury history, and his lackluster defense, it’s really no longer shocking he’s without a job.
I was shocked he didn’t take the offer from the Cubs because they were willing to overlook his defense, his injury history and, to top it off, provide him a perfect location where he didn’t even have to pack his bags!
I guess I know what you are trying to say– that there is a racial element to Hudson’s comments, but saying what he did still doesn’t make the comment racist, because the comment doesn’t imply that he believes in his own racial superiority (and, at any rate, he has no power to institutionalize his beliefs in any way). His comments only imply that Hudson thinks others feel that way and have the power to do something about it. It may be a misguided statement, but what I’m saying is that it isn’t a racist one, not by the standard definition of the word.
For Dye, I think being paid $9.5 million in 2009 really diluted his personal view of his own value. Being offered the likes of $1 million after finishing a pretty fresh $22 million deal can be hard to wrap one’s head around.
I think you hit the nail on the head there. He just couldn’t fathom taking that big a pay cut. But, hey, reality bites! A lot of Americans have had to take paycuts over the past few years.
I think you hit the nail on the head there. He just couldn’t fathom taking that big a pay cut. But, hey, reality bites! A lot of Americans have had to take paycuts over the past few years.
you may have a point here…
if you were making 100,000 a year for 10 years…then you were offered 10,000 a year…well…you might have a time accepting that…
I honestly think Orlando Hudson is bitter about HIS OWN experience in the free-agent market, and is using Dye/Sheff to project his own agenda.
now to be fair…I do think there is a degree of racism in the way the media portrays athletes…which may affect how marketable that athlete is in the free agent market..but lets face it..there are other situations which can be used to show that there is racism…this is not one of them
you may have a point here…
if you were making 100,000 a year for 10 years…then you were offered 10,000 a year…well…you might have a time accepting that…
I honestly think Orlando Hudson is bitter about HIS OWN experience in the free-agent market, and is using Dye/Sheff to project his own agenda.
now to be fair…I do think there is a degree of racism in the way the media portrays athletes…which may affect how marketable that athlete is in the free agent market..but lets face it..there are other situations which can be used to show that there is racism…this is not one of them
I dont agree.
Hudson mentions two players he is shocked are without jobs – Dye and Sheffield. And Hudson implies these players dont have jobs because they are black. What Hudson is doing is ignoring all other aspects to form the conclusion he wants to portray, he wants the issue to be racism.
But we know for a fact Dye could have a job if he wanted it. And we know for a fact Sheffield has set extremely unrealistic and specific situations in which he will play multiple times (I mean, is he still insisting Fla is the only team he will play for? He very well could be for all I know, I know he has said that before – and if a player says “I will only play for one team” and that team just doesnt need or want him…). But Hudson ignores these aspects to instead talk about his agenda – racism. He is ignoring everything involved other then race. His entire focus is race. And when someone ignores logic to instead focus on the color of a persons skin, they are being racist.
What you describe is almost a perfect definition of the word prejudice and, in fact, you could (and did) make a reasonable argument that Hudson is prejudiced toward MLB owners. It doesn’t mean the same thing as racism though. When we talk about racism…
1. A person has to believe there are inherently different traits between races and to believe that his/her race is superior based on these traits.
2. Racism involves systems and policies that foster such beliefs such as government, industry, and other institutions.
Racism is a word that’s been used by the public to mean all sorts of things, unfortunately the word is often misused and used in lieu of similar, but different words. I’m not here to defend Hudson’s comments, per say, I’m just saying there isn’t anything racist about them.
however, you missed some of the definition of Racism (per Websters)
“2 : racial prejudice or discrimination”
He is prejudice on the grounds of race and showing reverse discrimination on the grounds of race – both of which fall under the definition of racism.
It seems a corruption of the word has found it’s way into a popular dictionary…but even then there’s some contortion to make it fit and it makes for a clumsy description of the situation. I suppose language evolves like everything else and often it’s through such corruptions (after all that’s how English became American English, right?) . It’s still not a big deal. You’ll also find “ain’t” in the M-W and other dictionaries. Modern dictionaries often incorporate popular meanings but it doesn’t mean that it’s the best use of the word. I wouldn’t use racism in that context in a serious conversation (or in a serious paper for that matter) any more than I would use the word “ain’t”. There are also multiple definitions and meanings for the word theory but only one is accurate when you are talking about things like The Theory of Evolution or The Theory of Gravity — and it ain’t 🙂 the popular meaning of the word. Bottom line is that predjudice is the best and most accurate word to use if you want to describe Hudson in that way. I prefer to reserve the the word racist for use in a more appropriate context.
“It seems a corruption of the word has found it’s way into a popular dictionary… Modern dictionaries often incorporate popular meanings but it doesn’t mean that it’s the best use of the word.”
Well, the definition is labeled with an inclusion date of 1933. And I personally have a 1953 Websters dictionary on my shelf which states the definition of racism solely as this
1. Racialism (defined as racial prejudice, hatred or discrimination)
2. The practice of racial discrimination, persecution, etc…
So in fact, it seems it is the “inherently different traits” portion of the definition which may be the newer addition and the historic definition is clearly showing prejudice or discrimination because of race.
But that only makes sense. After all, think of what it would mean if that were not the definition.
“I didnt hire you because you are black”
would NOT be racism if “racial prejudice or discrimination” was an incorrect definition of the word. However, I can not imagine a person who would claim “I didnt hire you because you are black” as anything other then racism.
On a side note, the word “Ain’t” dates back to 1778, and its predecessor “An’t” was commonly used as early as 1695 by people of all class levels. It was only in the 19th century that people deemed it “vulgarism” and denoted it as a word used merely by the lower classes, thereby giving it a stigma which continues today.
I can also say you almost certainly use the word “Ain’t”, as there is very little chance you have not repeated extremely popular phrases such as “say it ain’t so”, “I ain’t the one”, “you ain’t seen nothing yet” or “ain’t that a…” (among others) at least a couple of times each. And in case you are wondering, my 1953 dictionary also includes this word.
I do use the word “ain’t”, in fact I like to use it often, but not if I’m in a serious discussion or writing a serious paper about a serious subject…unless, of course, I’m making references such as you pointed out. I also use the word theory in it’s common sense, but not when I’m referring to the Theory of Evolution or Theory of Gravity. Pointing out definitions in the dictionary doesn’t mean I can apply any definition in any context. Well.. I guess I can in the literal sense, but it’s going to make for some iffy word choices at best and inaccuracies at worst. I try to use the best word for the situation, context and/or environment, which is why I wouldn’t use racism when predjudice is a much better, more descriptive word choice for the scenario you laid out.
And if somebody doesn’t hire you because you’re black, it’s likely because they feel your are inherently inferior, which is a perfect example of racism in it’s primary definition. It also implies the use of such beliefs as institutional policy. In that scenario, I would definitely use the word racism over predjudice.
Word use is more art than science.
“I do use the word “ain’t”, in fact I like to use it often, but not if I’m in a serious discussion or writing a serious paper about a serious subject…”
the word “Ain’t” is the contraction for both “am not” and “are not” much the same as “Don’t” is “do not” or “Won’t” is “will not.” Without the stigma of the 19th century attached to it, it would probably be used commonly. The stigma of course arose because of its being misused in place of “isn’t that” or “is not” or plently of other contractions and such its lazy use dictated the stigma and the subsequent feeling held towards using it in proper form.
