UngsungBlog: A (Fantasy) Sports Blog

…will have to wait.

My loyal readers—all none of you—will notice that I haven’t said a word about the Dodgers in some time.

I’m going to break the silence with just one comment.

Adam Wainwright, in his attempts to defend LF Matt Holliday’s horrible gaffe that sparked the Dodgers’ ninth inning, two-out rally, went with this defense:

“That ball got lost in 50,000 white towels shaking in front of Matt’s face,” Wainwright said. “It doesn’t really seem fair that an opposing team should be able to allow their fans to shake white towels when there’s a white baseball flying through the air. How about Dodger Blue towels?”

You’re kidding, right Adam?  Let’s ban white T-shirts next!  And, technically, Matt really only had to deal with 30,000 or so towels.  How could the ones behind him in the pavilions and the seats by the foul pole distract him?

By the way, Adam, the Phillies’ rally towels are white too.

Go Dodgers.

Tags: adam wainwright, los angeles dodgers, matt holliday, st louis cardinals by Peter
No Comments »

Looks like more details have come in regarding the near-lawsuit between the family of a 12yo girl who caught a Ryan Howard home run, and the Phillies’ organization for allegedly entering an illegal contract with a minor (at least, that appears to be the case the family’s lawyer had against the Phillies).

From the article:

This was not about money, Vanegas insisted, although she admits that she contacted a Miami TV consumer affairs reporter after co-workers told her that the ball’s historical significance gave it added value. (emphasis mine)

So you didn’t have a lawyer sue the team for the money, even though you only got in contact with a lawyer after finding out the ball’s potential value?  Uh-huh.

The reporter, in turn, put her in touch with Kent.

As Krunk put it, when a lawyer gets involved, isn’t it always about the money?

(By the way, go to 0:42 in this YouTube clip, and then try to convince me that this case was not about the money.  Then, go to the 1:00 mark, and you’ll hear the lawyer use the phrase ‘criminal theft’ to describe what the Phillies did to this girl.  CRIMINAL THEFT???  For argument’s sake, let’s say that the girl did agree to trade balls with the team.  Fine, stick to the ‘illegal contract with a minor” case, but criminal theft?

I can’t watch any more of that clip.  If anyone wants to finish the clip and add to my remarks, please post a comment to this blog entry, and I’ll add it here.)

In addition:

“They’re saying I stole the ball from Mr. Howard,” Vanegas said. “I didn’t steal anything from Mr. Howard. Whoever caught the ball, the ball belongs to that person.

“Why did they take the ball away? Because they knew it was a very valuable ball. They took advantage of my daughter.”

Where in the hell does the mother get this idea that the Phillies were accusing her of trying to steal the baseball from Mr. Howard?  And why does she suggest that the ball was ‘taken away’?  As far as I’m concerned, when you trade one item for another (even if the trade is ridiculous, like an ice cream cone for a pebble), you’re not technically getting your ice cream taken away from you.  Or am I just splitting hairs here?  Also, if it’s not about the money, then why would you care about why the Phillies want the ball back?

Going on:

According to the lawyer, security officials escorted Valdivia to the clubhouse during the July 16 game and a Phillies equipment manager persuaded her to give up the ball, telling her to come back after the game and that Howard personally would give her a signed ball. “She thought he was going to sign the ball she caught,” Kent said. “She’s 12 years old. She didn’t have a clue.”

Sorry, being 12 years old isn’t an excuse for not having a clue.  “Give us the ball, and in return, we’ll give you a signed ball” is pretty clear in my book; we’re talking about two different baseballs here.  And I’ll ask again:  where were the parents during this alleged illegal contract with a minor?  Furthermore, the lawyer said it himself right there:  someone in the Phillies persuaded the girl to give the ball up.  CRIMINAL THEFT?

Valdivia came back as instructed, Kent said, but Howard did not appear and a club official sent her home with a different ball autographed by Howard.

What?  No breach of contract lawsuit?

Finally:

“People are talking so much crap about the ball, and that we just wanted it for the money,” she said. “We had no idea what it was worth. I don’t think Mr. Howard had any idea what was going on. I blame the Phillies’ administration.”

Until your co-workers told you how much it was worth, and then you were more than happy to speak to a lawyer to get the ball back.  But it wasn’t about the money, right?

Final thought:  do you realize that the ball is probably worth way more now than it would have been had the girl not been ‘robbed’ of the ball in the first place?   The ball is now encased in an acrylic holder, authenticated by the Phillies, AND, I’d argue, has extra value because of the controversy surrounding it.  But it’s OK; it’s not about the money.

Office review to come shortly…maybe.

Tags: 200th home run, baseball, criminal theft, lawsuit, phillies, ryan howard by Peter
1 Comment »

I heard on the radio this morning that tonight is going to be a one-hour episode of The Office, complete with Jim and Pam’s wedding.  I guess that means I better watch the last two episodes.  But first…

- Fantasy Football updates:

Remind me never to listen to Yahoo! and their stupid point projections ever again, or I may have to deal with another Julius Jones situation in the future.

You know Julius Jones, right, RB of the Seattle Seahawks?  He of the incredible 3.5 points last weekend?

