100 percent. Dimaggio cared about fame and fortune more than Ted ever did (though Ted always made sure to get paid). And Ted's generosity was legend.jacklamabe65 said:
Derek Jeter Launches "Players' Tribune"
- Thread starter Shawn O'Leary
- Start date
JohntheBaptist said:
If this is his attempt at branding and positioning, I think Jeter is getting bad advice from folks who *will* make money on this venture. Schilling at least had a serious interest in the business venture that led him down the financial rabbit-hole.
I'm no JeterPhile but Schilling made the classic mistake of going all in with his business rather than diversifying his investments, and I can't imagine that many other guys who have made a boat load of cash as professional athletes, much less Jeter, will go down that particular rabbit hole.joe dokes said:
You gotta diversify yo bonds!
I do find it interesting that Jeter started a website that he would have avoided like the plague his entire playing career the minute he retires. "I never said anything of substance as a player, but here's a website where players can say what they want."
I do find it interesting that Jeter started a website that he would have avoided like the plague his entire playing career the minute he retires. "I never said anything of substance as a player, but here's a website where players can say what they want."
Chad's take here.
The thing that most resonates with me is the hypocrisy of the idea that this will bring the players "closer to the fans."
Bullshit.
It will create a carefully cultivated wall with the fans, only allowing them that insight and version of the truth the imagemakers want to put out there.
The thing that most resonates with me is the hypocrisy of the idea that this will bring the players "closer to the fans."
Bullshit.
It will create a carefully cultivated wall with the fans, only allowing them that insight and version of the truth the imagemakers want to put out there.
joe dokes said:
Where's the money going to come from? Advertisers are only going to flock if the site generates significant traffic, and the bar for that is very high (think tens of millions of monthly uniques per month). Surely there will be other monetization opportunities (merchandise, limited edition whatevers, conferences, etc.) but I'd also assume that the pie is being shared with other athletes, their "people," and whoever provided the capital for the business.
I also question whether fans care at all about the sanitized, polished, family friendly light that every athlete wants to be seen in. And I question whether the content will be remotely interesting if it's first-person driven. If it's led by great journalists or broadcast producers, that's more money to be spent.
The media business is extremely difficult. Shoulda gone Buzzfeed.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
TheoShmeo said:
Entrepreneurship is the opposite of diversification. It is focusing your biggest asset (time), as well as yours and others' assets (money) into a single venture, because that's the only way it's going to go from "nothing" to "something".
There are values to diversification if you have a fortune, or something resembling it. What Schilling was trying to do was entrepreneurship. Schilling's problem was not lack of diversification, it was being completely unprepared for management in a business context.
I'll agree with you as far as this goes: Schilling probably never set some predetermined amount of money he'd put in that, if he lost it, he wouldn't double down and put more in. He probably became more like a compulsive gambler in that regard. That's where irrevocable grantor trusts and the like are very useful, and more athletes should protect themselves in that fashion.
Interesting piece by Blake Griffin about playing for Donald Sterling:http://www.theplayerstribune.com/blake-griffin-the-boss/
Interesting but completely safe. Really going on a limb saying your old, well-established racist owner sucked and your new guy is better. When they get an athlete to actually take a stance, which Wilson and Griffin haven't done in the slightest, I'll be intrigued. Until then, meh.
Yawn. I'm glad Derek made a site where players can pat themselves on the back and excuse away any controversial issue.
NortheasternPJ said:
Next up: Jameis Winston will submit an article telling us about the stalker who has made his life hell for the last two years.
I thought the white party story was a good one. "Senior Editor" was good for a chuckle.
Also, this:
Uh... he bought the team?
Also, this:
Uh... he bought the team?
Tiger has an article up today. Ripping Dan Jenkins parody article on him in Golf Digest.
http://www.theplayerstribune.com/tiger-woods-straight-up-not-true-not-funny/
And Sally Jenkins is letting Tiger have it on twitter.
http://www.theplayerstribune.com/tiger-woods-straight-up-not-true-not-funny/
And Sally Jenkins is letting Tiger have it on twitter.
Wow. So the Player's Tribune is going to be a place to bitch and moan about rich athlete problems? People are going to be lining up to read that! Poor fella.
