Police! A-Rod Stole My Spotlight! And My Purse!

Gammons' latest entry is so badly written (typical) and so colossally stupid (less typical) that every line of it deserves a thrashing. So here we go...

In many ways, it's sad, because Alex Rodriguez is a great player and a good guy.

What is sad? What ways? Anyway, Gammons goes on to assert and/or insinuate about a dozen times that Rodriguez is NOT a good guy and in fact doesn't care if anyone dies of cancer.

On the field after the Red Sox clinched their second world championship in four seasons, I had two Rockies players beg me to rip A-Rod for his attention grab, one Red Sox player said he'd walk away if asked about Rodriguez and more than 10 other players reveled in laughing at the iconic $30 million-a-year player who doesn't know what it's like to be Jon Lester or Dustin Pedroia, Ryan Spilborghs or Bobby Kielty and play in a World Series.

So here we have Gammons gloating about his connections and dropping names ad nauseum once again. Major League players are begging him to do stuff. Wow, someone give this guy a Peabody. And is Gammons suggesting that Bobby Kielty is better than A-Rod? Or more deserving of respect or adulation because he occupied a bench spot on a World Series team? Or that Kielty's .218 BA, 1 HR, and 12 RBI's in 87 at bats this year did more to get the Sox to the World Series than A-Rod's gargantuan numbers would have?

Also, I ask you Mr. Gammons, did "more than 10" players really laugh and tell you that this is what they were laughing about? Or did you really spend the time to ask more than 10 players about A-Rod "stealing the spotlight," and they just laughed? Did you consider, for just a second, that the reason they were laughing (and the reason the one player "threatened to walk away") was because they just won the world series, they were a WEE BIT more interested in that, and your question was comically asinine and irrelevant? And did they really "revel in laughing"? Good lord.

Which brings us to the main reason why this article is so incredibly dumb -- A-Rod didn't "steal" the spotlight, it was entirely Fox's (and, I guess, ESPN's) decision to give it to him. Nobody forced Ken Rosenthal at gunpoint to issue that report. Of course, would you, Peter, seriously deny that it wasn't a story worth mentioning, even as the Red Sox were wrapping up a total yawner/blowout of a series? If not, then what are you complaining about? If yes, then complain to Fox... and yourself, for pestering at least thirteen players who were just involved in the deciding game of the World Series about this, an issue that has nothing to do with them or that game.

And surprise, the writing sucks.

"I had two Rockies players beg me..." Why "I had"? Are you saying you asked them to beg you? That wouldn't surprise me, actually. But assuming you didn't, why not just say "Two rockies players begged me"? Was it a narcissistic desire to make yourself the subject of every possible sentence?

Also, this characteristic run-on is really at least 2, probably 3 sentences. The comma after "attention grab" should definitely be a period, and it would probably make sense to start over at "more than 10 players," as well.

And why this Gammons tendency to list players in twos ("Jon Lester or Dustin Pedroia, Ryan Spilborghs or Bobby Kielty...")? It's just confusing and annoying. Can anyone explain to me how Peter thinks this makes for good reading?

Fine, Rodriguez is opting out of his contract. But anyone who respected baseball would not have tried to grab the stage from the World Series -- if winning were a priority.

Anyone who respected baseball. In other words, A-Rod, a "great baseball player" and "good guy," does not even respect the game he plays. Wow, that is quite a smackdown. And you gotta love the dashes put in there for no other reason than to create a lame dramatic pause. And if "winning" were not "a priority" for this theoretical person, could they be said to "respect baseball"? Pick one thing to hammer him on, Gammons -- either not "respecting baseball" or not "prioritizing winning."

And if it's the latter.... eh, what? How does the timing of A-Rod's personal contract decision affect whether any team wins, be it the Red Sox, Rockies, Yankees, or Quad City River Bandits? Where does the place of "winning" on A-Rod's priority list enter into the picture here?

Okay, let's move on or we'll never finish up with this drivel...

Want to know about winners? Pedroia gave up his scholarship at Arizona State to free up money to sign a much-needed pitcher, so when the Sun Devils reached the College World Series, coaches and players had "DP" on their caps in honor of their leader who never got to Omaha.

After several readings, I still don't understand exactly what saintly thing Pedroia did. Why is Pedroia signing a pitcher? Isn't he a player? And what does he mean "never got to Omaha"? What's in Omaha? The College World Series? Why didn't he get there? And if he didn't, why is he a winner? I'm completely confused. And how much was this scholarship worth? I'm guessing it's less than the TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS at stake in A-Rod's contract negotiations (putting aside the issue of whether A-Rod will actually succeed in getting more money). And perhaps Pedroia comes from a pretty wealthy background and didn't need the scholarship. In fact, Pedroia might have felt that this move was of net financial benefit to him, as the team's success could get him more attention from Major League scouts, where he would get the REAL money. Just a possibility, one left unexplored by Red-Sox-brownnoser Gammons. As a test, let's check back in a few years when Pedroia is a free agent to see if he gives up money so that the Red Sox, or some other team, can sign a pitcher. Care to make a wager, Gammons? Feeling like enough of a "winner"?

The sabermetrics guys in their garages never understand these things.

Bah-zing! Take that, geeks! You guys live in garages! And probably yer MOM's garages! (snicker, snort). And what exactly do they not understand? That a player can care or not care about money? This seems like too simple a concept to escape Bill James, so please name these supposed developmentally disabled sabermetricians that can't grasp it.