“And if somebody doesn’t hire you because you’re black, it’s likely because they feel your are inherently inferior”
But not necessarily. What it specifically would be is this
“preconceived judgment or opinion” AND
“an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge” AND
“a preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment made without ascertaining the facts of a case”
And all of that is prejudice, not racism. However, when prejudice is based solely on race, you then have racial prejudice, which is racism. Which is why the definition of Racism has commonly been “racial prejudice or discrimination”.
Or put it this way, take these statements
“I cant run, I ain’t black” or “I cant jump, do I look black”
doesnt imply inferiority towards blacks in any way, in fact it is saying they are superior runners and/or jumpers implying superior strength in the legs. However, the statements are about as racist as they come because they show racial prejudice.
You cannot extricate predjudice from racism in your example, as the two go often go hand in hand, though it isn’t necessarily so. One could have predjudices but they aren’t necessarily racist ones. It’s still more accurate and all-encompassing to say that racism is the reason the poor fella wasn’t hired.
As for your last example, it depends on the context and the intention. In most cases, predjudice is still the better word choice– but what if the implication is that superior physical skills are proximal to the attributes of other apes, or monkeys, or other “lower” primates? Then I would call it racist without hesitation because the speaker would be implying the superiority of his race over the other. Context and intentions are the key…which is why I’ve repeatedly been saying that word choice is more art than science..
Anyway, it’s been fun…gonna play some blues guitar out on my porch…
(A reply to your most recent post, moved over for ease)
“You cannot extricate predjudice from racism in your example, as the two go often go hand in hand.”
which is why you would never be able to call it racist. Under the definition you are limiting us to, unless a person feels superior they can not actually express racism. And there being nothing present outlining a feeling of superiority in a statement of “I wont hire you if you are black”, only prejudice can ever be sited.
In fact, if prejudice and discrimination isnt racism, anyone ever calling that a racist statement would be the ones who were actually out of line for passing judgment.
Similarly, it gets to the point where very few people could ever claim to be the victim of racism if prejudice and discrimination do not qualify. And honestly even the overall act of segregation couldnt be considered racism if that was the case as it was specifically instituted with the idea of “separate but equal”. (not saying it ended up equal, but that would be a case by case violation where the overall law couldnt be considered racist since it was based on the idea of equality – your stipulation to denote racism).
But I dont know what to tell you. he original definition of the word was citing prejudice and discrimination. In fact, it looks as if the addition might have take place as late as the 80s. But regardless, it worked as an addition to, not replacement of, the previous definition so I find it illogical to dismiss the prejudice and discrimination half.
You’ve really distorted what I’ve said and I’m just really ready to move on now. You can use the common meaning of racism and use it as it best conveniences you. People do it all the time (like my example with the word theory), but it doesn’t make it the best usage of the word in any given circumstance. To say Hudson is “racist” for his comments is a misuse of the word (and like Hudson himself, trivializes the real problem of racism) and just because you can point to it in a dictionary and one of the definitions say, “predjudice” or whatever best suits you, it doesn’t mean it’s the best or even correct usage of the word in any and every given scenario.
I can probably find someone on the street who will say, “Evolution is just a theory” and similarly trivialize it’s meaning. They can then point to the definition that says: “idea formed by speculation.” It doesn’t make them right. It still makes them utterly 100% wrong — even though it’s in the dictionary and even if it’s been in there for years and years.
I could try to say to them, “but theory in this case means, ‘ a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.’
But if they are bent on saying it’s just speculation, I’d just be wasting my time. They can just whip out their dictionary and say “but, hey look at this other definition, it’s just as good”. I’d probably laugh or just walk away if they told me that definition is as appropriate as the intended one. It simply wouldn’t be worth my time to try and convince them.
Similarly, there are more appropriate uses for the word racism than the Hudson example or other examples you have used, but I can’t stop you from using one that best suits your agenda, whatever that may be. What I can, and will do, is simply dismiss it, knowing that it isn’t the best use of the word for the example you originally set out to prove — that Hudson is “racist” based on his comments about MLB and Jermaine Dye. It just doesn’t fit the situation no matter how hard you try to force it.
First, it isn’t “one of the definitions” in “a dictionary”, its every dictionary since they recognized the word in the 30s, and it seems to have been the only definition up until the 80s. Earlier you somehow claimed it is some modern corruption of the word that crept in or whatever, but it ironically seems as though the definition you are insisting on might better fall under that. This is especially true since not all modern dictionaries even insist on this “feeling of superiority” aspect you claim must exist, and instead some site it solely as
“a belief that human races have distinctive characteristics that determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one’s race is superior and has the right to control others”
Which I didn’t know “usually” was a definite; apparently that is another definition that the modern words has corrupted or whatever…
But forget it – youre right. A person cant be racist without a feeling of superiority. And really feel free to tell people like Orlando Hudson, Jermaine Dye and Gary Sheffield that they have most likely never even faced racism in their lives, let alone in this situation.
And really, this is a very good thing to hear, and its fantastic to know that I can do or say absolutely anything without ever fearing being labeled a racist since I hold no feelings of superiority whatsoever within me.
First thing I plan on doing now that I absolutely cant be considered racist? Tell Milton Bradley that he is a stupid negro who should learn to shut his fried chicken eating mouth. I imagine it will go well…
however, you missed some of the definition of Racism (per Websters)
“2 : racial prejudice or discrimination”
He is prejudice on the grounds of race and showing reverse discrimination on the grounds of race – both of which fall under the definition of racism.
What you describe is almost a perfect definition of the word prejudice and, in fact, you could (and did) make a reasonable argument that Hudson is prejudiced toward MLB owners. It doesn’t mean the same thing as racism though. When we talk about racism…
1. A person has to believe there are inherently different traits between races and to believe that his/her race is superior based on these traits.
2. Racism involves systems and policies that foster such beliefs such as government, industry, and other institutions.
Racism is a word that’s been used by the public to mean all sorts of things, unfortunately the word is often misused and used in lieu of similar, but different words. I’m not here to defend Hudson’s comments, per say, I’m just saying there isn’t anything racist about them.
I dont agree.
Hudson mentions two players he is shocked are without jobs – Dye and Sheffield. And Hudson implies these players dont have jobs because they are black. What Hudson is doing is ignoring all other aspects to form the conclusion he wants to portray, he wants the issue to be racism.
But we know for a fact Dye could have a job if he wanted it. And we know for a fact Sheffield has set extremely unrealistic and specific situations in which he will play multiple times (I mean, is he still insisting Fla is the only team he will play for? He very well could be for all I know, I know he has said that before – and if a player says “I will only play for one team” and that team just doesnt need or want him…). But Hudson ignores these aspects to instead talk about his agenda – racism. He is ignoring everything involved other then race. His entire focus is race. And when someone ignores logic to instead focus on the color of a persons skin, they are being racist.
Moebarguy is correct on this. Racist is put under a terrible light and sounds real bad. So trust me we should proceed with caution before we call someone a racist. But what Orlando did was point out the fact that it has to do with race which in itslef is to make judgement based on race which is where the inherent aspect of it comes from.