Yeah, that's more than a little tone deaf on Tiger's part.
On the positive side, no one can accuse him not taking a stance here. Even if the stance is "Dan Jenkins is a big meanie."
On the positive side, no one can accuse him not taking a stance here. Even if the stance is "Dan Jenkins is a big meanie."
I mean, if there was some kind of story there--maybe slapping back with an embarrassing Jenkins anecdote, or doing a similar parody of his own, whatever--use this new forum Derek has created for you. It'd be lame but there'd be something to actually read. It was just him stating he was pissed in different, PR-inflected ways about an article that doesn't sound even the least bit upsetting, and from which he doesn't quote or link.
That's the kind of thing that would cause you to write off the whole site after reading it.
That's the kind of thing that would cause you to write off the whole site after reading it.
Here's the "fake" interview http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2014-12/dan-jenkins-fake-interview-with-tiger
It's really not funny, and overwhelmingly self-indulgent. I couldn't make it passed the start of the second page. It sounds like the ramblings of an old man, which it is I guess. But whatever, we all have different senses of humor. The photos of a Tiger-ish looking guy taking a selfie and shining his car are pretty stupid.
It's really not funny, and overwhelmingly self-indulgent. I couldn't make it passed the start of the second page. It sounds like the ramblings of an old man, which it is I guess. But whatever, we all have different senses of humor. The photos of a Tiger-ish looking guy taking a selfie and shining his car are pretty stupid.
Infield Infidel said:
Right, but that's not really the point. First of all, Tiger's rebuttal begins:
He mis-represents (by implying that the article didn't make it clear that it was a joke piece) the very thing he is attacking as being mis-representative.
[armchair psychology alert]: This is interesting (to me, at least):
In general, "responding" is a suicide mission for the responder, likely drawing more attention to the original piece than it would have gotten otherwise. Dan Jenkins has been writing about golf (and other sports, see "Semi-Tough") for roughly 2500 years. Nothing Tiger Woods writes is going to have any impact on those who read the piece. And for those, like me, who didn't see it at first but did now, the response will be no more than 50-50.
But the irony is that Jeter himself *never* responded to *anything* *ever* written about him. Certainly most of it was good, but there was plenty of tabloid bullshit. His complete silence helped starve many potential fires of oxygen. Yet here he is handing other pro athletes a rope for which the only real use will be to hang themselves. There was always the argument out there that Jeter passive-aggressively froze out the insecure ARod to the point that it drove ARod to much of his stupidity, and thus kept the inferior baseball player (Jeter) #1 in everyone's minds. This seems like more of that. "These guys are idiots, and I'm gonna let the world know it."
The original article did seem more mean-spirited than funny. But so is having sex with every woman in sight who isn't your wife.
Further irony, considering the piece's content, would be if Tiger's "agency" counseled him against writing to the magazine publishers, but he told them they'd be fired if they didn't.
In general, "responding" is a suicide mission for the responder, likely drawing more attention to the original piece than it would have gotten otherwise. Dan Jenkins has been writing about golf (and other sports, see "Semi-Tough") for roughly 2500 years. Nothing Tiger Woods writes is going to have any impact on those who read the piece. And for those, like me, who didn't see it at first but did now, the response will be no more than 50-50.
But the irony is that Jeter himself *never* responded to *anything* *ever* written about him. Certainly most of it was good, but there was plenty of tabloid bullshit. His complete silence helped starve many potential fires of oxygen. Yet here he is handing other pro athletes a rope for which the only real use will be to hang themselves. There was always the argument out there that Jeter passive-aggressively froze out the insecure ARod to the point that it drove ARod to much of his stupidity, and thus kept the inferior baseball player (Jeter) #1 in everyone's minds. This seems like more of that. "These guys are idiots, and I'm gonna let the world know it."
The original article did seem more mean-spirited than funny. But so is having sex with every woman in sight who isn't your wife.
Further irony, considering the piece's content, would be if Tiger's "agency" counseled him against writing to the magazine publishers, but he told them they'd be fired if they didn't.
