From the moment Cole Hamels arrived at spring training, I was first in the Kool-Aid line. His recent arm troubles have worried me and I completely understand the organization's desire not to rush a young pitcher back onto the roster when the team's playoff chances, for the fifth consecutive season, awkwardly straddle the line between contender and pretender (presciently predicted elsewhere in the blogosphere).
However, I had to cringe when this Cole quote was broadcast from the Mothership:
If the Phillies have fallen too far out of playoff contention, "I don't think it would serve a purpose," Hamels said. "It would be too much of a risk, unless we're going for something. The goal is to finish the season healthy, whether it's two or three starts, but that all depends on our chances for the playoffs."This reminds me of two incidents from five years ago, one kind of minor and one major and neither of them very pleasant.
1. Mike Lieberthal's ambivalent comments on the final game of the 2002 season, upon which the Phillies could have finished with either an 81-80 or 80-81 record (in other words, a marginal--but clear--winning or losing season) due to a rained-out game with the Braves that was never made up due to its irrelevance in deciding any pennant races. According to Lieby, the guys "didn't really care" even though it could have given the Phils their first back-to-back .500-plus seasons since the early '80s. Not only was this an affront to professionalism and pride, but also, I felt, a tactless sort of ignorance of the history of the franchise and the psyche of the Greater Philadelphia Fandom in general.
2. The legendary Scott Rolen imbroglio in the summer of 2002, which pitted the former fan favorite against quintessential Philly Guy (at the time) Larry Bowa, still in his honeymoon phase after 2001's inexplicable run at a division title. Once Rolen let on that he'd rather not be in Philadelphia, the fan reaction was swift and unmerciful. It is the cardinal sin of athletes in almost any professional city, unless they have already alienated the fan base by some other means, to publicly state what amounts to a civic insult.
Again, most fans cannot really be that fickle or demanding of individual athletes with the dawn of free agency--especially in baseball, where the most inevitable scenario involves a team with bigger coffers waiting to pluck your favorite slugger from your grasp as quickly as possible. There's actually quite a bit of truth in the tired aphorism "cheering for the uniforms." Any perceived disrespect or ambivalence for said uniforms is therefore a highly dangerous course to take if an athlete's popularity is to be considered--and, clearly, some don't consider it at all.
The athlete wants what is best for his career. The fan wants what is best for the team. And, eventually, the athlete breaks his crown careening down a hill of ignominy while the fans (and sometimes the franchise) come tumbling after.
Tread lightly, Cole.
3 comments:
The 700 level also had a link to an interview Cole did with some other blog in which he makes some comments about the fans (albeit, in response to a specific question). However, when choosing between whether to call us passionate or crazy (adjective provided by the questioner), he elected to add his own adjective: fair-weather. Interesting.
I did indeed see that but was too lazy to look in the 700 archive for the link. I think "fair-weather" is a little more accurate than the usual "crazy," but I think "demanding" would be my adjective of choice, like when Dad gets angry at the Eagles for giving up a field goal when they're up by 20 in the 3rd quarter.
An appalling lack of consideration for fantasy owners on Cole's part.
Post a Comment