Plus this being a race issue is freakin hilarious. I am a White Sox fan and watched this guy seem lethargic at the plate and his defense decline. He has also been offered millions of dollars to play this year. This being an issue of race is a terribly illogical reason especially since the GM of the Sox is a black man. What is my point? The White Sox did not pick up his option and I am sure we could bring him on now for much less. The Sox are not because he can take his declining skills elsewhere.
I agree with you in that I think that Hudson is wrong. I also believe that Dye simply misread the market and his continued unemployment has to do with his declining skills (particularly on defense) and unrealistic money demands and not the color of his skin.
But…nothing you say inicates that Hudson’s comments or “thought process” are racist. I’ve already gone over what the word means 2x so I’m not getting into that part again. But I’ll say this: Just because you believe (even falsely) that an institution is racist, that thought itself is not racist. I think Hudson is wrong, but he isn’t a racist, because racism, even in it’s most basic definition, requires that Hudson believe that his race is superior to others. There is nothing in his comments to indicate he has those beliefs…he just believes that others have those beliefs and are using those beliefs to prevent Dye (and others) from getting a job. And just like you, I think he’s wrong 🙂
Sorry buddy but this here “even in it’s most basic definition, requires that Hudson believe that his race is superior to others.” That is not basic sometimes racism includes the differences between a black person and a white person not necessarily which one is inferior or superior. Where you start to think one is over the other requires some more thinking. I am nit picking this very much but Orlando pointing out the fact that Dye is black in its own right is pointing out race. No?
Pointing out race does not equal racism. It’s obvious you are having some trouble with the meaning of the word. I’ll just move on.
Dude really think that? Oh it has to be negative right. Sure go on believing this. Move on I don’t care if you go through life not understanding things.
Dude really think that? Oh it has to be negative right. Sure go on believing this. Move on I don’t care if you go through life not understanding things.
Pointing out race does not equal racism. It’s obvious you are having some trouble with the meaning of the word. I’ll just move on.
Sorry buddy but this here “even in it’s most basic definition, requires that Hudson believe that his race is superior to others.” That is not basic sometimes racism includes the differences between a black person and a white person not necessarily which one is inferior or superior. Where you start to think one is over the other requires some more thinking. I am nit picking this very much but Orlando pointing out the fact that Dye is black in its own right is pointing out race. No?
I agree with you in that I think that Hudson is wrong. I also believe that Dye simply misread the market and his continued unemployment has to do with his declining skills (particularly on defense) and unrealistic money demands and not the color of his skin.
But…nothing you say inicates that Hudson’s comments or “thought process” are racist. I’ve already gone over what the word means 2x so I’m not getting into that part again. But I’ll say this: Just because you believe (even falsely) that an institution is racist, that thought itself is not racist. I think Hudson is wrong, but he isn’t a racist, because racism, even in it’s most basic definition, requires that Hudson believe that his race is superior to others. There is nothing in his comments to indicate he has those beliefs…he just believes that others have those beliefs and are using those beliefs to prevent Dye (and others) from getting a job. And just like you, I think he’s wrong 🙂
Maybe entitled is a better word. This is ludicrous. Hudson and Passan for that matter should be ashamed. Why is it that when a player refuses to take the money he should be getting on the FA market, the teams are a racist? He’s had offers. If he wanted work, he would take a two million dollar offer, hell, i’d like to work for 2 million. Maybe Passan’s article should be entitled “Why do black players refuse to believe their baseball talents regress as they age?”
“Maybe entitled is a better word.”
That assertion can pretty much be applied to all professional baseball players across the board. Let’s face it, the “greed = entitlement” aspect is hardly unique to any particular background. It’s just one of the sadder aspects of human nature.
Maybe entitled is a better word. This is ludicrous. Hudson and Passan for that matter should be ashamed. Why is it that when a player refuses to take the money he should be getting on the FA market, the teams are a racist? He’s had offers. If he wanted work, he would take a two million dollar offer, hell, i’d like to work for 2 million. Maybe Passan’s article should be entitled “Why do black players refuse to believe their baseball talents regress as they age?”
The implication that Dye deserves to be on a team over guys like Thome, etc. is that Dye is better than them. Since the numbers don’t prove Dye is better than they are, he must be better for some reason. What is that reason?
Also, institution control is not a mandatory component of racism. One can be racist with no real power. Blatant racism and institutional racism are completely different animals.
When you invoke the red herring of race to make a point about something that has nothing to do with you, you’re going to make yourself look foolish.
Yay! Let’s all play the race card and see if we can’t get our name in the media! Come on O-Dog, I think higher of you than this.
See Milton Bradley (2009)
What a great point. We had just been talking about Bradley. So does Bradley make up for Dye?
See Milton Bradley (2009)
I want to vomit.
I seem to recall Dye being offered a $3 million by the Cubs, so it’s not like he didn’t have his chance.
And most recently $4 million by the Nats (assuming the stories are true).
And most recently $4 million by the Nats (assuming the stories are true).
Ignorant comments by Hudson. If GMs were racist, wouldn’t teams be predominantly white? They’re not because teams want the best PLAYERS. If a FA with declining skills is stubbornly asking for an expensive contract, then THAT is the reason they’re unemployed (unemployed millionaires at that). The race card is a cop out, and I’ve lost respect for Hudson.
I completely agree that racism has been a big part of free agent signings this winter. Heck, why do you think that Jarrod Washburn still doesn’t have a job even after that sparkling first half he had last year proving he doesn’t suck as much as his peripherals suggest.
Braden Looper agrees with you 100%.
In 2010, guaranteed $1MM isnt anything to sneeze at. Dye clearly has no idea about the downturn in salaries. His defense is stupendously horrible and there’s only 14 DH jobs out there, is he better than what’s being used now? That’s arguable.
Being picky isnt teams being racist, its all about player ego and its stupid this was even made into a story.
I love(d) Hudson…but what a disappointing comment. Yes, because the Mets, the most ethnic team in baseball – according to stats – are racist…? Come on Orlando, Dye hasn’t been picked up yet because of his age, not his race.
Moebarguy, Jake and Twins, this really comes as a surprise to you?
By that, of course, I mean that Hudson’s on to something. Maybe Dye is or isn’t the best example, I don’t know. But the base-clogging, no-hitting, mid-to-late 30s white guys seem to have no problem finding a new employer year after year, while black players with comparable (or better) skills are forced into retirement. This evidence isn’t quite enough to claim racism, but it’s worth investigating and not simply dismissing it out-of-hand.
In the words of my second-grade math teacher, “PLEASE SHOW YOUR WORK!”
Tim just cited a handful of examples that seem to put Orlando’s theory to rest. Please cite specific “base-clogging, no-hitting, mid-to-late 30s white guys” who have no problem finding a new employer, as well as comparable black players who have problems finding work.
Thome and Dye came from the same team last year, are similar profile players. Thome has a job, Dye doesn’t. Thome took less than $2m. Dye is offended by offers like that.
Please provide specific examples of black players being passed over for lesser or equal white players. Otherwise, you’re just making baseless claims to scapegoat, much like Orlando.