Jenkins has a history with Tiger dating back to Tiger never giving Jenkins an interview when he first turned pro so there's more to this beef than a shitty satire article.drleather2001 said:
drleather2001 said:
Woods commented on the humor, and he says in that quote that it " Jenkins faked an interview, which fails as parody", implying that the fake interview was an attempt at parody. It would have helped further if the first "me," in that quote had quotation marks (which just shows that whoever edits Jeter's site could do better, but the same could be said about Golf Digest), but it's made clear that he understands that the interview is an attempt at humor that goes off the rails because of Jenkins' grudge toward him.
I read most of the articles on the site yesterday due to this thread. What a pile of crap that site is. The Danica article is terrible, the Jeter one is terrible, the Woods one is terrible etc.
what's the over/under on this site shutting down? 12 months? Forever since Jeter can fund it at low cost and make him and his mistreated and misunderstood athletes feel better?
What a pile of shit.
what's the over/under on this site shutting down? 12 months? Forever since Jeter can fund it at low cost and make him and his mistreated and misunderstood athletes feel better?
What a pile of shit.
Now that I've read both the article and Tiger's response, I have to say that Dan Jenkins achieved the impossible: I feel some sympathy for Tiger.
What I took from Jenkins' article is that he's an entitled asshole with an axe to grind who decided that it's finally safe to mock Tiger, so he's using his column to punish Tiger for the sin of not demonstrating the proper respect for Dan when he came on tour. Not a real profile in courage there.
With that said, it's still a spectacularly bad idea for Tiger to have done this and I'm astounded that his reps didn't stop him. As joe dokes pointed out, Tiger's comments probably increased readership 10-fold for a nothing article that would have died on the vine if Tiger does nothing.
I do like the fact that by trying to top each other in a pissing contest, Woods and Jenkins are really just confirming that neither one of them is relevant.
What I took from Jenkins' article is that he's an entitled asshole with an axe to grind who decided that it's finally safe to mock Tiger, so he's using his column to punish Tiger for the sin of not demonstrating the proper respect for Dan when he came on tour. Not a real profile in courage there.
With that said, it's still a spectacularly bad idea for Tiger to have done this and I'm astounded that his reps didn't stop him. As joe dokes pointed out, Tiger's comments probably increased readership 10-fold for a nothing article that would have died on the vine if Tiger does nothing.
I do like the fact that by trying to top each other in a pissing contest, Woods and Jenkins are really just confirming that neither one of them is relevant.
Yeah, great point. If I had a copy of Golf Digest in front of me (which has never happened in my life), I'd get the gist of that article in 30 seconds, roll my eyes and skip it. It was spectacularly dumb and lame--Rick Reilly-esque for sure.
But because of Tiger's response I actually read that piece of shit. Disagree it created sympathy for him though--I still think it was something close to implicity silly, but in any event, that was the exact way you don't handle something like this.
The Player's Tribune is fascinating to me largely because of what PJ mentions above--this was an idea so stupid it would never have gotten off the ground without Jeter. It could go on forever, I'd assume, if he really wanted it to. The early returns and content are clearly garbage. When/ how does it go down in (relatively tiny) flames?
But because of Tiger's response I actually read that piece of shit. Disagree it created sympathy for him though--I still think it was something close to implicity silly, but in any event, that was the exact way you don't handle something like this.
The Player's Tribune is fascinating to me largely because of what PJ mentions above--this was an idea so stupid it would never have gotten off the ground without Jeter. It could go on forever, I'd assume, if he really wanted it to. The early returns and content are clearly garbage. When/ how does it go down in (relatively tiny) flames?
NortheasternPJ said:
Wait you got through entire articles? I got through most of the Blake Griffin one and I'm in the middle of Jason Collins one that went up today(which is actually pretty decent), but otherwise, yeah, it's mostly drivel.
I guess they are marketing this to be behind the curtain kinds of stuff for people who are naive to think they aren't mostly ghostwritten, but even gussying up the stories, they are pretty boring.
Infield Infidel said:
The most noteworthy athletes are probably the ones least likely to say anything of value/substance/interest. And no one who goes to a site like Jeter's is going to read the work of a Cj Nitkowski or Dirk Hayhurst (if the site would even give such relative athletic nobodies the space).
