Closers, Gay Teammates, Camp’s Struggles, Baez’s Award and Other Bullets

kevin gregg cubsIt sounds like the plan for Friday’s kinda-sorta BN get-together will start in the right field bleachers – I try to sit as close to the front left corner (by the LED board) as possible – and then head to Sheffield’s at the corner of Sheffield and School after the game for some food and drink.

  • There is still no “closer,” despite Kevin Gregg logging his fourth save last night and looking impressive in his 1.1 innings of work in doing so. “It’s been working,” Dale Sveum said last night, per Cubs.com. “I’m not going to say it’s a fix-all and that you don’t want to name a closer. You definitely don’t want to rock the boat when things are going good in the back of the bullpen when everybody is healthy and ready to go that night. It could be one of four guys. It depends on the matchups.” For now, that remains the right approach – not necessarily because it’s working, but because, with the construction of this pen, there simply isn’t an obvious closer, and there aren’t obviously slotted roles. So just mix and match. Those four, by the way, are presumably Gregg, Carlos Marmol, James Russell and Shawn Camp.
  • Patrick Mooney on the calming presence that is Kevin Gregg. It’s only six appearances, and Gregg’s track record suggests he is, at best, an acceptable middle reliever on a team like the Cubs. But he actually looked really good last night, and he has yet to give up a run. (And Sveum did imply that, even if the Cubs had gotten to Gregg’s spot in the lineup in the bottom of the 8th last night, Gregg was going to bat unless the Cubs had made the game a non-save situation. So … doesn’t that mean Gregg is the closer?)
  • On Camp, who has ostensible struggled this year, it’s interesting to note that his BB rate (2.6 per 9) and his K rate (7.8 per 9) are both better than his career averages. So why is his ERA 6.97? Well, he’s giving up a ton of hits and has already given up two homers. Is that a fluke, or is his massive workload in 2012 catching up to him?
  • Apparently that minor cut on his index finger has impeded Jeff Samardzija’s between-start preparations. It still doesn’t sound serious, but … man …
  • Good on Paul Sullivan for taking yesterday’s Jason Collins announcement (Collins, an NBA player, is now the first openly gay man in one of the major U.S. team sports) as an opportunity to check in with Cubs players on how they would accept a gay teammate. I look forward to the day when things like that are considered a non-story, but, yesterday, it was a very big story, and I appreciated that Sullivan wrote about it through the vehicle of the Cubs. All of Theo Epstein, Dale Sveum, and Darwin Barney had positive things to say.
  • The Iowa Cubs seem to agree with the big Cubs on that one. Both articles had an air of “it’s no big deal,” which is the right attitude.
  • Javier Baez was the Florida State League’s Player of the Week after destroying all comers last week. He’s up to .265/.299/.520 on the season, which is a great OPS, especially at his age and position, and especially in the FSL. That said, it’s impossible to ignore the 29:4 K:BB ratio. Given the concerns about Baez, it’s fair to be a little nervous … but then I remind you that it’s April. (Thanks a hot week from Baez and a cold week from Jorge Soler, the former is now out-OPS’ing the latter, .819 to .767.)
  • I was on the Midway Baseball Today podcast yesterday – always a fun one. Even talked about The Wife’s mustache (which does not exist).
  • I forgot to add this to yesterday’s post about Oswego Chris’s excellent new book: for those of you who end up getting the book and enjoy it, I’m sure Chris would appreciate you offering an honest and kind rating/review on Amazon. It’s already doing well: as of this morning, it’s the 29th best-selling baseball book on Amazon … 31 spots ahead of ‘Baseball for Dummies’ by Joe Morgan.

Brett Taylor is the editor and lead writer at Bleacher Nation, and can also be found as Bleacher Nation on Twitter and on Facebook.

163 responses to “Closers, Gay Teammates, Camp’s Struggles, Baez’s Award and Other Bullets”

  1. Jay

    Camp is absolutely DONE. Last year’s ERA was smoke and mirrors—this year he’s throwing nothing but batting practice.

    1. Melrosepad

      Not sure Camp is totally done, but I’ll admit I’d rather see what Putnam, Parker, or Negrin could do instead.

    2. Indy57

      Probably when either one of Fujikawa or Garza comes back. There will not be enough room. Loe could be the other casualty.

  2. Njriv

    Not going to lie, I have that book by Joe Morgan.