Couldn’t have said it any better myself.
If I had the time, I’d love to gather the data and test this myself. All I’m saying is that the people on this board who want to assail Hudson should at least consider whether there could be any truth to the idea. Doesn’t mean you have to agree, but the discussion here so far is so one-sided against the notion that racism could possibly exist in sports.
Words like “racist” should not be thrown around until AFTER data has been gathered and tests conducted.
Accusing someone, or some institution, or racism without having the facts to back it up is completely irresponsible.
The burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused.
Child pornographers could also exist in sports, but you simply don’t give the notion any credibility until someone provides ACTUAL EVIDENCE. Hudson has failed to do that. You have failed to do that. Passan has failed to do that.
So forgive me while I puke.
I agree with you that words like “racist” should be used with caution. And sure, the burden of proof lies with the accuser.
All I have been saying is that, rather than acting as if Hudson is a crazy person, we assume he isn’t delusion or deranged and simply consider whether there is any truth to what he says.
And, Hudson didn’t explicitly say that baseball was racist – he said that race was a factor in Dye’s employment status. He might be right about that, or it might be completely out of line – how could we know? – but we *can* look to see whether there is any difference in contract/employment status between black/white/Latino players. But Hudson didn’t make that latter claim, nor did Passan, nor did I.
I’m only saying the opposite of these posts that say Hudson is merely craving media attention, or “inherently racist” himself, or “ignorant”.
I’m not calling hudson any of those things. I’m calling him irresponsible. And its equally irresponsible to give merit to claims which lack any evidence.
It only damages the credibility of such claims when they do have merit.
Saying a claim merits consideration is not the same as saying it is correct. I’ve done the former, not the latter.
There’s nothing inherently irresponsible about sounding the alarm, should it be done in good faith. There’s also nothing irresponsible about saying that we should consider an idea before it has fully been investigated.
The problem is that most of the posts on this board completely deny that there is a problem, hence we won’t know the answer to this question since there appears to be insufficient interest in even taking the idea seriously.
Hudson was hardly asking the question. He was making the conclusion.
Seems like with all your posting you would have time for at least one example. MLB owners racist? Man! how many millionaires does one business entity need to create before you can put this to rest?
Well since he specifically mentions Dye, let’s consider his situation. He’s received contract offers from at least two teams, one of which was in the same city he’s played in for years. The Cubs offer was reportedly $3MM. Teams are discriminating against Dye because he’s being stupid, not because he’s black.
I think Tim tried to do just that: give Hudson’s statement some consideration. It just doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Dye had an offer that would have paid him fairly for being what he is: an aging, average hitter who contributes next to nothing defensively. He turned it down.
Players of all races are frequently getting much less than they wanted these days. It happened to Bobby Abreu in 2009, it happened to Johnny Damon this year, and it will probably happen to Jarrod Washburn. If there is racism against African-Americans in MLB FOs, we should be able to think of at least a couple of African-American players who are inexplicably jobless or underpaid. But I can’t, and it doesn’t seem like anyone else here can either.
Tim and others have provided plenty of legitimate reasons why teams don’t want to give much money to Dye or Sheffield. Meanwhile, African-American players who can actually play well – Torii Hunter, Curtis Granderson, and Mike Cameron come to mind – have had no problem getting contracts. Some African-American players are probably underpaid, but then again so is Evan Longoria. It’s just part of the unpredictable nature of baseball careers.
Point taken, but in fairness, we can’t really conclude here that baseball is/isn’t racist, can we? And sure, baseball careers are complicated and unpredictable, but unless we think that levels of complication and unpredictably also vary with race/ethnicity, then a good analysis (far beyond what we’re capable of doing here) can see whether *on average* black players are paid less/released more often/forced into retirement more often than white players, all else equal.
I understand there’s lots of anecdotal evidence and counterexamples to go around. But that’s really not sufficient for testing whether players are treated differently on the basis of race.
First off, you’re giving Hudson more credit than he deserves by adding more nuance to his argument. Hudson’s saying that Dye and Sheffield can’t get jobs because (if we understand his intimation correctly) they are African-Americans. The logical question to ask in response is: are there legitimate (i.e., non-racist) reasons that Dye and Sheffield don’t have contracts? There clearly are such reasons, as discussed throughout these comments (including Dye’s refusal of a contract). So Hudson’s argument is not compelling.
The possibility you raise – that African-American players could make less or have more difficulty getting MLB contracts when compared to white or Latino players – is indeed much more difficult to substantiate or disprove than Hudson’s narrow point. In fact, it could be impossible to accurately determine whether African-Americans are treated less favorably than others while accounting for all the other variables that affect contracts, such as players’ ages, injury histories, and skill sets, economic conditions, and the needs and budget of each team.
While admittedly lacking a detailed analysis, I simply do not think there is cause for concern. Discriminating against any race in professional sports does not make economic sense. If a FO turned away a talented player because of his race, two things would happen: sites like this would notice and question the decision, and members of the FO would be fired.
The bottom line is that a superficial look at contracts shows that some African-Americans are overpaid (Gary Matthews Jr., Vernon Wells, Dontrelle Willis, Bill Hall, Milton Bradley, arguably Torii Hunter and even Derek Jeter), some are underpaid, and some are fairly paid, just like players of other races. Sure we can dig deeper, but d we really expect to find something radically different?
No, Jon (sigh) I guess we can’t conclude this unless we are the divine one himself we will actually never know. Actions are louder than words and you have shown up here with ridiculous statements and 0 evidence it is actually people like you who keep racism and the thought of playing the race card here in America alive and well. I believe this because even though MLB is a place where Black men can achieve so much and do so much for themselves and become World Series MVP’s (Like Jermaine has I thought Crede was) or become MVP’s (Like Ryan Howard, Pujols comes to mind) and become legends. There will always be people like yourself who will look into a matter they believe is unfair and will manipulate the logic enough to where you will keep the aspect of racism which will in return keep it alive and well even in baseball.
Lug, point me to just one ridiculous statement that I’ve made.
Yes, black men should keep their heads down and mouths shut because baseball has given them so much. If not for baseball, who knows where they’d be? Give me a break.
If we just ignore possible sources of difference, then they don’t exist. Right?
Well how about this being ridiculous “If not for baseball, who knows where they’d be?” for starters cause who the heck said that? Without baseball I could care less if they are a Dr. or a garbageman that is not what we are discussing here. You see where your mind is? Step back and look no one said keep your head down. Show us an example, have you given an example yet? We have asked and you have not delivered. No one said keep your mouth shut. Hey if it is actually happening scream it from the mountain tops people will respond, I will respond with not going to a game or watching on TV I don’t have time for racisr BS. It is not happening here show me where it is, show me I am wrong. You cannot and have not.
Well how about this being ridiculous “If not for baseball, who knows where they’d be?” for starters cause who the heck said that? Without baseball I could care less if they are a Dr. or a garbageman that is not what we are discussing here. You see where your mind is? Step back and look no one said keep your head down. Show us an example, have you given an example yet? We have asked and you have not delivered. No one said keep your mouth shut. Hey if it is actually happening scream it from the mountain tops people will respond, I will respond with not going to a game or watching on TV I don’t have time for racisr BS. It is not happening here show me where it is, show me I am wrong. You cannot and have not.
