Today’s si.com column …

danny-gokeyBrewers Mets Baseball

… is on the three Mets who skipped out of the visit to Walter Reed.

Not cool.

PS: I’m willing to admit that the negative stories tend to call me more than the positive ones. Not sure why—maybe because the sports media is chock full o’ beaming profiles of guys who, in my opinion, don’t deserve the acclaim. Or maybe I’m just a bitter SOB.  🙁

PPS: Check out Barry Zito—the anti-Beltran/Castillo/Perez.

8 thoughts on “Today’s si.com column …”

  1. You just couldn’t help yourself from diving head first into this empty pool of a story, huh? And way to go with an original take on the story. I mean, really, your almost a week late to this piling on party and you couldn’t even distinguish your little rant from Lupica’s? Anyway, here are a few posts on this issue that are are precisely what your article was not: (a) original; (b) insightful; and (c) interesting. I’m going to put them here so others realize there is a different side to this silly (non)story. Happy reading:

    http://www.amazinavenue.com/2010/9/10/1680109/the-hypocrisy-of-the-walter-reed

    http://nysportsdog.blogspot.com/2010/09/from-21-year-military-veteran-leave.html

    http://scratchbomb.com/2010/09/this-joke-of-an-organization-isnt-funny-anymore.html

    1. You showed me—three incredibly lame posts. Having not read Lupica’s work, I don’t know what you’re referring to. I will say this:

      A. Originality? It’s my opinion, one I strongly believe in. If that’s shared by others, or has been expressed by others, so be it.
      B. Insightful: Insight is very objective. Perhaps you didn’t find it insightful because you don’t agree. Personally, I think the lack of perspective by professional athletes (as a whole) is fascinating, and worth exploring.
      C. Interesting: Well, you took the time to respond AND post a bunch of links. You don’t seen disinterested.

      I don’t mind your “little rant”—but the tone is snide and irksome, and the links you provided were just lame. Do better, kid.

  2. Kinda wanted to think you had a good point here.
    Then I started thinking about it.
    Should these 3 really be lumped together?

    Beltran has visited before. He chose to tend to a different charitable cause. For that we criticize him? Why?
    The other 2 are not American citizens. When an American is working in a foreign country such as Syria, or Pakistan, or India, or China, etc should we feel obligated to visit their wounded solders?
    I can relate a little to Castillo.
    When my Grandfather was in the hospital I went to visit. Seeing that tube coming from under his gown and into a jar I began to feel faint. I stepped out for a drink of water so that I could sit and put my head between my legs. My father walked in and passed out in front of Gramps.
    Do you think passing out helps the wounded?
    I love ya, but you do seem to be just a bitter SOB.

    It really IS a non-story.

  3. Jeff,

    As the author of “B” linked above, I just wanted to thank you, in advance, for your upcoming visit to Walter Reed.

    I know all of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airman and Marines there will enjoy the personally autographed books you’ll be bringing them.

    E-mail me if you want me to go with you…really.

    Regards,
    Dave

  4. I’m definitely late to this party, but I’m not sure Beltran was so in the wrong here. He had already planned a meeting for his charity, and, according to Boras (I know; not exactly credible), the players were given about 24 hours of notice before the trip to Walter Reed. You know as well as anyone that off days for players (and beat reporters) are like gold (especially this late in the season). I’m sure Beltran had that meeting planned for at least a few weeks.

    He chose trying to help kids get an education over visiting sick or injured soldiers. When you factor in that Beltran already went to visit some of the soldiers earlier in the year and the scheduling conflict—and then you add on the legitimately insulting cases of Perez and Castillo, lumping Beltran in there doesn’t seem all that fair.

    Should he have postponed the meeting he had already planned with his foundation to go see the troops again? I suppose you could make that argument. I wouldn’t, but I guess someone could. But in no way can you put his absence in the same realm of what Castillo and Perez did.

  5. I’m commenting late on this, but I do want to say something. Jeff, I agree with you more than 80% of the time, but I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this subject.

    Why did the Mets players have to visit the hospital? None of us has the right to say what another person should or should not do in regards to visiting a hospital. Some people don’t like hospitals. Some people don’t want to be reminded of the devastation of war. Whatever the reasons, they are personal. None of the players were under any obligation to go, and there should be no obligation–real, perceived, or implied. While it’s great that so many people support our troops, there is no obligation to do so.

    My argument is not about people who haven’t visited soldiers complaining about ballplayers not visiting. My point is that nobody is wrong for not doing so. Furthermore, none of us has a right to demand an explanation from any of the players who chose not to attend (not saying you did, just making a point). Personally, I’m disappointed that some explanations have been offered (as spoken by Joan Allen in The Contender, sometimes answering a question implies that the questioner had a right to ask it).

    Would it have been nice if the entire team decided to go? Yes. But I don’t think it’s fair–I don’t think it’s right–to judge anyone for not going.

Leave a Reply