Respect?

Yes, please.

Lester winning the final game of the World Series is a story that will reside with millions more people than A-Rod's gaudy statistics.

Uh, what does this have to do with "respect"? And what does he mean "reside with"? Is Jon Lester going to move into my garage? Is he a sabermetrics guy? Does this mean he doesn't understand his own "respectful" world series win? Wouldn't THAT be ironic.

Let's assume for a minute that Gammons means "reside" in our memory banks. If this is the case, I will bet him a million billion dollars that by the time A-Rod's career is over, more people will remember A-Rod's 800 career home runs and unprecented level of general baseball awesomeness than Jon Lester's decent pitching performance at the tail end of this year's boring-ass World Series. Not interesting enough, Gammons? Let's make it a billion trillion.

Remember, this is a 23-year old who in January finished chemotherapy for lymphoma.

Great story. A sincere, hearty thank-you to Lester's doctors. Now what does this have to do with A-Rod's announcement timing?

Scott Radinsky and Jerry DiPoto, both former major league pitchers, survived the same disease and said it took them nearly a year and a half to regain their velocity, and Lester walked out on the game's biggest stage and pitched 5 2/3 shutout innings.

Again, great story, great doctors, and probably some good fortune (and more Gammons name-dropping). Still waiting for some A-Rod connection...

As one doctor friend texted me, Lester brought tears and hopes to millions of kids and folks of all ages who are fighting for their lives to survive, much less win the World Series.

From the Department of Redundancy Department, we have people "fighting for their lives to survive." Seriously though, this really is a remarkable story. So WHY THE FUCK, THE DAY AFTER IT HAPPENED, ARE YOU WRITING ABOUT A-ROD? Remind me again who's stealing the spotlight?

And he did so without even a hint of a first-person pronoun. Yet, pitiably, Rodriguez did not find that as significant as his addiction to that first-person pronoun.

The less said about this atrocious "first-person pronoun" metaphor (if you can call it that), the better. How tendentious and just plain cruel is this? Based on absolutely no logic at all, Gammons has insinuated that Rodriguez does not find someone coming back from cancer "significant." A-Rod is so evil, he could care less if someone dies of cancer or lives. Good lord, considering all the frivolous libel suits out there, A-Rod's case against Gammons (and others) should be a cakewalk.

Maybe Tom Hicks will give Rodriguez whatever he wants, or Artie Moreno or Frank McCourt or someone else. Of course, none of them have what Lester, Pedroia and Kielty have.

Tom Hicks will give Artie Moreno to A-Rod? Oh right, Gammons constructs his sentences by putting all the clauses in a blender. On a substantive level, are you, Gammons, the Man with The Scoop, seriously telling me that Tom Hicks, the man who made the previous colossal A-Rod mistake, might give A-Rod MORE MONEY than before? And what do Lester, Pedroia and Kielty have that Hicks, Moreno, and McCourt don't? Is this a riddle? That's like saying, "Of course, none of those oranges have what these apples have -- cores."

To some, it's all about the front page of the tabloids and the lead on SportsCenter, to others it's about giving back money so the team can better itself, or surviving cancer and winning the clinching game of the World Series.

Finally, an "it's all about"! This is Gammons' single favorite way to start one of his horrible sentences. For fuck's sake, WHAT is all about this stuff? And what does it mean for this unknown thing to be "all about" the stuff?

And is A-Rod really "all about" the tabloids? Do you think he enjoys being lambasted for no good reason by every New York rag?

And who decides what leads on ESPN? Oh yeah, ESPN.

Hey Gammons, speaking of ESPN, how much do they pay you? What, you don't want us all to know about it and skewer you for being an overpaid hack? When was the last time you took a multi-million dollar pay cut so ESPN could do better? Never? You non-winning-prioritizing, disrespectful, attention-grabbing asshole.

And finally, damn you A-Rod. Damn you for not getting cancer, paying for good doctors, getting healed, becoming a starting pitcher, going to the world series all by yourself, and winning the deciding game. Don't you know what "it" is "all about"? Of course you don't. You are a piece of shit.

Anyone who led with Alex Rodriguez should look in the mirror and go to celebrity rehab.

Oh, "anyone" like, for instance... you? And what is celebrity rehab? Rehab for being a celebrity? For not understanding celebrities? For alcoholism? And who exactly are you complaining about? The main headline on ESPN all day was the Red Sox championship, and I've looked through several articles about the game and can't find any that lead with A-Rod. Oh Peter, just a rebel without a cause...

Jon Lester is the greatest story of the 2007 baseball season, and he wouldn't trade what he symbolizes to his fellow man for all of Alex Rodriguez's millions.

Me: "Mr. Lester, I will trade you 300 million dollars for the abstract, intangible 'symbolism' that Peter Gammons has attached to you."

Lester: "Is this some kind of a trick?"

Meanwhile, in a conference room, or perhaps a sabermetrician's mom's basement:

Boras: "In lieu of 300 million dollars, A-Rod will accept Peter-Gammons-endowed symbolism and meaning in exchange for totally ruling at baseball and making your team much, much better for the next several years."

Tom Hicks: "Intern! GET ME GAMMONS ON THE PHONE!"