I was with you till the “black men” and “head down, mouth shut” idiocy.
Why is it that the people who are always first to cry out charges of racism tend to be the most racist?
Really now?
Really.
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are two of the biggest racists I know of. Things they have said and actions they have taken rival anything I’ve heard from a prominent white person in the last 50 years.
Really.
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are two of the biggest racists I know of. Things they have said and actions they have taken rival anything I’ve heard from a prominent white person in the last 50 years.
My apologies for failing to consider something could be true, if there’s
zero evidence of it.
I should probably give more consideration to an invisible blue bunny
following me everywhere I go as well..
My apologies for failing to consider something could be true, if there’s
zero evidence of it.
I should probably give more consideration to an invisible blue bunny
following me everywhere I go as well..
“If I had the time, I’d love to gather the data and test this myself.”
You might want to do that before you make a stupid point.
“If I had the time, I’d love to gather the data and test this myself.”
You might want to do that before you make a stupid point.
Exactly, plus Dye was reluctant to be a DH or not play OF.
The guy thinks too highly of himself at this point in his career.
Hudson’s incredibly stupid for saying that Dye deserves a job after his horrendous second half last season and that Sheffield also deserves a job for being a future HOFer, he’s not Ken Griffey Jr., in fact, I don’t think anybody even likes Sheffield.
I agree completely that racism in MLB should be investigated, if there is any reason to believe it exists to the point that it is depressing minority players’ salaries. I just don’t think there is any reason to believe that is actually happening.
It’s easy to WRITE that white players are getting contracts and comparable black players aren’t, but it’s much tougher to provide concrete examples. Teams that give out stupidly large contracts to overrated white players tend to give out stupidly large contracts to overrated players in general, regardless of their race or ethnicity. There are just happen to be more white and Latino players in baseball than African-American players.
So while racism should be taken very seriously, it’s also a serious accusation to make and it needs support. I don’t think Hudson has it.
On a much less serious note, if there really is racism against African-American players in baseball today, then the signings of Gary Matthews Jr. and Milton Bradley are even more inexplicable.
When players like Jose Canseco, Milton Bradley, and Orlando Hudson are the players screaming racism, you have to then question the credibility of the argument.
When players like Jose Canseco, Milton Bradley, and Orlando Hudson are the players screaming racism, you have to then question the credibility of the argument.
Conspiracy is the last refuge of the damned, Orlando.
Jarrod Washburn is black?
Coco Crisp isn’t black?
This kind of stuff trivializes racism. We’re talking about Jermaine Dye, a guy who turned down an above market value deal from the Cubs only to see a similar player take the same deal. Dye and his agent misread the market, plain and simple. There are still real victims of racism in the world, but Jermaine Dye isn’t one of them.
agreed. I actually read the yahoo column first and came over here to see if this story had been posted to make this very point.
Odog is way off base here. last time i checked unless you were an elite free agent you had to take a pay cut the past couple years. this country is goin thru an economic decline and teams are looking to get younger not older.
You know, the players love it when the system works for them and they absolutely refuse a salary cap, but this is the flip side. There are only so many large market teams, and a lot more small market than large. If the large market rosters are full, you can’t force a small market team to make a bad decision and sign an over-the-hill player for millions. Sorry guys, but this is partly your (MLBPA) doing. Small market teams have wisened up and are going the youth (cheaper) movement.
Gary Sheffield is a bad reference as well on O-Dog’s part. His hitting has tailed off, and he’s a longtime clubhouse cancer.
Orlando Hudson is a joke stick to playing baseball and just keep your mouth shut…he’s not getting paid to discuss whether the league is “racist” or not if he wants to do that let him go to espn and be a baseball analyst. As far as racism the guy makes it clear thats what he is. Why else would he only talk about black players who aren’t signed and deserve to be? Maybe its because GM’s and front office people get paid to determine whether Jermaine Dye and Gary Sheffield can still play at the major league level. While I do agree that Dye can still be good as a starter and still has another 30 homerun season left in him, I can’t say that I disagree with teams not signing him. He’s a big risk considering the injuries he’s had over the years and he’s not getting any younger so they can happen more. As for Sheff, well that’s easy…he’s no more than a bench player anymore, good right handed power bat off the bench, possibly a DH for an American League team. Someone on some team we’ll go on the DL and these guys we’ll eventually find jobs, but how much you want to bet Hudson isn’t done with the subject of “racism” in baseball?
What is O-Dog implying here? Is Kenny Williams a racist?
Aging and lead footed in the field is a race? I guess I’m being discriminated against as well.
This is a preposterous statement. The Reds constantly hire useless players of all races to waste a roster spot.
Just so happens our owner is cheap and aint gonna break the bank for them.
Well to be fair, the Reds mainly went with useless white players until Marge Schott was forced out…
Barry Larkin and Eric Davis say hi !
It’s true, the Reds don’t care what race the player is. As long as they play at replacement level, they’re all welcome in Cincy!
It’s true, the Reds don’t care what race the player is. As long as they play at replacement level, they’re all welcome in Cincy!
I’m reminded of Torii Hunter’s comments a few years back about only 10% of the league being black should be a cause for alarm, and his thinly-veiled references to racism.
And I’m reminded of how I looked at the 2000 Census, and realized only 10% of Americans are black…
Or Torii Hunter’s comments a month or so ago about how Vlad Guerrero isn’t black and that Latino players were taking over baseball because they were singing for pennies on the dollar as amateur free agents.
….to be honest…this issue in baseball has become a microcosm of middle america. there is a global competition for jobs now. and since the standard of living is different in South America…well its hard to compete against that.
there will have to be an international draft to help regulate this or it WILL get out of control
The only issue I have with this report is that Jim Edmonds DID find a job this year with the Brewers. I assume Hudson is referring to Edmonds when he makes mention of a player who sits out a year being able to find a job.
Edmonds also took a minor league job at age 40, and earned a job the old fashioned way.
Maybe Jim Edmonds is racist! He should be giving his job and contract to Dye!
What’s that? Oh, Dye won’t take as little as Edmonds is making. Oh well. 😛
You’re right j6takish, if Dye really wanted to play he would have taken one of the 2 or 3 offers he’s gotten and worked for it. Instead he’s sat around and done nothing.
@j6takish,
are you sure about that. Every time I hear talk about him, it is that he took the entire 09 season off and was came to Cardinals spring training camp looking for a spot. when that didn’t open up he went to the Brewers and asked for a spot. They gave him a chance. But at no time this season was he in the minors.
@j6takish,
are you sure about that. Every time I hear talk about him, it is that he took the entire 09 season off and was came to Cardinals spring training camp looking for a spot. when that didn’t open up he went to the Brewers and asked for a spot. They gave him a chance. But at no time this season was he in the minors.
On top of all the excellent comments criticizing Hudson’s statement, I’d like to add that we’re mainly talking about Jermaine Dye here. Dye is not a victim of anything. In 14 MLB seasons he has made nearly $75M. He has a career 111 OPS+ (including a .338 OBP) and spent much of his career playing a below-average RF. I’d say he has been compensated fairly for his services, and I find it very hard to believe that MLB has suddenly become so racist that it has decided to freeze him out for no good reason.
