Has Pujols replaced Bonds as the Game's biggest jerk?

[The Voice of Reason]

Wolf - Don't you think it was amazing that Enos "Country" Slaughter was such a good hitter - considering he wore a white hood and all. Must of had extra wide peep holes.

 

 

Slaughter was behind a near-boycott in 1947 when the Cardinals objected to the color of Jackie Robinson's skin. In some places a player gets maligned for that sort of thing. In St. Louis he gets a room named after him.

What on earth does this have to with Pujols? Unless you are saying rude to media = racist klansman.

 

Just because a slighted journalist put it an article doesn't make it relevant.

 

 

I agree. That comment is the most ridiculous and assanine I have ever seen on here. Wow, you are pathetic Voice.Seriously.

 

The point made by the author (and that you obviously ignored) is simply pointing out the silliness of blind worship (whether it be Pujols, McGwire or Slaughter) by a group of fans, local media and an organizaton. Don't you think it's its "ridiculous and assinine" that a franchise named a room after a known bigot like Slaughter?

 

Jackie Robinson was one of the most influential and courageous baseball players that ever lived. Naming a room after Slaughter is a slap in his face.

 

What if Chicago named a room after Cap Anson? It's a ridiculous attempt to somehow denigrate St. Louis and it's fans.

 

the cubs haven't so how is that at all relevant?

 

It isn't.

[The Voice of Reason]

Pujols is pretty arrogant. His umpire stare has gotten out of control. I respect him less and less every year. If only every player could be an injured robot.

What about Zambrano's antics?

 

With respect to umpires, Z and Pujols are moving in opposite directions with their reactions to them.

My point was you could go all day about a certain player's character and it's pointless. Pujols is not a bad guy because he doesn't talk to the media/stares at the umpire. Same goes for Zambrano.

 

Hey Voice, since you're so offended by Slaughter being acknowledged, I'm sure you have expressed your dismay in letters to the organization stating your case. Am I right, or have you just wasted your time trying to make a few nice Cards fans feel bad about something they have NOTHING to do with?[/quote]

 

I didn't write the article, Greg Doyel, National Correspondent for CBS did. You can simply write him off as "biased" because you don't want to hear what he says and missed the point of his article, however IMO he does makes a lot of valid points regarding Cards fans, the very soft St. Louis media and the Cards organization including:

 

 

Remember the discovery of andro in Mark McGwire's locker, one of the events that triggered the steroid scandal? The bottle wasn't discovered by the local media, which had years to notice it, but by an out-of-state Associated Press writer. Years later, McGwire's name is mostly dirt, but not in St. Louis. Stories and photos of his greatest moments in a Cardinals uniform still hang in the press room. His jersey sells in the stadium stores. Here, he's untouchable.

 

 

If he ever writes an article about the Chicago media treating the Cubs with kid gloves (don't hold your breath), then and only then we can justifiably bring the Cubs into the discussion.

[UMFan83]

I am sorry, I interacted with Pujols in the RF bleachers before the home opener this year for probably a good 5-7 minutes, and he was probably the nicest "star" ballplayer I've ever met. I am not saying that because of this one experience that he's not a jerk, but due to my experience, its gonna be very hard for me to accept it.

[sethuel1]

I am sorry, I interacted with Pujols in the RF bleachers before the home opener this year for probably a good 5-7 minutes, and he was probably the nicest "star" ballplayer I've ever met. I am not saying that because of this one experience that he's not a jerk, but due to my experience, its gonna be very hard for me to accept it.

 

You were drunk.

[UMFan83]

I am sorry, I interacted with Pujols in the RF bleachers before the home opener this year for probably a good 5-7 minutes, and he was probably the nicest "star" ballplayer I've ever met. I am not saying that because of this one experience that he's not a jerk, but due to my experience, its gonna be very hard for me to accept it.

 

You were drunk.

 

I'm always drunk, that doesn't mean anything....but now that I think about it, the jerk wouldn't sign my flask even after I threw it down to him.

[wolf stansson]

I am sorry, I interacted with Pujols in the RF bleachers before the home opener this year for probably a good 5-7 minutes, and he was probably the nicest "star" ballplayer I've ever met. I am not saying that because of this one experience that he's not a jerk, but due to my experience, its gonna be very hard for me to accept it.

He seems to be a good guy, just a sore loser.

[Catman61]

Nice to see that Voice of Reason is showing just what an oxymoron his name is.

[The Voice of Reason]

Nice to see that Voice of Reason is showing just what an oxymoron his name is.

