Peter Gammons Doesn't Believe in God, Because If He Existed, A-Rod Would Already Have Been Struck Down By a Lightning Bolt

I think this post is bad even by PG's standards. Let's get right to it, starting with the title.

Wright shouldn't move for A-Rod

Given this title, I wonder if perhaps Gammons will be taking some shots at A-Rod? What? He's done that before?

It's not hard to understand the lure of Alex Rodriguez's siren song.

Good start to the column, Peter. Since a "siren's song" is defined as "the enticing appeal of something alluring but potentially dangerous" what Gammons means to say is, "It's not hard to understand the allure of Alex Rodriguez's allure."

Now, thanks to some horrible parallel structure, a Gammons specialty, Gammons will now attempt a grammatical feat never before achieved: include four different tenses in one sentence. Let's see if he can do it:

Ten years from now (future), he might have outhomered Barry Bonds (future perfect), approached Pete Rose's hit record (past) and be regarded as one of the greatest players who ever lived (present).

Amazing.

It's not hard to know why Scott Boras engaged the Mets in discussions; he wouldn't be representing Alex if he didn't try to get another New York team in on the last waltz.

This is what would happen if we went shopping at Costco for crappy Gammons writing. First Gammons gives us four tenses in one sentence, and then he follows that up with a single sentence that contains a bizarre expression ("engaged the Mets in discussions"), needless hyperbole ("wouldn't be representing Alex") and a made-up metaphor ("the last waltz").

Puh-leaze.

Yes, he really writes that. He then writes three whole paragraphs, which I can summarize as follows: David Wright plays third. A-Rod plays third. Therefore, the Mets don't need A-Rod. In the midst of this earth-shattering conclusion, Gammons offers us this:

But Wright, at 24, accepted every responsibility when the Mets struggled down the stretch. While the majority of his teammates practically hid out and ducked under tables in the players' lounge, Wright was there to answer the tough questions. "I feel," he said one day, "that it is my responsibility."

Goody for him. How the hell is this relevant to anything? Apparently, denigrating anything and everything A-Rod isn't enough; Gammons has to pump up every other third baseman to make A-Rod seem less desirable, his "siren song" notwithstanding. How the fuck is this "objective analysis"? You'd think Wright was on the Red Sox or something.

Granted, Rodriguez was a Gold Glove shortstop who moved to third base, but he initiated the action to get out of Texas.

Tiny voice inside Peter's head: Maybe A-Rod isn't such a bad guy. He did volunteer to move to third base to accommodate Derek Jeter, after all.

Peter (sputtering): Fiddlesticks! A-Rod's an asshole! He "initiated the action" to get out of Texas!

Tiny Voice Inside Peter's Head: But that action was good for both teams. Texas got rid of most of his monster salary, and the Yankees got another superstar slugger.

Peter (fuming): But Rodriguez doesn't care about winning!

TVIPH: Then why would he leave Texas and go to New York?

Peter (really mad now): Oh yeah? Well, Rodriguez doesn't respect the game! So there!

TVIPH: What does that even mean?

And when the Yankees took a hard line in regards to his negotiations with the players associated, he had no choice but to move over in respect for Derek Jeter.

I have read this sentence over and over again and still don't know what it means. What negotiations? What "players associated"? I also love (read: hate) that Peter insists that a seemingly benevolent action by Rodriguez is something he "had no choice" but to do. And if he really had no choice, then he didn't move over out of "respect", he moved over because he had to! My head hurts.

This is different. Wright is the Mets' best player; he's not moving to another position.

Actually, that's exactly the same. A-Rod was the Yankees' best player when they got him, but he moved to another position anyway. The reason it's different is because this time, the incumbent (Wright) would be the one asked to switch positions, not the new guy (Rodriguez).

He and Willie Randolph were the two people who stood and accepted the harsh music down the stretch, and after seeing how Randolph was carved up, now Wright has read that he is fungible.

Another weird, made-up metaphor here. "Accepted the harsh music?" Does he mean "faced the music"? And wouldn't "acceptance" when one's team is folding be a bad thing? Wouldn't you want your star player and manager to refuse the "harsh music"? Whatever "harsh music" is?

They also need Wright, his talent, his extraordinary character, his leadership, his face on the franchise's banners for the next decade.

The italics are Gammons's. We get it, Peter. You don't like A-Rod. You love everybody else. Can we move on please?

I actually agree with his main point -- that the Mets don't need A-Rod because they have Wright -- even if it's blatantly obvious. I just find it ridiculous that Gammons will use any excuse to mount his anti-A-Rod crusade. Can anybody reading this defend him? I'm curious.