The point lost in Hudson’s foolish allegation is there could be a problem at times in how free agents acquire new employment. I think he is pointing his blame finger in the wrong direction but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an inefficiency in the market. No market is totally efficient. There are a limited number of major league teams. Those teams have differing openings to fill each off season. Every team has a minor league system designed to produce players to fill openings at a cheaper cost than a mid-late career free agent. Just as teams need to assess their team and the free agent market, players and their agents need to evaluate the market. Bottom line is an unemployed player should be pointing the finger at himself and his agent. It was obvious this off season that opportunities (particularly full time jobs and even more so for DH’s) were at a premium. The only potential racial component of this situation could be the choice of adviser (agent) and whether minorities are any more or less likely to accept and follow the advise of their agent. That last sentence was purely conjecture and not based on any study.
Race has nothing to do with why these players have not been signed. Its Dyes fault he hasnt been signed. Gary Sheffield is 41 years old and is none to stir trouble. Hmm I wonder why he isnt signed. I guess cause hes black.
I’m open to the idea that race serves as an unfortunate tiebreaker with all other things being equal, but there are three things he’s leaving out here:
1) Gary Sheffield has played for so many teams, and had ugly breakups with so many of them, that there’s sort of nowhere for him to go.
2) In this market, DH’s need to sign early. Dye should have treated this free agent market like a game of musical chairs, and if you won’t uproot your family for what you’re getting offered, that’s on you.
3) Second basemen are just out of luck right now. There are too many teams with good options or obligations to drum up a market.
Mm no Orlando, I think its the fact Dye OPS’ed .590 in the 2nd half last year and his defense is flat out awful by UZR standards.
I guess a team that is using a platoon at DH could take a chance on his bat against lefties.
Your an idiot Hudson ! Dye has received offers from teams, its just that ego doesn’t match is defense. He is basically a DH type guy now. People use the racism card when they don’t get there way.
Hudson….you are an idiot!!!! Leave the race cards for Jesse Jackson and do your job you tool!
I have a feeling this is more about himself (Hudson) not getting the contract that he wants the last couple years Dye. I think he is completely off base here though.
Wow, O-Dog just lost some respect points for playing the race card. Absolutely ridiculous. Dye’s gotten several offers, reportedly as high as $4 million. It just shows that Hudson is a person who cries racist whenever there’s a black person involved, oblivious to what’s really going on. Is that kind of attitude supposed to help FIGHT racism?
I’ll bet a couple of bucks that if Dye cut his demands in half or so, he’d get a deal somewhere. I could sit here and list all the past-prime black players playing right now because they aren’t asking for obscene amounts of money.
Yay! This should mean the Yanks will be able sign Carl Crawford for about $3M per next year.
I know it’s been said here already but Hudson needs to explain the contracts of Milton Bradley and Vernon Wells before he concludes that racism is the reason guys like Dye and Sheffield don’t have jobs. Unfortunately what Hudson has done is cherry-picked a few horrible examples out of a large number of possibilities and then assigned racism as the fault. In some cases listed (Dye, Lofton) the players DID get contract offers but turned them down while white players got similar contract offers and accepted them. White players aren’t immune to this either (Washburn). It does not appear to be a matter of race, it’s a matter of the players preference to accept or decline an offer. I don’t know if anyone has ever said a bad word about Dye as a person, teammate, clubhouse guy etc… Why would any team turn him away if they could agree on a price? Because of his race? I don’t believe it. Hudson needs to give the rest of baseball more credit and stop taking the easy way out.
Or maybe Hudson is just an idiot.
LUAU
Gotta believe that some of Hudson’s animosity is due to his own struggles to get contract offers he feels are appropriate to him. Last year he had trouble and this year he didn’t get the money he expected. At his age now he’s not likely to ever get that long contract offer he wanted. I believe he expected to be paid around $8-10 million annually for multiple years when he hit the market last year but he never came close. If he feels that it’s because of racism, maybe he knows more about the situation than we do, but I believe his situation is due to the fact that there wasn’t a big need for his services by teams that could have afforded to pay him what he wanted. Given that and the market correction (which applies to all players, not just black) he didn’t get what he wanted. That’s not racism, that’s business.
Interesting point. Hudson may just be projecting his own frustrations on to Dye. I’d like to know what Dye himself actually thinks about all this.
Interesting point. Hudson may just be projecting his own frustrations on to Dye. I’d like to know what Dye himself actually thinks about all this.
To expand on one of your points.
“Gotta believe that some of Hudson’s animosity is due to his own struggles to get contract offers he feels are appropriate to him”
Of course, Hudson may have struggled to get contract offers BECAUSE of said animosity just the same.
I mean, look at Bradley. He has cried racism at every turn his entire career (and probably life), eventually getting it to the point where people give him very little respect. Well does the eventual lack of respect today then support his constant victim of racism theory? Hardly…
Self fulfilling prophesies are abundant, and near impossible for an outsider to stop. We know for sure Dye is the one making it hard for Dye to get a job, but Hudson very well could have been doing the same thing the last two seasons. He clearly feels Dye not receiving offers matching what Dye was insisting he received equates to racism, so it wouldnt be a stretch to think Hudson was insisting contracts that teams were unwilling to give leaving Hudson free to express a “I’m a victim of racism” attitude when he would have only been a victim of himself.
And we really dont know what goes on in clubhouses, Hudson may have a history of internal issues we are unaware of.
To expand on one of your points.
“Gotta believe that some of Hudson’s animosity is due to his own struggles to get contract offers he feels are appropriate to him”
Of course, Hudson may have struggled to get contract offers BECAUSE of said animosity just the same.
I mean, look at Bradley. He has cried racism at every turn his entire career (and probably life), eventually getting it to the point where people give him very little respect. Well does the eventual lack of respect today then support his constant victim of racism theory? Hardly…
Self fulfilling prophesies are abundant, and near impossible for an outsider to stop. We know for sure Dye is the one making it hard for Dye to get a job, but Hudson very well could have been doing the same thing the last two seasons. He clearly feels Dye not receiving offers matching what Dye was insisting he received equates to racism, so it wouldnt be a stretch to think Hudson was insisting contracts that teams were unwilling to give leaving Hudson free to express a “I’m a victim of racism” attitude when he would have only been a victim of himself.
And we really dont know what goes on in clubhouses, Hudson may have a history of internal issues we are unaware of.
I would have thought better of O-Dog but this is just uncalled for.The Braves sent Jason Heyward back down to the Minors just because he was black ,oh wait he’s the Braves every day RF .Racist!
orlando hudson should be ashamed of himself. i liked him until now. those players he mentioned can’t find jobs for legitimate reasons. the only reason xavier nady signed with the cubs is because dye turned down a $3 million dollar offer from them. dye isn’t on a team right now because he’s ignorant, not because of racism
Orlando Hudson is looking at a situation through the eyes of a young black man and to him, it looks like several black, one-time stars are not getting jobs. He is also aware as a black man that racisim remains a compelling feature of the American landscape and that while the situation for black Americans has vastly improved over the last 50 years, racism still hovers all around us. It is easy for white guys like most us on MLBTR to deny racism because we have not experienced it. Hudson is merely commenting on a situation from a point of view that we white guys cannot perceive and will never be able to identify with.