 

As a reminder, NSBB etiquette calls for attacking the post, not the poster, although trust me my feelings are not the least bit hurt. I guess in this case it's much easier for you to shoot the messenger than to try to challenge some of the valid points the author made that evidently hit home.

[The Voice of Reason]

I personally liked how he refused to give Glavine credit for pitching well against them. That showed a lot of arrogance to me.

But, hey! Wait a sec and some Cardinal fans will start mentioning his charity work and how we should all genuflect before him.

 

Vance - You sure called that one right.

[Catman61]

Nice to see that Voice of Reason is showing just what an oxymoron his name is.

 

As a reminder, NSBB etiquette calls for attacking the post, not the poster, although trust me my feelings are not the least bit hurt. I guess in this case it's much easier for you to shoot the messenger than to try to challenge some of the valid points the author made that evidently hit home.

 

If you think they are valid points, I am happy for you to revel in your blindness.

[mjohnson71]

I ask you this: Ted Williams, war hero and quite possibly the greatest baseball player ever to swing the bat was a total complete raving a**hole to the media.

 

Some I assume by some people's arguments, his accomplishments are diminished and he's a lesser player. Is that the vibe I'm getting?

[The Voice of Reason]

Nice to see that Voice of Reason is showing just what an oxymoron his name is.

 

As a reminder, NSBB etiquette calls for attacking the post, not the poster, although trust me my feelings are not the least bit hurt. I guess in this case it's much easier for you to shoot the messenger than to try to challenge some of the valid points the author made that evidently hit home.

 

If you think they are valid points, I am happy for you to revel in your blindness.

 

Are you disputing the writer's contention that:

 

Quote:

For years, decades even, players in every sport have spoken with the media after tough losses. Players can handle it, even the "very best competitors," provided they aren't jerks. Bonds couldn't handle it, but he was a jerk. Steve Carlton and Kevin Brown couldn't handle it, either, but they were jerks. After a period of time, those titles became accepted: Steve Carlton = jerk.

 

If Pujols isn't careful it'll happen to him, and if you're wondering why it hasn't happened yet, look at his address. He plays in St. Louis, a town that for years has looked the other way for its best baseball players. For example, I'm writing this story from the Enos Slaughter Room. Slaughter was behind a near-boycott in 1947 when the Cardinals objected to the color of Jackie Robinson's skin. In some places a player gets maligned for that sort of thing. In St. Louis he gets a room named after him.

[ConstableRabbit]

Nice to see that Voice of Reason is showing just what an oxymoron his name is.

 

As a reminder, NSBB etiquette calls for attacking the post, not the poster, although trust me my feelings are not the least bit hurt. I guess in this case it's much easier for you to shoot the messenger than to try to challenge some of the valid points the author made that evidently hit home.

 

If you think they are valid points, I am happy for you to revel in your blindness.

 

Are you disputing the writer's contention that:

 

Quote:

For years, decades even, players in every sport have spoken with the media after tough losses. Players can handle it, even the "very best competitors," provided they aren't jerks. Bonds couldn't handle it, but he was a jerk. Steve Carlton and Kevin Brown couldn't handle it, either, but they were jerks. After a period of time, those titles became accepted: Steve Carlton = jerk.

 

If Pujols isn't careful it'll happen to him, and if you're wondering why it hasn't happened yet, look at his address. He plays in St. Louis, a town that for years has looked the other way for its best baseball players. For example, I'm writing this story from the Enos Slaughter Room. Slaughter was behind a near-boycott in 1947 when the Cardinals objected to the color of Jackie Robinson's skin. In some places a player gets maligned for that sort of thing. In St. Louis he gets a room named after him.

 

I don't think he was calling Pujols a racist or saying that he's as bad as Enos Slaughter.

 

The point I got from it is that you can be a jerk in St. Louis and the media will look the other way as long as you're a good player, evidenced by the room named after Slaughter, who was a jerk.

 

He's saying that perhaps the St. Louis media might have looked the other way when Pujols has been a jerk in the past, just as they did with Slaughter.

[mjohnson71]

Nice to see that Voice of Reason is showing just what an oxymoron his name is.

 

As a reminder, NSBB etiquette calls for attacking the post, not the poster, although trust me my feelings are not the least bit hurt. I guess in this case it's much easier for you to shoot the messenger than to try to challenge some of the valid points the author made that evidently hit home.

 

If you think they are valid points, I am happy for you to revel in your blindness.

