Twins/Tigers Players Vote to Postpone Tonight's Game

Not quite the same thing, but my company did tell people to take Juneteenth off even though it was not a regular day off for us.  They wanted people to take the day off and volunteer or reflect at what was happening and the on-going issues that had created the situation or simply use as a mental health day to deal with all the stress that was happening at the time.

 

I am sure some of it was a calculated PR move, but there have been what I take are sincere efforts to spot light things that go under the radar for a lot of us and highlight things that people of color have to thing about that would not even occur to me.  They had a number of employees candidly speak on what it is like to be the only person of color on a team or on a project or even in some offices, as well as warnings they have to give their kids if they ever get pulled over or how they can spot a clerk watching them when they are in a nice store etc.

 

Obviously, this is not going to solve all of the problems, but it is generating some additional discussion, and maybe some of the athlete's statements will make this seem more like a real issue to people who do not experience it.

 

I do realize I am lucky in that I could just take a day off, not everyone is in a situation where they can do that or has a job where that is feasible.

I applaud your employer in doing that. And from the tone of your response, I gather that you saw it an overall beneficial thing to do. The cynic can say, “It was a PR move by the company,” but let’s count a few ways that it was actually good business:

• A company’s biggest resource is often its staff. It seems that you and (and I’m guessing others) did some valuable reflecting.
• By virtually any account, stress level has been up in virtually all walks of life, and addressing mental health is a significant cost for many employers. They took a step to address mental health by giving the gift of a day off that probably didn’t cost them very much.
• They sent a message to a segment of their employees that they recognize that the challenges they face are real, further validating their appreciation for this group. 

The net of all these is that it likely contributed to a sense of well-being for the employees and to this being a desirable place to work. I draw some of these observations from my own situation. For several years, we’ve had MLK Day as a paid holiday. This year, they made it a required work day, but gave us an additional floating holiday in exchange (a net gain, since it gave us flexibility in when we take the day off). But instead of business as usual on MLK Day, we were closed for business and we spent the day in educational activities around systemic racism, including ways that systemic racism has been an issue in the industry we are a part of.

And it’s made a difference. Since then, I’ve heard people from senior management to entry level ask about the ongoing decisions we make and whether they are ethical. I’ve heard differences in our thinking about hiring practices. I’ve seen us make better decisions about how we engage with markets that have typically been under-served.

So now, the cynic says, “Well, they only did it to benefit themselves. They didn’t really care — they just wanted to make more money.” 

I think that’s a lame response as well. In both cases, it suggests that individual decisions are singularly motivated, when they are nearly always multifaceted.

In this case, I think not playing was a good move on a lot of fronts. PR? Sure. But I think it’s also a good move in adding to the conversation, which is what the majority of players who’ve spoken have seemed to say is their primary goal in not playing.

I’ve heard a lot of articulate statements from those involved. The one that stood out the most was Joe Girardi, who said something to the effect of, “I hope that there are kids who are asking their parents, ‘Why didn’t the Phillies play tonight?’ And I hope that there are parents taking those questions seriously and talking with their children about what’s happening in our world.” Players are recognizing that they are in position to encourage those conversations in ways that Indiana Twin and his friends on Twins Daily are not able to do. In my mind, that’s advancing the overall conversation, and it’s a responsible thing for them to do.

Did it cost the players anything to reschedule a game? Who cares? Why do so many things need to be seen as a zero-sum game? Why does it only count as a “statement” if someone has made a “sacrifice”? Why was it only worth doing if dramatic changes happen as a result? And why do we as humans sometimes see it as our job to make sure that if someone hasn’t “sacrificed” enough in some other way (at least as judged by me), they at least sacrifice by receiving our scorn for something that they have done with good intentions?

It doesn't appear that the Pirates and Cardinals players care.  They were the only two teams that didn't fall in line.  Oh wait, they had a double-header.  Rescheduling that would be too inconvenient for a social justice statement.  The whole charade is a farce.