I disagree with Orlando Hudson. I don’t believe that race is a consideration for the situations of Dye and Sheffield; at the end of their careers they are simply not going to command anywhere near what they made previously. And that is true of white players as well. However, I think we need to understand that this explanation may not be quite as compelling to a black man who lives in a world where he is always sensitized to being a black man in country where white people maintain advantages and black folks generally don’t.
I understand what you’re saying and you make some good points but I don’t believe Hudson should be defended for what he said. Really, racism in this country doesn’t exist anymore in the form that Hudson seems to believe. White people everywhere fall all over themselves to associate with black people and the pc crowd bends over backwards for every minority. The pendulum has swung the other way, where race is involved in black/white relations it’s not white people discriminating against blacks, it’s white people constantly pointing out that we’re different by not letting it go in order to show that they aren’t racist. You can darn well bet that if there were racism in MLB right now Bud would have heard about it from a lot more people than Hudson and he’d absolutely put his foot down. If there’s one thing he’s good at it’s making sure that baseball pays attention to minorities. Hudson, I believe, is mistaken though like you said he probably truthfully feels that he knows what’s going on. He’s just wrong though, and it’s sad that he’s made this accusation.
Orlando Hudson is looking at a situation through the eyes of a young black man and to him, it looks like several black, one-time stars are not getting jobs. He is also aware as a black man that racisim remains a compelling feature of the American landscape and that while the situation for black Americans has vastly improved over the last 50 years, racism still hovers all around us. It is easy for white guys like most us on MLBTR to deny racism because we have not experienced it. Hudson is merely commenting on a situation from a point of view that we white guys cannot perceive and will never be able to identify with.
I disagree with Orlando Hudson. I don’t believe that race is a consideration for the situations of Dye and Sheffield; at the end of their careers they are simply not going to command anywhere near what they made previously. And that is true of white players as well. However, I think we need to understand that this explanation may not be quite as compelling to a black man who lives in a world where he is always sensitized to being a black man in country where white people maintain advantages and black folks generally don’t.
I am so sick of hearing black people still holding on to this crap about people being racist,when a black person don t get there way are dosn t get picked up,its a bunch of bull crap its 2010 people get over the color crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am so sick of hearing black people still holding on to this crap about people being racist,when a black person don t get there way are dosn t get picked up,its a bunch of bull crap its 2010 people get over the color crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
With regards to Gary Sheffield, absolutely yes. Racism is a big factor for not signing him…………………That is he is not playing baseball because in this case Sheffield is the racist as he has stated many times over his career his dislike of white people.
With regards to Gary Sheffield, absolutely yes. Racism is a big factor for not signing him…………………That is he is not playing baseball because in this case Sheffield is the racist as he has stated many times over his career his dislike of white people.
Hank Blalock hasn t been picked up,,,,,,oh my call the press we have a case of RACISM on a white guy,oh no I forgot theres no such thang,,lol,,,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Hudson’s point deserves consideration,”
…and then deserves to be quickly dismissed. hudson is full of crap on this one. youve got a poor defensive player who took a nose dive in the second half last year, with no obvious injury. had dye been willing to DH or even just be a pinch hitter, like thome or giambi, he might have a low-paying job right now. besides, demand for free agents not in the top tier has been plummeting for several seasons in a row.
i get irritated when people try to hide behind race. be a man.
“Hudson’s point deserves consideration,”
…and then deserves to be quickly dismissed. hudson is full of crap on this one. youve got a poor defensive player who took a nose dive in the second half last year, with no obvious injury. had dye been willing to DH or even just be a pinch hitter, like thome or giambi, he might have a low-paying job right now. besides, demand for free agents not in the top tier has been plummeting for several seasons in a row.
i get irritated when people try to hide behind race. be a man.
Hudson is neither racist nor ignorant. He is entitled to his opinion which I completely disagree with for many of the reasons other posters have already outlined. There is nothing wrong with his raising this issue and I don’t think he should be criticized or called names for doing so. The ongoing discussion has been thoughtful and for the most part well reasoned and I think its great that a thoughtful discussion like this can take place without posters resorting to name callling, sterotyping, etc. This is not about politics, there is a history of racisim in this country and everybody knows it. Those affected directly or indirectly should be comfortable exchanging ideas on the issue without fear and we are all better for it.
Hudson is neither racist nor ignorant. He is entitled to his opinion which I completely disagree with for many of the reasons other posters have already outlined. There is nothing wrong with his raising this issue and I don’t think he should be criticized or called names for doing so. The ongoing discussion has been thoughtful and for the most part well reasoned and I think its great that a thoughtful discussion like this can take place without posters resorting to name callling, sterotyping, etc. This is not about politics, there is a history of racisim in this country and everybody knows it. Those affected directly or indirectly should be comfortable exchanging ideas on the issue without fear and we are all better for it.
Come on dont give me this please. Baseball is not like it was when Josh Gibson and Satchel Paige were around. I am a big fan and love studying the negro leagues. Sure there may be some discrimination when it comes to the minor leagues and the question whether to sign black players or those from foreign countries. Sheffield has always been a disgruntled player in every organization he joined and he is 41 and cannot play defense. Dye has been offered but what can you do when he keeps turning offers down. Were the Dodgers racist when they offered Anderson a minor league contract? What the nationals are racist now because they let go of Dukes who just couldnt cut it and brought extra baggage? As I remember not only did the Twins lock up Mauer but they did sign Span. Look this isnt racism this is just a simple fact of the game evolving. Now if you had guys McCutchen, Phillips, Howard, Crawford, Sabbathia, and Kemp being cut then I would lend credence to his claim. But come on if you cant play defense now and are only good at hitting there are now only a few spots open for you as a DH or PH. Prime example Mike Cameron was signed because the guy can flat out field.
Come on dont give me this please. Baseball is not like it was when Josh Gibson and Satchel Paige were around. I am a big fan and love studying the negro leagues. Sure there may be some discrimination when it comes to the minor leagues and the question whether to sign black players or those from foreign countries. Sheffield has always been a disgruntled player in every organization he joined and he is 41 and cannot play defense. Dye has been offered but what can you do when he keeps turning offers down. Were the Dodgers racist when they offered Anderson a minor league contract? What the nationals are racist now because they let go of Dukes who just couldnt cut it and brought extra baggage? As I remember not only did the Twins lock up Mauer but they did sign Span. Look this isnt racism this is just a simple fact of the game evolving. Now if you had guys McCutchen, Phillips, Howard, Crawford, Sabbathia, and Kemp being cut then I would lend credence to his claim. But come on if you cant play defense now and are only good at hitting there are now only a few spots open for you as a DH or PH. Prime example Mike Cameron was signed because the guy can flat out field.
How can Hudson say these things about racism, especially when he is getting 5M this year as an aging second baseman?
How can Hudson say these things about racism, especially when he is getting 5M this year as an aging second baseman?
So, Doug Mientkcewciewvzieczevich(etc.) should file a grievance now that Garrett Anderson has won his job, eh?
So, Doug Mientkcewciewvzieczevich(etc.) should file a grievance now that Garrett Anderson has won his job, eh?