Hayhurst wouldn't get near the Players Tribune, with his willingness (gusto, even) to pull down the curtain.
This is sanitized, dullsville content for jock sniffers. It's why I roll my eyes whenever I see/hear a player interview. These guys live in a bubble and have nothing to say. They keep petty grudges against writers who have wronged them. Sometimes those writers have it coming, but just as much of the time it's a player being a dick or having a chip on his shoulder. Retired players are a little different in that they usually have some perspective and don't feel the need to guard the sanctity of the clubhouse as much, and very occasionally you get a Brandon McCarthy or Dirk Hayhurst, but this is a website that believes athletes should be held up on a pedestal and I'm too old for that shit.
This is sanitized, dullsville content for jock sniffers. It's why I roll my eyes whenever I see/hear a player interview. These guys live in a bubble and have nothing to say. They keep petty grudges against writers who have wronged them. Sometimes those writers have it coming, but just as much of the time it's a player being a dick or having a chip on his shoulder. Retired players are a little different in that they usually have some perspective and don't feel the need to guard the sanctity of the clubhouse as much, and very occasionally you get a Brandon McCarthy or Dirk Hayhurst, but this is a website that believes athletes should be held up on a pedestal and I'm too old for that shit.
This letter from Dwight Gooden to his younger self hits exactly the right note:
I thought this site would be a bad joke, but this piece leaves me open to the possibility that it might end up being a useful part of the sports journalism landscape.
I thought this site would be a bad joke, but this piece leaves me open to the possibility that it might end up being a useful part of the sports journalism landscape.
Nobody has posted in here in almost a year, and I know a lot of folks here think that the Tribune is all fluff and no substance, but I kind of like that about it. I have found some good stuff, and also some stuff that wasn't so good.
I thought the article posted today from AJ Ellis talking about what it's like to catch both Greinke and Kershaw was really good, and showed insight into both of their demeanor and what it's like to be a catcher at the Major League level.
This section really stood out to me:
I thought the article posted today from AJ Ellis talking about what it's like to catch both Greinke and Kershaw was really good, and showed insight into both of their demeanor and what it's like to be a catcher at the Major League level.
This section really stood out to me:
Ha! Yeah, i didn't mean it in an earth shattering way, but I am sure there are catchers out there who care more about their next at bat than doing their job as a catcher. Like I said, I have found some of the things I have read on the site interesting, that's all.
LogansDad said:
Oh, hey, whatever floats your boat. I'm just not convinced that the whole PT endeavor isn't a Public Relations clearinghouse for connected athletes. And in that context, I just can't help but view everything on there with a cynical eye.
For instance, I don't think any professional ball player, who busts his ass for 10 years to make it to the pros and has the talent and dedication to get there as a catcher isn't aware that he has to concentrate on being a catcher. That seems like some meaningless self-aggrandizing, like a politician claiming that he's a great Senator because "First and foremost, I care what the people in my state think! There's nothing worse than those Senators out there who don't care what's in the best interests of their state, and only care about what people inside Washington say!"
I wouldn't be surprised if players actually paid for the opportunity to publish there, actually. It's controlled press with a whiff of "authenticity" - basically a PR pro's dream come true.
You get your message out, make your client look great, it seems "real," and you don't have to worry about a pesky journalist fucking up your message.
You get your message out, make your client look great, it seems "real," and you don't have to worry about a pesky journalist fucking up your message.
I dunno if players pay for it, but it's absolutely a storefront window for showing players at their absolute best. And there is 0% chance that those pieces aren't worked over, if not written out of whole cloth, by a professional writer.
I don't know that you can be so glib about this. From the things that I've read about Jason Varitek, especially from pitchers, is that he cared about the game prep and worked hard at how they were going to pitch guys in different situations. So much so that the pitchers that I've heard/read felt that he focused so much on that, he put his hitting stats in the backseat for them. They seemed incredibly appreciative of that kind of work ethic, which made me think that not a lot of catchers give a shit about that aspect of their job.