I have a suggestion for the next player/team boycott over police actions and this can apply to all leagues.  I work for a company that has a significant sales force. Often the corporate folks will disparage the sales people out in the field - why can't they sell while the sales people would say why can't the corporate folks support us better.   We have a ride with the rep option so that both sides can get a better understanding what the other does.    My suggestion would be for the next boycott shut down all all games for a day and the players, managers, owners take a shift with a police officer in their area.   This way each side will get a better understanding of what the other goes through.   It is called building bridges as opposed to lobbing grenades.   We have seen enough tweets and speeches on this topic to know it is an issue how about some action.

These players are paid to play ball.  They aren't paid to force their opinions down our throats.  I don't care what the subject is - do it on YOUR time - not during MY game.  Just like Hollywood actors, I don't care what an athlete's opinion is - it won't sway me one way or another - so shut up about your pet project du jour.  I don't care.  Just like this opinion - we all have one and they all stink.  Just because you are Lebron James and are a gazillionaire doesn't make your opinion more valuable than mine. 

This elitism has led to the downfall of Hollywood as the actors/directors care more about making "meaningful works of art" and telling the unwashed masses what to think than entertaining their audiences and then charging us $15 for a ticket to see their crap.  I don't care about how you are planting trees in South America or your newest electric car or what your purple/pink/blue/gold ribbon signifies while you talking on the red carpet.  If professional athletes aren't careful, they will kill the sport in the same way.  If you care more about making a statement than doing your job, you are going to piss off a major portion of your fanbase. 

I already have turned off ESPN radio because other than Dan LeBetard - who understands his show is meant as entertainment and a vehicle for MAKING MONEY - the rest of cast of fools think I need to hear from one athlete after another babbling about their opinions.  No - I listened to ESPN radio FOR FREAKING SPORTS!!!  These people need to understand who are paying their millions.

He has tens of millions of dollars in endorsements, and is clearly set up better than had he stayed in the league as a backup qb. He’s not living under a bridge..

He never was  or would be living under a bridge.   Do you really think he was doing it selfishly?     He had the president of the USA calling him a thug along with half of social media calling him every other name and he continued.   He had no idea of a lawsuit at the time and knew it could hurt his chance of resigning yet he continued.    He may have come out of it financially fine but at the time it took the courage and knowledge of consequences that you were calling for as a prerequisite to be taken seriously.   Why do I have the feeling if someone brought up MLK you would say he did it for the PAC money.     I get your point about virtue signalling.   To me those that only started holding their hats over their hearts during the Anthem after Koepernick were virtue signalling that they were true patriots.    Now it takes no courage to kneel during the Anthem because everyone is doing it.  Its virtue signalling if you are only doing it because everyone else is doing it.   It actually takes courage at times not to kneel and to show respect for   the military or the country.  That's not right either.   Protesting against injustice should not automatically come with sacrifice.    That right was gained by those before us sacrificing for that right.   If anything the cost and sacrifice should be placed upon those that have benefited from or perpetuated the injustice.   In essence that is what is happening now.    On an individual basis there is still the responsibility for ones actions and there should be consequences for violence and destruction brought upon those committing it..   On a collective basis though if a significant portion of the population feels marginalized and then ignored for so long its going to boil over eventually and you will get what you get.   

I have not read all the comments on this, a few too many to get caught up.  Here is my stance.  I am in support of the players choosing to do this, it is their right not to play.  I am happy the Twins ownership is in support of them.  However, I also agree that being the season it is, it appears to a hollow protest because the owners are out really nothing because no fans refunds, and the game will be made up so neither side sacrificed anything. They do not need to sacrifice anything to help bring more attention to issues though.  Now, the sacrifice of something is what shows how strong they feel about a particular issue.  I am not saying the players or the owners do not feel strong about this issue, but without the threat of loss you will never know how strong they truly feel. 

Personally, I am glad sports are starting to use their platforms to push the issues they want.  I get very upset when people respond with "just shut up and play."  These are human beings that get paid well to entertain us, and we put up large amounts of money to do that, but they should still get to have a voice and be heard.  If you do not like what they have to say, then do not support their sport, but to try to shut them down and say just play the game is demeaning to the person.  