 

Are you disputing the writer's contention that:

 

Quote:

For years, decades even, players in every sport have spoken with the media after tough losses. Players can handle it, even the "very best competitors," provided they aren't jerks. Bonds couldn't handle it, but he was a jerk. Steve Carlton and Kevin Brown couldn't handle it, either, but they were jerks. After a period of time, those titles became accepted: Steve Carlton = jerk.

 

If Pujols isn't careful it'll happen to him, and if you're wondering why it hasn't happened yet, look at his address. He plays in St. Louis, a town that for years has looked the other way for its best baseball players. For example, I'm writing this story from the Enos Slaughter Room. Slaughter was behind a near-boycott in 1947 when the Cardinals objected to the color of Jackie Robinson's skin. In some places a player gets maligned for that sort of thing. In St. Louis he gets a room named after him.

 

I don't think he was calling Pujols a racist or saying that he's as bad as Enos Slaughter.

 

The point I got from it is that you can be a jerk in St. Louis and the media will look the other way as long as you're a good player, evidenced by the room named after Slaughter, who was a jerk.

 

He's saying that perhaps the St. Louis media might have looked the other way when Pujols has been a jerk in the past, just as they did with Slaughter.

 

Uhhhh, Enos Slaughter was 60 years ago. And that's your evidence?

[The Voice of Reason]

Nice to see that Voice of Reason is showing just what an oxymoron his name is.

 

As a reminder, NSBB etiquette calls for attacking the post, not the poster, although trust me my feelings are not the least bit hurt. I guess in this case it's much easier for you to shoot the messenger than to try to challenge some of the valid points the author made that evidently hit home.

 

If you think they are valid points, I am happy for you to revel in your blindness.

 

Are you disputing the writer's contention that:

 

Quote:

For years, decades even, players in every sport have spoken with the media after tough losses. Players can handle it, even the "very best competitors," provided they aren't jerks. Bonds couldn't handle it, but he was a jerk. Steve Carlton and Kevin Brown couldn't handle it, either, but they were jerks. After a period of time, those titles became accepted: Steve Carlton = jerk.

 

If Pujols isn't careful it'll happen to him, and if you're wondering why it hasn't happened yet, look at his address. He plays in St. Louis, a town that for years has looked the other way for its best baseball players. For example, I'm writing this story from the Enos Slaughter Room. Slaughter was behind a near-boycott in 1947 when the Cardinals objected to the color of Jackie Robinson's skin. In some places a player gets maligned for that sort of thing. In St. Louis he gets a room named after him.

 

I don't think he was calling Pujols a racist or saying that he's as bad as Enos Slaughter.

 

The point I got from it is that you can be a jerk in St. Louis and the media will look the other way as long as you're a good player, evidenced by the room named after Slaughter, who was a jerk.

 

He's saying that perhaps the St. Louis media might have looked the other way when Pujols has been a jerk in the past, just as they did with Slaughter.

 

Exactly, and with McGwire.

[ConstableRabbit]

Nice to see that Voice of Reason is showing just what an oxymoron his name is.

 

As a reminder, NSBB etiquette calls for attacking the post, not the poster, although trust me my feelings are not the least bit hurt. I guess in this case it's much easier for you to shoot the messenger than to try to challenge some of the valid points the author made that evidently hit home.

 

If you think they are valid points, I am happy for you to revel in your blindness.

 

Are you disputing the writer's contention that:

 

Quote:

For years, decades even, players in every sport have spoken with the media after tough losses. Players can handle it, even the "very best competitors," provided they aren't jerks. Bonds couldn't handle it, but he was a jerk. Steve Carlton and Kevin Brown couldn't handle it, either, but they were jerks. After a period of time, those titles became accepted: Steve Carlton = jerk.

 

If Pujols isn't careful it'll happen to him, and if you're wondering why it hasn't happened yet, look at his address. He plays in St. Louis, a town that for years has looked the other way for its best baseball players. For example, I'm writing this story from the Enos Slaughter Room. Slaughter was behind a near-boycott in 1947 when the Cardinals objected to the color of Jackie Robinson's skin. In some places a player gets maligned for that sort of thing. In St. Louis he gets a room named after him.

 

I don't think he was calling Pujols a racist or saying that he's as bad as Enos Slaughter.

 

The point I got from it is that you can be a jerk in St. Louis and the media will look the other way as long as you're a good player, evidenced by the room named after Slaughter, who was a jerk.

 

He's saying that perhaps the St. Louis media might have looked the other way when Pujols has been a jerk in the past, just as they did with Slaughter.