I bet that you can find a few pieces about good-hitting catchers who concentrate on their ABs and who don't care as much about their primary responsibility--mainly because it pays to hit .300 rather than have a staff lead the league in ERA. Unless you're Johnny Bench, most catchers may focus on the former (because it's easier) rather than the latter (because that takes a ton of work).
If you can find a piece where a catcher cops to not paying attention to catching, I'll eat my hat.
EDIT: I'm not disputing that some catchers are better at catching than others, or are more prepared, but I find it implausible that an everyday pro catcher can make the MLB, and not be moved to LF or 1B if he's merely a good hitter, if he isn't at least moderately concerned with being good at his defensive responsibilities.
EDIT: I'm not disputing that some catchers are better at catching than others, or are more prepared, but I find it implausible that an everyday pro catcher can make the MLB, and not be moved to LF or 1B if he's merely a good hitter, if he isn't at least moderately concerned with being good at his defensive responsibilities.
drleather2001 said:
That's not my point. Catchers who are bad at catching, don't necessarily think that they're bad at catching; but they are. I would bet that AJP thinks that he's an awesome catcher (All-Star, World Series champion) but given a choice between both guys in their primes, I'd still rather have had Varitek behind the plate because of his reputation as being a good receiver. The same thing is true with Salty. In 2013, the Sox had the best ERA in the league but he wasn't a star with the bat. The Sox kept him in there because the pitchers had a great rapport with him and his pros behind the plate outweighed the cons of him at the plate.
And the reverse is true, baseball is littered with tons of former catchers who had to move to other positions because while they were above-average hitters they were crappy all-around catchers.
I bet there are more pitchers who are willing to extol the virtues of a really good catcher (like Varitek or Salty) than there are who bad mouth the bad ones.
I think we're speaking past each other a bit.
My larger point is that he's making an obvious (or, a statement that should be obvious, because catchers are supposed to, you know, catch) statement that makes himself look good, which is in keeping with the principal purpose of The Players Tribune. It reads like promotional copy. Like a guy saying about himself: "Girls like me because I'm very considerate, not like those other guys who are more concerned with just getting laid. Let me tell you about these two great gals I took out dinner last week..."
That's not to say he's wrong, or that he's not all the things he says he is, but there's a big difference between someone saying "Here's why I'm great: I do all the important things well!" and someone else saying that. If Kershaw or Greinke had been the source of the quote that Ellis was a great catcher who is notably concerned with his catching responsibilities, I wouldn't take any issue with it.
I mean, is it coincidence that he's up for arbitration in 4 months? I honestly dunno.
My larger point is that he's making an obvious (or, a statement that should be obvious, because catchers are supposed to, you know, catch) statement that makes himself look good, which is in keeping with the principal purpose of The Players Tribune. It reads like promotional copy. Like a guy saying about himself: "Girls like me because I'm very considerate, not like those other guys who are more concerned with just getting laid. Let me tell you about these two great gals I took out dinner last week..."
That's not to say he's wrong, or that he's not all the things he says he is, but there's a big difference between someone saying "Here's why I'm great: I do all the important things well!" and someone else saying that. If Kershaw or Greinke had been the source of the quote that Ellis was a great catcher who is notably concerned with his catching responsibilities, I wouldn't take any issue with it.
I mean, is it coincidence that he's up for arbitration in 4 months? I honestly dunno.
mauidano said:
NY Daily News website:
NYDN:
This admission, of course, caught the attention of some movers-and-shakers in the adult film industry, including Vivd Entertainment CEO Steve Hirsch, who told TMZ that he'd pay $100,000 for the full Big Papi. The porn pusher said that the film would feature Ortiz with multiple women because "his personality is too big for just one."
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/david-ortiz-dream-career-porn-star-article-1.2371894
NYDN going heavy with the double entendre. I like it. But what's up with that pathetic offer from Vivid? They do know the man has made north of $140,000,000 in his career
GeorgeCostanza said:
It's 100% a publicity thing. Someone said "porn" and they came a running to make sure they got their mention before the news cycle moved on. Doubt they have any interest at all in actually making a movie with Ortiz.
drleather2001 said:
I get exactly what you're saying now. And you're right, we kind of are saying similar things.
Peace in our times.