There is another, just as valid side to this argument. Also past his prime but getting a contract was Ken Griffey Jr. As far as the term, there have been very few long term contracts given out over the years. Among them is CC Sabathia, the largest contract ever given to a pitcher. Also, there is Prince Fielder who got 18MM for his first two years of arb (and allegedly wants 200MM in FA), and Ryan Howard who set the record for arb at $10MM in his first season before signing for 3 yrs/$54MM. Over the last two offseasons, teams have smartened up and cut back on long term spending as well as shifting towards youth and defense as Tim shared. I am not making an assumption one way or the other, just laying out some facts that have been pushed aside.
There is another, just as valid side to this argument. Also past his prime but getting a contract was Ken Griffey Jr. As far as the term, there have been very few long term contracts given out over the years. Among them is CC Sabathia, the largest contract ever given to a pitcher. Also, there is Prince Fielder who got 18MM for his first two years of arb (and allegedly wants 200MM in FA), and Ryan Howard who set the record for arb at $10MM in his first season before signing for 3 yrs/$54MM. Over the last two offseasons, teams have smartened up and cut back on long term spending as well as shifting towards youth and defense as Tim shared. I am not making an assumption one way or the other, just laying out some facts that have been pushed aside.
That is a ridiculous statement. May be those players are out of work because they are loud mouths ( Sheffield) and Dye because he cant play the field or may be his asking price is too high, but it is strange he is out of a job, but i doubt race has anything to do with it.Especially with the leagues best players being Latin and most Gms white.
That is a ridiculous statement. May be those players are out of work because they are loud mouths ( Sheffield) and Dye because he cant play the field or may be his asking price is too high, but it is strange he is out of a job, but i doubt race has anything to do with it.Especially with the leagues best players being Latin and most Gms white.
The biggest problem here is the definition of ‘a job’. In Hudson’s eyes, ‘a job’ means as an everyday player at an important position on both sides of the ball. The reason why players like Thome were able to secure contracts was because they have accepted reduced roles in a part-time capacity. I don’t think that Dye is quite at this stage yet, however, he’s either priced or positioned himself out of the market as it stands. After all, as many others have pointed out, how many jobs has Dye turned down since last season ended?
The biggest problem here is the definition of ‘a job’. In Hudson’s eyes, ‘a job’ means as an everyday player at an important position on both sides of the ball. The reason why players like Thome were able to secure contracts was because they have accepted reduced roles in a part-time capacity. I don’t think that Dye is quite at this stage yet, however, he’s either priced or positioned himself out of the market as it stands. After all, as many others have pointed out, how many jobs has Dye turned down since last season ended?
Get a life Hudson. If there’s one industry where you can’t play the race card, it’s pro sports. Dye is old and his defense sucks. Dye’s a big boy and can worry about himself. Maybe if he wasn’t so greedy he would have a job by now.
Get a life Hudson. If there’s one industry where you can’t play the race card, it’s pro sports. Dye is old and his defense sucks. Dye’s a big boy and can worry about himself. Maybe if he wasn’t so greedy he would have a job by now.
Race card is rendered unplayable for the simple fact Milton Bradley has exceeded his 9th life and still manages to land a job.
Race card is rendered unplayable for the simple fact Milton Bradley has exceeded his 9th life and still manages to land a job.
Damn it Tim, you’ve just turned MLBtraderumors into a war zone.
Damn it Tim, you’ve just turned MLBtraderumors into a war zone.
Keep up that .229/.250/.286/.536 line O-Dawg and you can join your pals. Twins fans all know how much Gardy and the Twins F.O. love a guy who draws attention to himself through the media.
Dye got a bunch of small, insulting offers not worthy of a caliber of player that he is. The youth movement and spin doctors from the general managers are devising a scheme in free agency to push down the salary of a player like Dye. The dude hit 280 with 27 bombs and 80+ RBI’s.
Basically a GM says, lets give a young guy a chance. He is cheap and hungry to prove himself. Its like this in all businesses. Older players who are better than young guys get kicked out the door cuz of $$. Mauer got the money he got cuz he was young and a white guy in Minnesota. Its a feel good story to pay him 22 million a year. A guy like Dye is worth at least 10 million under this economic theory but he is old and black.
Heh, no. Jermaine Dye is terrible. Mauer didn’t get extended because “it’s a good story”, it’s because he was the AL MVP. Dye hurt his team last year and got paid to do so.
Ridiculous. Dye had a .793 OPS (103 OPS+) last season and he hit .250, not .280. He is slow and adds nothing on defense. So he’s at best a DH with a slightly better than average bat.
Thome, arguably a better hitter than Dye, took a $1.5M deal. Dye was offered twice as much. How is that insulting?
Hahaha.
Jermaine actually hit .250 last year and he can’t play defense to save his life.
Basically, he was an average offensive player last year and a terrible defender. That equals a player of absolutely zero value.
Didn’t Dye reportedly reject a like 3-4 offers from teams this year? SO he’s out of a job because of himself not because of what Hudson claims. Sheffield is out of a job probably because of his age and durability not because people don’t want him and he can only play DH and alot of teams are filled in that area.
I’m pretty sure the only person who would agree with Hudson on this is Joe Morgan
Hudson has a slight point, but I think it is more on how players are perceived. When was the last time a black player was signed as a mentor/club house presence? When was the last time a black player was described as gritty or playing with heart?
Where would David Eckstein be if he didn’t have that gritty/heart tag? If it was all on ability then he would have been out of the league a long time ago (and should have been).
I doubt owners are purposely not signing players because of their skin, but I think they tend to pay for intangible traits that typically are attributed to white players (when we all know that there are plenty of players from all races who fit these roles). Especially when it comes to filling out benches. There are relatively few black players on benches around the league.
Either way I would be very interested to hear what Hudson has to say without worrying about getting punished. He could have some very valid points or eye-opening stories. It really isn’t fair for everyone to call him ignorant or a loud mouth when he can’t defend himself or his comments.
i tend to give Hudson a little credibility because he does not have a reputation for being loud-mouthed, is a great club house guy, and always has a smile on his face.
I would also on the other hand tend to possibly attribute some sour grapes to his assessment since he’s been extremely unlucky in free agency despite his production.
Outfielders like Dye just aren’t paid like they used to be. But also, most guys aren’t getting paid what a similar guy woulda got paid 5-10 years ago almost regardless of position. Heck, Kevin Brown’s contract with the dodgers is still sitting there for biggest pitching contract for his position.
You’d think Orlando’s defensive “reputation” should get him more money, years or both given the change in the game to defense. He’s average offensively. No speed to add to the offense like an in-prime Rafael Furcal. An elite middle infielder like Jeter is going to get paid (although not quite as much) if he weren’t on the yankees. Incomplete players like Hudson…not so much.
I think there is just a greater divide between the have’s and have nots in baseball. Either you are elite and paid like it or you do kind of have to play your cards right or make sacrifices in either role or the team/part of the country you play for as a trade off. I’m sure management wants everyone to believe it’s the economy. We’d know for sure if the MLB opened it’s books.
Whatever his flaws, it’s worth noting that Dye himself is not claiming to be unemployed because of his race. O-dawg might want to take notice of that and learn from it!