Ozzie has some words for Mariotti

[aboz56]

You're telling me that Major League Baseball doesn't discipline players and/or managers for bad behavior during press conferences when they are acting as representatives of the team they belong to and Major League Baseball as a whole?

He might be fined, he won't be suspended.

 

If he is, complete and utter bulls***.

[Rex Kickass]

Fine, I'll retract Major League Baseball and replace it with The Chicago White Sox organization. For his own good. Because he's putting himself on a track to let his mouth show his manager's ass the door.

[aboz56]

Fine, I'll retract Major League Baseball and replace it with The Chicago White Sox organization. For his own good. Because he's putting himself on a track to let his mouth show his manager's ass the door.

If it was anyone else, maybe.

 

But since Mariotti had it coming, they shouldn't do anything to him.

 

Let it blow over.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Why punish the team for something he said about Mariotti? This has nothing to do with baseball. Teams or leagues don't even suspend players for getting a DUI.

 

So how can you suspend Ozzie for a comment, regardless of how insensitive and ignorant it is?

 

If he is suspended, that will be one of the absolute worst decisions MLB has ever handed down.

 

 

There is no f***ing way that Ozzie gets suspended. They might give him a token fine to appease the homosexual community but there wont be any serious punishment.

[henry wiggins]

Well, I didn't think that Matt Abattacola could get any more stupid, but this incident has proved me wrong. I turned on the radio and WOW, that boy is in a personal fast market!

 

Sanctimonious little wuss.

[Flash Tizzle]

You're telling me that Major League Baseball doesn't discipline players and/or managers for bad behavior during press conferences when they are acting as representatives of the team they belong to and Major League Baseball as a whole?

To my knowledge, no.

 

I agree with Aboz on the topic of MLB avoiding disciplinary action following DUI's. I don't care what Guillen calls someone, endangering the lives of people behind a 2,000 pount automobile warrants action over a derogatory term.

 

If Guillen is suspended, I'd understand -- there's been history, it's not an isolated incident. Just shouldn't be more than one or two games.

Edited June 21, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[Rowand44]

Well, I didn't think that Matt Abattacola could get any more stupid, but this incident has proved me wrong. I turned on the radio and WOW, that boy is in a personal fast market!

 

Sanctimonious little wuss.

We listened to his show for some reason on the way back from Cinci and it was painful to listen to.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

You're telling me that Major League Baseball doesn't discipline players and/or managers for bad behavior during press conferences when they are acting as representatives of the team they belong to and Major League Baseball as a whole?

 

 

You think that's bad behavior? I think not. He has a right to his opinion of people and if some people dont like it then thats just too f***ing bad.

[mr_genius]

he's putting himself on a track to let his mouth show his manager's ass the door.

 

 

why, because he said something that offended you?

 

he already admitted it was a mistake. so what, he said a 'bad' word. he's not an investment banker or public relations manager, he's a baseball manager.

[Flash Tizzle]

Well, I didn't think that Matt Abattacola could get any more stupid, but this incident has proved me wrong. I turned on the radio and WOW, that boy is in a personal fast market!

 

Sanctimonious little wuss.

Abattacola is arguing whether or not Guillen's apology was actually an apology. Guillen regretted his remarks, and is willing to apologize to anyone offended -- yet somehow this isn't an apology?

 

Now I'm getting to the point where I hope he says nothing and further enrages Matt. It reminds me of George Costanza in Seinfield not satisfied because technically what the man apologized for wasn't the correct one. Too bad. Should be satisfied with any sign of remorse.

[Rex Kickass]

why, because he said something that offended you?

 

he already admitted it was a mistake. so what, he said a 'bad' word. he's not an investment banker or public relations manager, he's a baseball manager.

 

The only thing that offends me is the thought of Jay Mariotti batting for my team.

 

What I'm saying is Ozzie Guillen needs to learn to shut his mouth. And something tells me unless he gets a rap to the knuckles with a ruler, it ain't gonna happen.

[southsideirish71]

Abattacola is arguing whether or not Guillen's apology was actually an apology. Guillen regretted his remarks, and is willing to apologize to anyone offended -- yet somehow this isn't an apology?

 

Now I'm getting to the point where I hope he says nothing and further enrages Matt. It reminds me of George Costanza in Seinfield not satisfied because technically what the man apologized for wasn't the correct one. Too bad. Should be satisfied with any sign of remorse.

 

 

Matt Abattacola is a self richeous douche. He is also the guy who stated that he didnt understand the whole old school baseball thing. He also stated that he doesnt understand why AJ doesnt realize why he got punched and he gets pegged, almost like he deserves it.

 

He is a foolish cubs fan and a dolt.

[henry wiggins]

Abattacola is arguing whether or not Guillen's apology was actually an apology. Guillen regretted his remarks, and is willing to apologize to anyone offended -- yet somehow this isn't an apology?

 

Now I'm getting to the point where I hope he says nothing and further enrages Matt. It reminds me of George Costanza in Seinfield not satisfied because technically what the man apologized for wasn't the correct one. Too bad. Should be satisfied with any sign of remorse.