 

Uhhhh, Enos Slaughter was 60 years ago. And that's your evidence?

 

I'm just telling you what I thought he said.

 

Mark McGwire was also mentioned, if you need more recent "proof"

[The Voice of Reason]

Nice to see that Voice of Reason is showing just what an oxymoron his name is.

 

As a reminder, NSBB etiquette calls for attacking the post, not the poster, although trust me my feelings are not the least bit hurt. I guess in this case it's much easier for you to shoot the messenger than to try to challenge some of the valid points the author made that evidently hit home.

 

If you think they are valid points, I am happy for you to revel in your blindness.

 

Are you disputing the writer's contention that:

 

Quote:

For years, decades even, players in every sport have spoken with the media after tough losses. Players can handle it, even the "very best competitors," provided they aren't jerks. Bonds couldn't handle it, but he was a jerk. Steve Carlton and Kevin Brown couldn't handle it, either, but they were jerks. After a period of time, those titles became accepted: Steve Carlton = jerk.

 

If Pujols isn't careful it'll happen to him, and if you're wondering why it hasn't happened yet, look at his address. He plays in St. Louis, a town that for years has looked the other way for its best baseball players. For example, I'm writing this story from the Enos Slaughter Room. Slaughter was behind a near-boycott in 1947 when the Cardinals objected to the color of Jackie Robinson's skin. In some places a player gets maligned for that sort of thing. In St. Louis he gets a room named after him.

 

I don't think he was calling Pujols a racist or saying that he's as bad as Enos Slaughter.

 

The point I got from it is that you can be a jerk in St. Louis and the media will look the other way as long as you're a good player, evidenced by the room named after Slaughter, who was a jerk.

 

He's saying that perhaps the St. Louis media might have looked the other way when Pujols has been a jerk in the past, just as they did with Slaughter.

 

Uhhhh, Enos Slaughter was 60 years ago. And that's your evidence?

 

Yes it was 60 years ago that the Racist Slaughter tried to keep the courageous Jackie Robinson out of baseball simply because the color of his skin was black. However, it was this year that the Cardinal organization choose to honor Enos Slaughter by naming a room after him in the new Busch stadium.

[wolf stansson]

Pujols hasn't gotten a pass from the St. Louis media. Bernie Miklacz and Bryan Burwell in particular have criticized his poor loser mentality. It just hasn't gotten coverage because national media doesn't pay attention to St. Louis clubhouse rumblings.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

It just hasn't gotten coverage because [the] nation doesn't pay attention to St. Louis.

 

Boy, you can say that again.

[thedaymen]

I am sorry, I interacted with Pujols in the RF bleachers before the home opener this year for probably a good 5-7 minutes, and he was probably the nicest "star" ballplayer I've ever met. I am not saying that because of this one experience that he's not a jerk, but due to my experience, its gonna be very hard for me to accept it.

He seems to be a good guy, just a sore loser.

 

Last night at Shea, he was giving autographs before the game to a group of kids...you read that right, giving autographs, on the road, before an NLCS.

 

During the game he was clowning around at first with Delgado and Reyes, who both seemed to genuinely like him.

 

If I didn't already know he was a 50 year old jerk that can't handle losing, I might have fallen for it.

[mjohnson71]

Nice to see that Voice of Reason is showing just what an oxymoron his name is.

 

As a reminder, NSBB etiquette calls for attacking the post, not the poster, although trust me my feelings are not the least bit hurt. I guess in this case it's much easier for you to shoot the messenger than to try to challenge some of the valid points the author made that evidently hit home.

 

If you think they are valid points, I am happy for you to revel in your blindness.

 

Are you disputing the writer's contention that:

 

Quote:

For years, decades even, players in every sport have spoken with the media after tough losses. Players can handle it, even the "very best competitors," provided they aren't jerks. Bonds couldn't handle it, but he was a jerk. Steve Carlton and Kevin Brown couldn't handle it, either, but they were jerks. After a period of time, those titles became accepted: Steve Carlton = jerk.

 

If Pujols isn't careful it'll happen to him, and if you're wondering why it hasn't happened yet, look at his address. He plays in St. Louis, a town that for years has looked the other way for its best baseball players. For example, I'm writing this story from the Enos Slaughter Room. Slaughter was behind a near-boycott in 1947 when the Cardinals objected to the color of Jackie Robinson's skin. In some places a player gets maligned for that sort of thing. In St. Louis he gets a room named after him.

 

I don't think he was calling Pujols a racist or saying that he's as bad as Enos Slaughter.

