PDA

View Full Version : Selig's office cracks down on Puckett Tribute


SouthSide_HitMen
04-14-2006, 12:51 AM
I guess this was much easier than confronting the steroid issue over the past 20 seasons. :rolleyes:

From CBSsportsline.com

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/players/playerpage/21592

Chicago Cubs' Jerry Hairson Jr. and Jacque Jones were sent letters from MLB and instructed to take off tributes to the late Kirby Puckett. Hairston still wore "34" in white ink on his blue batting practice hat and Jones honored the late Hall of Famer with small initials "KP" on his hat. Hairston's practice tribute is fine, but not wearing the initials on his game uniform like Jones.
(Updated 04/14/2006).

PKalltheway
04-14-2006, 01:03 AM
Geez doesn't Selig have anything else better to do? Like address the steroid issue? The Pete Rose issue that keeps reappearing every couple of years or so? What a dope.:rolleyes:

MUsoxfan
04-14-2006, 01:30 AM
I hate when this happens. MLB isn't the only group of jags that tries to prevent players from paying respects to it's Hall of Famers that have passed away. The NFL pulled this BS a couple years ago when they told Peyton Manning he couldn't wear black kleets in tribute to Unitas when he passed away. It's not like these guys are paying tributes to personal friends, they're paying tributes to Hall of Famers that were ambassadors to their sports.

milrtyme28
04-14-2006, 02:26 AM
I think this is BS - I understand the whole continuity thing, like the red cross logos last year for the hurricane victims - everone wore them so it was kosher.

Kirby was a great person and player and I think that a small tribute to his accomplishments that is likely to go unnoticed by the fans anyway is not something to stir up this sort of reaction from the comissioners office.

Disciplinary action is definately not warranted. ????

IlliniSox4Life
04-14-2006, 02:42 AM
I completely agree with you as far as there is nothing wrong with paying tribute to Puckett,, but the opinion of the commisioners of sports that don't allow this is "where do we draw the line?". It has to be either all or nothing. You'd start to see more people paying tributes to friends/family that passed away, and then people paying tribute to holidays/awareness months, and eventually people would use it to protest political agendas, and basically the sky is the limit as to how far the "well if this is ok, then why can't I wear this?" argument.

SOXintheBURGH
04-14-2006, 03:55 AM
I completely agree with you as far as there is nothing wrong with paying tribute to Puckett,, but the opinion of the commisioners of sports that don't allow this is "where do we draw the line?". It has to be either all or nothing. You'd start to see more people paying tributes to friends/family that passed away, and then people paying tribute to holidays/awareness months, and eventually people would use it to protest political agendas, and basically the sky is the limit as to how far the "well if this is ok, then why can't I wear this?" argument.

Precisely.

:tool:
"Execute Order 66."

Ol' No. 2
04-14-2006, 08:59 AM
I completely agree with you as far as there is nothing wrong with paying tribute to Puckett,, but the opinion of the commisioners of sports that don't allow this is "where do we draw the line?". It has to be either all or nothing. You'd start to see more people paying tributes to friends/family that passed away, and then people paying tribute to holidays/awareness months, and eventually people would use it to protest political agendas, and basically the sky is the limit as to how far the "well if this is ok, then why can't I wear this?" argument.Ahh, the old "slippery slope" argument. Rubbish.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-14-2006, 09:29 AM
:tool
"For my next trick, I'm going to standardize the length of everyone's socks!"

SouthSide_HitMen
04-14-2006, 10:26 AM
Ahh, the old "slippery slope" argument. Rubbish.

Exactly. If the Commissioner had say, common sense, he would be able to determine if something "crossed the line". In fact, this small personal tribute did cross the line as MLB would not have disciplined the players if they felt it "didn't" cross the line. Of course putting Spiderman Two Logos to honor the opening of a movie nationwide is a perfectly legitimate alteration of standard baseball equipment and something Bud Selig can properly assess (emphasis on the first three letters).

Dan Mega
04-14-2006, 10:35 AM
Remember when the NFL told Jake Plummer he couldn't wear anything in tribute to his former teammate and friend Pat Tillman?

Ridiculous. I think these leagues could make exception for extenuating circumstances. Especially if the deceased was an icon, a former teammate, or a friend.

LongLiveFisk
04-14-2006, 11:18 AM
This seems a little harsh....his death was quite recent. It's not like he died 2 years ago and they're still wearing the tributes.

And it's not like they're wearing #34 jerseys that say "Puckett" on the back. So what's the real harm here?

Jerko
04-14-2006, 11:31 AM
In ESPN's "uni watch", the guy thinks that Hairston is wearing #34 for Carrie Woods. :rolleyes:

DumpJerry
04-14-2006, 11:44 AM
Glad to see the Sheriff is diligent! This is the same office which did not do anything to the Angel players who played in the ALCS last year with helmets that looked like they had been run over by a fleet of dumptrucks. All the Sox' helmets and the helmets on the other teams in the coronation, I mean playoffs, last year were presentable...you could at least read the team logos. The 4 or 5 guys on the Angels who could not take some Formula 409 to their helmets had helmets which could not be read.

Selig: The man for the challenges.

Chicken Dinner
04-14-2006, 12:22 PM
Didn't David Wells get busted for wear a Babe Ruth original hat for a while??

Erik The Red
04-14-2006, 03:09 PM
Precisely.

:tool
"Execute Order 66."
:rolling: bwahahahahahaha

MUsoxfan
04-14-2006, 03:13 PM
Mediatroll Murph claimed today that Jacques Jones should be SUSPENDED for his actions. :rolleyes:

Ol' No. 2
04-14-2006, 03:15 PM
Mediatroll Murph claimed today that Jacques Jones should be SUSPENDED for his actions. :rolleyes:What would they do without his .111 BA?

MUsoxfan
04-14-2006, 03:16 PM
What would they do without his .111 BA?

That's probably why he wants him suspended. Murph was heartbroken that Jones has a bad hammy. Less than 2 weeks and he wants the guy suspended for nothing

SoLongFrank
04-14-2006, 03:19 PM
:rolling: bwahahahahahaha :D::D::D:

SouthSide_HitMen
04-14-2006, 04:39 PM
Mediatroll Murph claimed today that Jacques Jones should be SUSPENDED for his actions. :rolleyes:

If job performance had any bearing on an individual's employment status, Murphy would have been at IDES two days after his initial gig.