You may recall a piece by Gerry Fraley that was referenced in this blog and in others. He was basically noticing (inventing?) a difference between the reactions of Hanley Ramirez and Jose Reyes at the idea of dropping to third in the order. Ramirez was painted as the ambitious one, while Reyes, of course, was portrayed as the "passive-aggressive" immature one.
You remember how the piece started:
A difference now can be found between Hanley Ramirez and Jose Reyes, a pair of gifted 25-year-old shortstops. Both were offered the same proposition this spring: move from leadoff to third in the batting order. Their responses were telling.Well, now that we have some late breaking developments regarding Hanley, Fraley can now write another article with the same premise. lucky for him that I'm here to help him get started:
Ramirez quickly warmed to the idea of batting third for Florida. "That means I'm dangerous," a grinning Ramirez said. "All the good hitters bat third, fourth, fifth. I want to be around those guys."
Reyes took a passive-aggressive approach, saying without a hint of enthusiasm that he would hit where the club wanted him to hit. Reyes' reluctance spoke volumes.
A difference now can be found between Hanley Ramirez and Jose Reyes, a pair of gifted 25-year-old shortstops. Both were offered the same proposition in their careers: better grooming. Their responses were telling.Yeah, I'm not expecting this piece to actually be finished either.
Reyes, in response to Willie Randolph's no facial hair edict in 2005, said nothing and acted like a professional.
Ramirez took a passive-aggressive approach to Fredi Gonzalez's no long hair/jewelry rule this spring, saying without a hint of common sense that he wanted to be traded, and made it clear through a sharpie-scrawled message across his chest that he was "sick of this s**t." Ramirez's reluctance spoke volumes.
I'm going to ask you this: Imagine the reaction here in New York if Reyes had done that. I gather it would be a lot more harsh towards Jose than what they wrote in Florida towards Ramirez. Is a rule demanding ballplayers cut their hair and not wear jewelry on the field ridiculous? Yes it is. I'm not going to disagree with anyone who says that. And Hanley had every right to disagree with the rule.
Is it bizarre to institute a rule like this after you've already been managing the club for a good amount of time? Sure it is. At least Randolph started his managerial career with that ridiculous rule, and if ever there was a team that needed to be reminded that the inmates do not, in fact, run the asylum, it was the post-Art Howe New York Mets. And yes, I've taken Jose to task over some of the publicly immature things he's done. But which is more incredulous: slamming your glove down on the ground after an error, or writing obscenities across your chest with a sharpie and demanding a trade over a haircut?
This is a team leader doing this. Yeah, he's young. But that doesn't earn anybody any passes in New York.
Seriously, if I saw a guy with writing on his chest with a sharpie walking towards me, I'd cross the street.
But Hanley Ramirez does it, and he's a victim of Fredi Gonzalez's tyrannical ways.
Meanwhile, if Jose Reyes were to do it, Wallace Matthews would write about how Jose should be in jail for the rest of his life (while juxtaposing him to Captain Jeter, of course.)
(And for reference: If Manny Ramirez were to do it, the SportsCenter set and the entire ESPN facility would collapse onto itself, and John Kruk would be forced to eat Steve Phillips' leg under the rubble to survive ... that's how big a story that would be.)
But Hanley? No no, poor Hanley. We shouldn't curtail Ramirez's
I want everyone to remember this the next time Jose Reyes gets glazed, marinated, and placed on a rotisserie with an apple in his mouth in the press over some minor lapse in judgement. It's called perspective, boys and girls. And even in this economy, it don't cost much. So be sure to pick some up.