 

It doesn't take much to enrage the little abattacola. As long as the 'off' switch on my radio works, I am able to laugh at him. Last Saturday he was blustering on and on about the "morality" of hitting batters. Mind you, it wasn't Padilla's morality that concerned him -- it was Ozzie's.

 

Is little matt related to little jay?? How funny would that be.

[YASNY]

I've been reading this thread and noticed something that has been mentioned a few times. It's the contention that the current interpretation of the terms *** and gay are not what they once were. In other words, the terms do not necessarily mean homosexual any more. In the past, I thought some of the younger members used that argument just to justify using the words here on the site and to be honest, I didn't buy into it.

 

However, I now have to step back and take another look at that. Sometimes, the meaning of words do evolve over time. The prime example I can think of is "______ sucks!" As I was growing up, that meant only one thing ... that the target of the slur was homosexual. It has since evolved to be the equivilent of saying "______ stinks!"

 

I'd be interested in hearing some reactions to this. Especially, that of the esteemed Mr. Kickass.

[Rowand44]

I've been reading this thread and noticed something that has been mentioned a few times. It's the contention that the current interpretation of the terms *** and gay are not what they once were. In other words, the terms do not necessarily mean homosexual any more. In the past, I thought some of the younger members used that argument just to justify using the words here on the site and to be honest, I didn't buy into it.

 

However, I now have to step back and take another look at that. Sometimes, the meaning of words do evolve over time. The prime example I can think of is "______ sucks!" As I was growing up, that meant only one thing ... that the target of the slur was homosexual. It has since evolved to be the equivilent of saying "______ stinks!"

 

I'd be interested in hearing some reactions to this. Especially, that of the esteemed Mr. Kickass.

YAS, this is right on. Obviously I can't speak to how the word has evolved but I can tell you that when a lot of people use that word that it has absolutely 0 homosexual connotation.

[Rex Kickass]

I think using the word is lame and boring. And yeah, it still has a negative connotation, and yeah the same people that say things are "gay" still refer to gay people as gay - so yeah, I'd say there's still a negative connotation to it.

 

I can't say I care. But people who constantly refer to things that are boring as "gay" I just generally find to be well, boring.

[whitesoxfan101]

YAS, this is right on. Obviously I can't speak to how the word has evolved but I can tell you that when a lot of people use that word that it has absolutely 0 homosexual connotation.

 

Yeah, definitely YAS is right now. *whoever* sucks went from meaning they are gay to meaning they are bad/stink at something. And with ***, to be honest *** doesn't mean gay anymore, it just means your an idiot/moron/stupid. This is the kind of s*** why I say actions speak louder than words, and also is why I think the PC police/people that believe in "word crimes" are just silly. THEY ARE JUST WORDS, and if you will get that worked up over simple words, it's just silly (ESPECIALLY since it's rare that 2 people interpret things people say in the same way anyways, who knows what a person actually means with their words). Now I'm not saying Ozzie was right (because he wasn't) and in fact, Ozzie is pretty ignorant in general....however to say that THIS is a suspendable or even fireable offense for a guy whose job is to manage a baseball team, (a job he does well) is over the top.

Edited June 22, 2006 by whitesoxfan101

[YASNY]

I think using the word is lame and boring. And yeah, it still has a negative connotation, and yeah the same people that say things are "gay" still refer to gay people as gay - so yeah, I'd say there's still a negative connotation to it.

 

I can't say I care. But people who constantly refer to things that are boring as "gay" I just generally find to be well, boring.

 

As expected, I must say. Thanks for your response. Also, for the record, there was nothing 'tongue in cheek' about my use of the word 'esteemed'. You are highly respected by myself and the vast majority of Soxtalkers.

 

To Rowand44: I totally see where you are coming from. But ... How the term is intended by the user is not the problem. It's how the word is interpretted by those that hear or read it. You'll get a wide variety of reactions from use of those words. From a personal standpoint, I won't take such a hardline stance against the terms in the future. From the stanpoint of policing Soxtalk, I'm afraid I have no choice but to continue to enforce current policy, as has been discussed and agreed upon by the powers that be.

[Rex Kickass]

I'd love to see the reaction on this board if someone called Ozzie a "wetback."

[whitesoxfan101]

I'd love to see the reaction on this board if someone called Ozzie a "wetback."

 

I'm not defending Ozzie's words, he shouldn't have said what he said. However there is a difference between a man having a misstep in speech and people going crazy and overreacting about it. Ozzie has a bad temper and said something stupid, this isn't the first or last time it will happen, and he's not the first or last person to do it. I'd rather Ozzie be a little more careful with his words, but he has yet to commit a crime and he's still a great manager, so I'll deal with it. Nobody is saying Ozzie is some sort of role model either, however his actions aren't good in the sense that he IS a role model for the kids in Venezuela.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't think that what he said was particularly offensive, but he seems to have a tendency to open his mouth and say particularly bad things that will lead him on a path to get Rockered. I think he should be taken to the woodshed now, to get him off that path.

 

If Ozzie had used the N word in describing that Quite Frankly dude, what would you have said? To be honest, the two words ARE equal in their connotation.