I love sports, and baseball in particular.  However, it is just a game and my personal entertainment.  I can be entertained through other means.  If the players and owners want to cancel their seasons in full in protest to help push change they feel is needed, then I support.  I am not entitled to have them entertain me.  Last night instead of watching baseball I watched other tv, played games, read a book.  I will survive if sports do not happen.

I've read/skimmed through six pages of comments and WHOOOOO! Here are my $0.02:

1. I think we're confusing "consequences" with "punishment"

2. Just because someone's actions aren't receiving the consequences you want doesn't mean their actions aren't legitimate

I have a suggestion for the next player/team boycott over police actions and this can apply to all leagues.  I work for a company that has a significant sales force. Often the corporate folks will disparage the sales people out in the field - why can't they sell while the sales people would say why can't the corporate folks support us better.   We have a ride with the rep option so that both sides can get a better understanding what the other does.    My suggestion would be for the next boycott shut down all all games for a day and the players, managers, owners take a shift with a police officer in their area.   This way each side will get a better understanding of what the other goes through.   It is called building bridges as opposed to lobbing grenades.   We have seen enough tweets and speeches on this topic to know it is an issue how about some action.

I think this idea gets halfway to the finish line. You are asking the players to extend themselves into the lives of a police officer without asking the police officer to experience the discrimination the players are fighting to change.

There is not a conversation taking place currently. You have one side pleading for change and the other side saying no changes are needed. Until it is recognized on both sides there is need for change, no action will occur and no bridge can be built.

I believe one aspect of this is being missed. I’ve heard many players simply say that playing in light of what is happening would send a message that things are ok and they obviously are not.

The country is split in half politically and my unscientific analysis sees this comment section at about the same ratio.  Rocco says this was a unanimous decision by a showing of hands.  I question whether all locker rooms are this liberal or do some feel bullied or coerced into voting with the crowd.  Would a private vote have had the same result?

The country is split in half politically and my unscientific analysis sees this comment section at about the same ratio.  Rocco says this was a unanimous decision by a showing of hands.  I question whether all locker rooms are this liberal or do some feel bullied or coerced into voting with the crowd.  Would a private vote have had the same result?

I don't know, and don't particularly care, either.

I assume any collection of two or more people will have a spectrum of viewpoints on any given subject; achieving consensus takes real effort and at very least this has encouraged people to consider the 'why' involved. That would align well with my definition of moral progress. I'd be surprised if it aligns well, or at all, with others and won't be too disappointed to find out it didn't.

I question why someone would feel justified to describe the actions of those in the Twins locker room as "liberal."

How about "on the side of humanity?"

Perhaps the poster views those two things as synonymous.

Those who should initiate the first step towards a resolution....are not.

It surprises me that the mayors, city councils, the police, protester leaders, BLM, Civil Rights leaders, Governors, the local business owners, etc.....in other words - all the stake holders.....have not tried to initiate any talks. It's a national issue...how about the President?? Disappointing.

The least it would do is expose the violent participants on both sides. Simple requests for discussion....and a little "beer summit" as Obama called them.....would raise some unity and civility...for awhile. We could at least see who comes to the table.....and hear some specific solutions.

Taking a day off from baseball is a nice nod to the cause.....but nothing more. Not that it has to stop there.

By contrast --- We are currently in talks with the Taliban for God Sake!!!! Why not engage in "peace talks" with our own citizens??

What is wrong with us?

I question why someone would feel justified to describe the actions of those in the Twins locker room as "liberal."

How about "on the side of humanity?"

This comment is very frustrating to me, and the fact that it got several likes makes it especially disappointing. 

Conservatives have a different view of the world and how to improve things but that does not mean we are against humanity. 

I don't know exactly the best way to solve the problems facing our country but assuming that people who disagree with you are lesser people surely is not the right approach. 

Perhaps the poster views those two things as synonymous.