 

The point I got from it is that you can be a jerk in St. Louis and the media will look the other way as long as you're a good player, evidenced by the room named after Slaughter, who was a jerk.

 

He's saying that perhaps the St. Louis media might have looked the other way when Pujols has been a jerk in the past, just as they did with Slaughter.

 

Uhhhh, Enos Slaughter was 60 years ago. And that's your evidence?

 

Yes it was 60 years ago that the Racist Slaughter tried to keep the courageous Jackie Robinson out of baseball simply because the color of his skin was black. However, it was this year that the Cardinal organization choose to honor Enos Slaughter by naming a room after him in the new Busch stadium.

 

They "honored" Slaughter because all of their luxury are named after famous Cardinal players. And they've got something like 82 luxury boxes there so they had to pick him. Heck, I think they've got boxes named after Bob Eucker and Vince Coleman in new Busch.

 

There have been other cities where players of questionable character have been honored by their team.

 

• Reggie White has his name and number retired in Green Bay even though he made incredibly racist statements in public.

 

• The Twins and the Metrodome's main address is Kirby Puckett Way even after all the freaky stuff he did.

[reggiemiller rules]

Bryan Burwell also wrote an article in yesterdays paper talking about how Pujols uncle and mentor had died last week and was buried on tues. In it Pujols talks about how he wasnt having fun because he couldnt be with his family and at the funeral. This is part of the reason he was upset and rude to the media those few days.

[FergieJ31]

I don't how this got into racism and the hypocrisy of the Cardinals org, but my point is that Michael Jordan is a jerk, Tiger Woods is a jerk, Ted Williams was a jerk, etc etc. I really don't care if people like him, as long as Albert is breaking laws, rules, or doing something loathesome (racism) I don't really care how nice he is to the media. As long as he keeps putting up insane offensive production he can be a douche to whoever he wants, especially considering he is by all accounts a positive clubhouse influence, a good man in the community and not a criminal.

 

This thread should have ended with this post from Wolf, which I agree 100% with. On class, Bonds isn't even in the same ballpark as Pujols.

 

Let's face it, the game has changed. Players -- and not just the superstars -- tend to do more "antics" these days (staring down umps, flipping bats, snub the media, etc) compared to yesteryear players. To be honest I wish ARam would show some of the competitive fire Pujols does.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't how this got into racism and the hypocrisy of the Cardinals org, but my point is that Michael Jordan is a jerk, Tiger Woods is a jerk, Ted Williams was a jerk, etc etc. I really don't care if people like him, as long as Albert is breaking laws, rules, or doing something loathesome (racism) I don't really care how nice he is to the media. As long as he keeps putting up insane offensive production he can be a douche to whoever he wants, especially considering he is by all accounts a positive clubhouse influence, a good man in the community and not a criminal.

 

This thread should have ended with this post from Wolf, which I agree 100% with. On class, Bonds isn't even in the same ballpark as Pujols.

 

Let's face it, the game has changed. Players -- and not just the superstars -- tend to do more "antics" these days (staring down umps, flipping bats, snub the media, etc) compared to yesteryear players. To be honest I wish ARam would show some of the competitive fire Pujols does.

 

I don't see what's wrong with respecting a players ability while at the same time acknowledging his jerkitude. What is wrong with pointing out that a guy is a jerk?

[FergieJ31]

I don't how this got into racism and the hypocrisy of the Cardinals org, but my point is that Michael Jordan is a jerk, Tiger Woods is a jerk, Ted Williams was a jerk, etc etc. I really don't care if people like him, as long as Albert is breaking laws, rules, or doing something loathesome (racism) I don't really care how nice he is to the media. As long as he keeps putting up insane offensive production he can be a douche to whoever he wants, especially considering he is by all accounts a positive clubhouse influence, a good man in the community and not a criminal.

 

This thread should have ended with this post from Wolf, which I agree 100% with. On class, Bonds isn't even in the same ballpark as Pujols.

 

Let's face it, the game has changed. Players -- and not just the superstars -- tend to do more "antics" these days (staring down umps, flipping bats, snub the media, etc) compared to yesteryear players. To be honest I wish ARam would show some of the competitive fire Pujols does.

 

I don't see what's wrong with respecting a players ability while at the same time acknowledging his jerkitude. What is wrong with pointing out that a guy is a jerk?

 

Fine - he's a jerk. So was MJ, worshipped by Bulls fans everywhere. Admit it, no one here would be calling Pujols a jerk if he were a Cub.