Fortunately, I got smoked in both leagues.  My opponents scored 121 and 98 points against me, respectively, while I didn’t break 75 in either league.  Next week, I’m going waiver-wire WR heavy, with pickups such as Kenny Britt and Pierre Garcon twice.

I’m now 2-1 in both leagues.

- One non-Fantasy Football update:  so the Monday Night revenge-fest game was the highest-rated cable show of all time, eh?  I can certainly tell you of one household that did not tune in to that game for more than five seconds.

- So Ryan Howard (the other one) got sued by a little girl over a home run ball, eh?  Let me summarize my reactions to this story with one motion.

***facepalm***

To all you wannabe lawyers that insist that the girl has all the right in the world to sue because the Phillies engaged in a contractual agreement with a minor, please stop.  This isn’t about an illegal contract, or extortion (!?!), or the rich guy trying to exploit the not-so-rich family, or any of that crap.  This is about a baseball player who reached 200 HRs faster than anybody else in MLB history wanting back a sentimental object to commemorate an achievement.  This is about a family that, I have to believe, thinks they can sell the ball in the future for an enormous profit.

Stuff like this happens in baseball all the time.  A player loses his grip on his bat, launching it into the seats.  A team staffer asks the lucky (or sometimes unlucky) guy who caught the bat to trade it for a non-game used bat.  He usually obliges, and life goes on.  So excuse me if I believe that this is nothing but a money grab.

Now don’t get me wrong.  If the girl caught Ryan Howard’s 763rd home run, and traded it in for a plain old autographed ball, then I wouldn’t have a huge problem with a family trying to get the ball back.  I know I would if my 12yo gave the ball back to the team.  Also, the story leaves out some pretty critical information.  Where were the parents when the girl was approached by staffers asking for the ball back?  Even if she did agree to go to the Phillies’ clubhouse to exchange baseballs, didn’t the staffers have to bring the girl to her parents first before doing so?  And if they didn’t, wouldn’t the parents have screamed bloody murder at the apparent kidnapping of their child?

Finally, as many people have already posed, how would the family know that Howard actually surrendered the real HR ball?  Sure, it’s probably fraud if he doesn’t, but how would we know the real HR ball isn’t locked in a safe in Howard’s house right now?

- Time for my Office thoughts:

1) “The Meeting” might have been the most topsy-turvy episode of The Office I’ve ever seen.  Let me explain what I mean by topsy-turvy:  the one character that really pissed me off in this episode was…Jim!

What the heck did he mean when he said that Michael screwed him over?  If he didn’t earn all those negative remarks in his performance evaluations in the first place, Michael wouldn’t have been able to screw him over.

Well, maybe he would have found a way, but still.

Michael did what he had to do—explain to David Wallace that Jim wasn’t fit to be a manager—and I wasn’t happy at all when he caved in and helped Jim become a co-manager.  Yes, I understand that, if Michael didn’t do so, Jim might have taken his other job offer.  But if he was planning on doing so, then why was he so upset that Michael “screwed” him over?

I entertained the thought that the performance evaluation was so slanted against Jim because the author of it, one Toby Flenderson, may have written it around the time he was expressing feelings for Pam.  Even if that was the case, what part of that eval is NOT true?  Constant office distractions?  Check.  Spends way too much time at reception?  Duh.  Antagonizes other salesmen.  Yeah.  Not at all what he thinks he is?  Debatable.  3.5 out of 4?  Bad.  Jim’s act actually made me feel bad for Michael, especially when it was obvious that Michael felt bad about costing Jim a promotion within the company.  I didn’t feel as bad when Michael gave in, however.

I loved just about everything else about this episode:  Toby and Dwight’s adventures in attempting to prove that Darryl was scamming worker’s comp, Pam frustratingly trying to get a head count for the wedding (especially Kelly and Ryan’s responses!), and I loved Andy and Michael’s cheese-cart idea (fine grated Parmesan cheese, eh?).  But Jim…sigh.

2) “The Promotion” proved what I said about “The Meeting.”  Jim is NOT management material.  At least, he’s not fit at all to run THAT office!

I loved this episode.  I loved Dwight having to run from Michael’s office to Jim’s and back.  I loved watching Pam practically begging for money instead of gifts (LOL @ Kevin).  I loved how Michael antagonized Jim throughout the entire episode, and how Jim realized that, oh no, Michael might be his only friend.

(The episode should have ended with Michael giving Jim an awkward hug.  That would have been hilarious.  And Jim, I’m pretty sure Pam is still upset with you.)

Dwight, though, stole the episode with his attempts to rally the office against Jim, only to seemingly fail despite that awesome speech near the end.  I wonder if Dwight realizes that, by turning the office on Jim, he might also be turning the office against Michael.  And Pam falling prey to Ryan’s scam was icing on the cake.  Now THAT’s The Office I remember from years past.

What were Jim and Michael supposed to do?  Equal raises?  The entire office would have vetoed that.  Merit-based?  We saw how THAT worked out.  I just hope the writers touch upon how the raises were distributed in a later episode.

Until next time.

Tags: baseball, fantasy football, home run, jim, lawsuit, michael scott, pam, ryan howard, the meeting, The Office, wedding by Peter
1 Comment »