A Question of Baseball Ethics, No. 2
Today's question of baseball ethics is:
Isn't it "part of the deal" when most ballplayers get married that they'll sleep around and be manwhores on road trips and such, so long as they don't:
A) Transmit an STD
B) Father a child out of wedlock or
C) Publicly flaunt said infidelities?
I've always assumed that most players' wives know their husbands are sleeping around, but enjoy the perks of being a player's wife far too much to raise much of a stink.
26 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
only
Otherwise, the answer is no.
Wait, really?
They wouldn't put things
i kinda of think cheating is immoral
It starts in Hs,
Hatteberg
Think the Yanks might take a flyer on Fratte? Looks like Giambi might be done for the year.
Then next year we can file a grievance...
by chandrathan on Jun 1, 2007 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I like your thinking
- Hatteberg is playing as well right now as you could reasonably hope for, 310/390/488. So you're selling high. He's also had success in the AL before, which alleviates the league switch concerns.
- Votto is ready. A great 2006 in AA, and he's coming off of a torrid May. Conine can continue to play the servicable backup and impart his gamer wisdom to the young 'un. Hopefully calling up Votto now doesn't make him arb eligible in 2010; if it does keep him down another week or so. No use wasting a few million on a lost season.
- Can't say I'm familiar with the Yanks' farm system outside of the stars like Hughes and Tabata, who are presumably untouchable. There are a couple of meddling hitting prospects named Duncan. Hopefully Krivsky can identify some live arms or promising bats that can help down the road. But there isn't much to lose here, in my mind. Hop to it, Wayne.
by ken on Jun 1, 2007 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not really
If you marry a pro, you're in it for the money, the cars, the nails, the big house, etc. That's just the real world to me. Let the "How do you know what's going through their minds" onslaught begin.
And the pending felony
by Officer Dibble on Jun 1, 2007 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I think
Back in the early days of baseball, many women did not work and did not have the higher education to find a liveable-wage job, so they were stuck with their philandering husbands. Plus, ballplayers didn't make much money in those days, so even if the wives did divorce their husbands, they weren't looking at a fat settlement. I think these are the conditions that gave the whole "deal" it's start.
But these days, while it still exists, I think this kind of deal is much less prevalent. To be sure, there are some gold-digging types out there who are in it for the money and lifestyle and don't care as long as the conditions you mention are met. But my sense is that those are a clear minority (plus, if we're talking about an established star with a high salary, a divorce settlement can set up the wife in comfort for life anyway).
Ultimately, while this "understanding" has existed, and may still to some degree today, I don't think it was ever formalized or legitimized enough to be considered part of "baseball ethics." More like something you sweep under the rug and hope that a nudge and a wink will make the questions go away.
to me it
On the flip side, any lady who got her man that way shouldn't expect anything less from him when he is on the road.
Any woman who sells
Any man, ballplayer or milkman, sleeping around on his wife, well, let's just say I don't have much tolerance for that.
by Thundering Turtle on Jun 1, 2007 10:44 PM EDT reply actions
Ethics
I really think it's different for baseball. A lot of baseball players look like regular people, which is not at all true for NBA players or NFL players.
When I covered
by Thundering Turtle on Jun 2, 2007 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions
A buisness professor at Ohio Northern University
Nice work if you can get it
Bad Idea Jeans
by Brendanukkah on Jun 2, 2007 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions

by 



