[whitesoxfan101]

I don't think that what he said was particularly offensive, but he seems to have a tendency to open his mouth and say particularly bad things that will lead him on a path to get Rockered. I think he should be taken to the woodshed now, to get him off that path.

 

If Ozzie had used the N word in describing that Quite Frankly dude, what would you have said? To be honest, the two words ARE equal in their connotation.

 

I actually agree with you on part 1, except I dunno if "woodshedding" Ozzie will do any good...he is what he is and I think he'd quit before he'd change it.

 

As for part 2......I won't go there since I disagree with the equality of calling somebody a *** and calling an african american the n word.

[Rex Kickass]

To me, they're equal.

[Kyyle23]

And, the response.

 

Try as I do, it's hard to view sports as some sort of guiding light for humankind.....But then you return to Chicago and are dragged into the gutter drain by Ozzie Guillen's homophobic circus.

 

Twice in less than a year, Guillen has dropped derogatory homosexual terms in his public dealings as White Sox manager. Last year at Yankee Stadium, he claimed to be greeting a friend warmly when he said, "Hey, everybody, this guy's a homosexual! He's a child molester!'' Two New York-area columnists took offense, as they should have, and so did I -- the only writer in Chicago who did, which is often how it works in a town softer and more politically driven by the sports franchises than a genuinely tough, independent sports media town such as Boston.

 

Hilarious. I wish I could stick around all day and watch the comments unfold.

 

I am hardly alone in thinking Guillen, if he doesn't wise up, is headed toward a bad ending in Chicago. As somebody who lobbied hard in print for Ozzie to get the job, I knew he would be a politically incorrect load at times. But little did I know he would become a national embarrassment to a city, a franchise and a sport.

 

Ok, I am almost sure that Jay completely ripped the choice of Ozzie Guillen as coach for the White Sox. The guy is such a bald faced liar in print, it is silly that he can just write whatever he wants.

 

Also, Teddy (Theodore) Greenstein has some interesting comments about Jay

 

Surprising, though, was that Mariotti accused his own newspaper of having a pro-Sox bias that resulted in one of his columns being pulled during the 2005 World Series.

 

"We're a rival of the Chicago Tribune and it's fair game to rip both teams," Mariotti said during an interview with Sun-Times colleagues Brian Hanley and Mike Mulligan on WSCR-AM 670. "But when it's the Sox, suddenly we have little meetings at the paper and suddenly there are issues and suddenly there's a column pulled here or there during the World Series, interestingly enough.

 

"That's where I have a problem with the Sun-Times."

 

The response came after Hanley asked Mariotti whether the Sun-Times has supported him during his long feud with the Sox and club Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf.

 

"I wouldn't be forthright and honest if I didn't tell you I have my own doubts about my paper and its relationship with the White Sox," Mariotti replied. "We've had discussions about it, so I'm not speaking out of school.

 

Mariotti also accused WSCR personalities, including Hanley and Mulligan, of going easy on the Sox because of the station's relationship with the team.

 

"I hear you guys all the time ripping Dusty [baker], as you should," he said. "Well, rip the Sox, too, when they deserve it. Just because you're the Sox flagship station doesn't mean you shouldn't be just as critical of the Sox."

 

Sound familiar? It should.

 

In 2004, Mariotti accused WMVP-AM 1000 of trying to curry favor with Reinsdorf in an attempt to retain its Sox radio rights. The station parted ways with Mariotti after 11 months, with officials saying he was impossible to work with.

 

Mariotti also spoke about his custom of avoiding the Sox's clubhouse, and thus denying players and Guillen the chance to confront him.

 

After criticizing the Sox for not protecting him in the wake of "physical threats," Mariotti acknowledged the threats "really don't involve anyone there now."

 

"[but] until they come up with some sort of professional standard for how they deal with me in that clubhouse," he said, "I'm going to play by my own rules."

 

Mariotti also said that, as a columnist, he is not required to go face-to-face with players.

 

"I am like [WSCR's] Terry Boers and Dan Bernstein," he said. "Do you see Terry and Dan out at the ballpark very often? No. Why? Because they're columnists, they're talk-show hosts.

 

"And maybe the PR guys should get off their [butts] and do a better job of telling the ballplayers how this works. I'd be glad to tell them how it works, but I'm too busy wondering why this ballplayer wants to kick my [butt] every day."

 

Wouldnt that be hilarious if, in the wake of all this mess, Mariotti gets fired for letting his ego get out of control and ripping the Sun Times?

 

It wont happen, but damn would I love that drama

Edited June 22, 2006 by kyyle23

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

And, the response.

Hilarious. I wish I could stick around all day and watch the comments unfold.

Ok, I am almost sure that Jay completely ripped the choice of Ozzie Guillen as coach for the White Sox. The guy is such a bald faced liar in print, it is silly that he can just write whatever he wants.

 

Also, Teddy (Theodore) Greenstein has some interesting comments about Jay

Wouldnt that be hilarious if, in the wake of all this mess, Mariotti gets fired for letting his ego get out of control and ripping the Sun Times?

 

It wont happen, but damn would I love that drama

 

If Fairyotti got fired it would be the happiest day in Chicago sports all year long.