Dick Allen Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 10:19 AM) I think you're right and it's not true. It is absolutely true. 2005 Kid's days from about August on, some players were exempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:26 AM) It is absolutely true. 2005 Kid's days from about August on, some players were exempt. If you say so. However Google and WS.Com have nothing, as well WSI search goes back that far and also has nothing. I find it hard to believe it wasn't talked about anywhere but here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29andPoplar Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 It is absolutely true. 2005 Kid's days from about August on, some players were exempt. It is true, certain players are sometimes excused for various reasons. Two different times I went with a neighborhood group and heard the parents and kids expressing their disappointment that certain guys weren't signing. I seem to recall it was the starting pitcher and a bullpen guy or two. I'm not into autographs so I can't recall specifically, but I do know certain guys weren't signing those two times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigEdWalsh Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:42 AM) It is true, certain players are sometimes excused for various reasons. Two different times I went with a neighborhood group and heard the parents and kids expressing their disappointment that certain guys weren't signing. I seem to recall it was the starting pitcher and a bullpen guy or two. I'm not into autographs so I can't recall specifically, but I do know certain guys weren't signing those two times. Yeah. You can pick up a sheet on the day of the game which tells you who's signing and where. A few times I noticed players that were supposed to be there weren't, evidently excused for whatever reason. No big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I guess where I'm disagreeing is that "OZZIE SAID"... I'm not sure this was an OZZIE policy, but that's nitpicking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 QUOTE(BigEdWalsh @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:50 AM) Yeah. You can pick up a sheet on the day of the game which tells you who's signing and where. A few times I noticed players that were supposed to be there weren't, evidently excused for whatever reason. No big deal. So this was something more along the lines of a last minute scratch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:52 AM) I guess where I'm disagreeing is that "OZZIE SAID"... I'm not sure this was an OZZIE policy, but that's nitpicking. Or that the entire starting squad was excused... I would expect holy hell to break out at the park if that were to have happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29andPoplar Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I guess where I'm disagreeing is that "OZZIE SAID"... I'm not sure this was an OZZIE policy, but that's nitpicking. Some teams, players actually, have clauses in their contracts which allow them to skip "x" number of these types of obligations. There may also be the common sense factor, i.e. if a guy is getting treatment before the game or whatever, he may be excused. There could be all sorts of reasons, but I do know not all the guys are there signing for every Kid's Day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigEdWalsh Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:53 AM) So this was something more along the lines of a last minute scratch? Apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:56 AM) Some teams, players actually, have clauses in their contracts which allow them to skip "x" number of these types of obligations. There may also be the common sense factor, i.e. if a guy is getting treatment before the game or whatever, he may be excused. There could be all sorts of reasons, but I do know not all the guys are there signing for every Kid's Day. If they have a clause they they don't have to sign then they shouldn't be on the list to sign anyway. There are only 6 signing stations on kids day. I don't think the entire squad has ever been out there at once. And IIRC, 2 of them are usually for the manager and bp or bench coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 QUOTE(BigEdWalsh @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:58 AM) Apparently. Yuk, yuk, yuk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29andPoplar Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 If they have a clause they they don't have to sign then they shouldn't be on the list to sign anyway. There are only 6 signing stations on kids day. I don't think the entire squad has ever been out there at once. And IIRC, 2 of them are usually for the manager and bp or bench coach. Who knows. I'm not all that interested in all the peripheral stuff anyways like who autographs, golf outings, and so on. I wanted to comment because I had to sit next to a few disappointed kids/parents after certain guys weren't available, 2 times. Regardless I doubt the White Sox include such clauses because Reinsdorf in particular insists on as much fan friendliness as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 10:13 AM) Who knows. I'm not all that interested in all the peripheral stuff anyways like who autographs, golf outings, and so on. I wanted to comment because I had to sit next to a few disappointed kids/parents after certain guys weren't available, 2 times. Regardless I doubt the White Sox include such clauses because Reinsdorf in particular insists on as much fan friendliness as possible. Good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 11:07 AM) If they have a clause they they don't have to sign then they shouldn't be on the list to sign anyway. There are only 6 signing stations on kids day. I don't think the entire squad has ever been out there at once. And IIRC, 2 of them are usually for the manager and bp or bench coach. Maybe that was the solution, because a couple of years ago, the entire team or close to it was out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linnwood Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Unless the reporter has a quote he wants to include of A.J. b****ing, I don't give it too much credence. It just fits too neatly in to the narrative the national sports media has about A.J. There seems little reason to throw that line in the article, save to stoke the ashes. I bet A.J. hates puppies too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 QUOTE(Linnwood @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 11:45 AM) Unless the reporter has a quote he wants to include of A.J. b****ing, I don't give it too much credence. It just fits too neatly in to the narrative the national sports media has about A.J. There seems little reason to throw that line in the article, save to stoke the ashes. I bet A.J. hates puppies too. I don't pretend to know AJ as well as some of the other posters, but my experience with people in general is that where there's smoke, there's usually fire. While I'm sure that the media piles on AJ when they shouldn't (just like they pile on Barry), I'm not naive enough to think that AJ isn't responsible for much of it. AJ had a reputation for being a disruptive punk long before he signed with the Sox. And if the story is true, his baggage was enough that he literally had to beg Kenny to give him a shot. His tifts with Ozzie and Mark earlier this year seemed typical of the rumors that we heard about him years ago. I like AJ's fire, competitiveness, and Baseball IQ. But outside of that, I don't hold him in the same regard as some of his teammates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 This was an annoying article, as there's no reason to be stirring crap about Ozzie right now. There's a lot of other teams that are actually in the race that should be focused on. However, I was good friends with one of AJ's best friends (was in his wedding), and he basically said that AJ isn't exactly the nicest guy in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.