  3. oswego chris

    My personal revenge for Joe Morgan keeping Ryno out of the Hall for a year! (or was it 2?)

    Thanks again Brett!

  4. AP

    My wife decided to take on the herculean effort of learning more about baseball because her crazed husband won’t stop talking about it. So, in what was likely the darkest hour of our relationship, she came home from the library one day with Baseball for Dummies. I promptly escorted her to firejoemorgan.com (still on my favorites bar despite not being active for five years) so she could learn baseball the right way.

    1. JulioZuleta

      One of the great mysteries of my life. How could a guy who is in the top one-millionth of one percent of the best baseball players ever be so clueless about the game?

      1. pete

        Did you ever listen to Bill Walton do hoops? Same thing as Joe. My only guess is it is some sort of a phenomenon where the athlete was so instinctual as a player that he has no real idea how or why he played so well.

        1. Cubbie Blues

          Walton is hilarious to listen too. He used to do a short (maybe 5 minute) podcast where he would talk about anything. It was very fun to listen to. Somehow it always went back to the “Dead”.

          1. TWC

            Unsurprisingly, I’m sure, I love Bill Walton.

            1. Cubbie Blues

              Obvious Hippie is a Hippie.

              1. TWC

                ::blushes::

            2. pete

              I do like him too. Best outlet pass ever and a ridiculous athlete when young. I was lucky enough to be at the 21 for 22 title game. But when he did NBA games with Steve Jones and Marv Albert, you would wonder from where his thoughts came. Which would lead to Snapper saying at least 3 times per game “You can’t be serious . . . .”

              1. Spriggs

                I always wanted Walton to slap Snapper. It didn’t seem like they were too fond of each other.

            3. miggy80

              I’m sure Bill and I would get along. Side note saw The Black Keys and The Flaming Lips in KC and caught a Royals game over the weekend. Dam that city is dirty and no chocolates

        2. Spriggs

          I was at one of his book signings about 15 years ago and I asked Bill what his favorite Dead song was. He said, “the last one I heard – as long as it was loud”. I love Walton, man (it’s ok to say that now, too).

      2. AP

        I know. As a player, he opitimized everything SABRmetrics looks for in a player, all the way down to the greater than 80% steal success rate and the ridiculous gap between batting average and OBP. You could even argue that he was probably undervalued due to the fact that he hit below .300 and wasn’t appreciated for all his other amazing baseball skills. And yet, it’s like he forgot all the stuff he did as a player as soon as he got in the booth and just babbles about “cosistency” while hating the statistical advances that tout his true greatness.

      3. DocPeterWimsey

        The funny thing is that Morgan was not clueless as a baseball player. If you read what he said when he was a player, he was basically talking “Moneyball” in general terms: getting on base, slugging, and how he provided so much value because he did these things better than all of the other 2nd basemen. (He sometimes sounded a little full of himself, but, let’s face it, he was absolutely right.) Some time in the 1990′s, he began re-writing his own memory pretty severely.

        The one that really galled me was Morgan’s about face on “productive outs.” He would absolutely ream guys like Sandberg and Herr who deliberately grounded out to the right with runners on 2nd in the mid-1980′s. Their job, he noted, was to get the guys home and to get on base to score, not to make outs. After all, that is what they did in his day. (The whole “ground out to 2nd to advance the runner” thing didn’t become popular until the mid-1980′s.)

        Now, Morgan talks about how he, Bench, Perez, etc.., all gladly grounded out to the opposite side to advance runners. Of course, Joe was a LHB: so, he would have been pulling the ball. And Bench & Perez never did that sort of thing. Morgan’s history and Morgan’s History are two very different things!

        1. DocPeterWimsey

          I would add one thing in Morgan’s defense: it does seem like a lot of the Reds began to rewrite their memories after Rose got banned. I sometimes wonder if Joe’s “forgetting” of how Moneyball he was is a side-effect of him trying to forget how important Rose was to the Big Red Machine.

        2. Spriggs

          The only thing funny about Joe Morgan are his big head – to go with those little bitty size 6 shoes he wears.

  5. hansman1982

    “It could be one of four guys. It depends on the matchups.”

    YES PLEASE, CLOSER BY MATCHUP!

    1. JulioZuleta

      Remember when Loue played the matchups to the extreme and borught in Marshall to face the lefty, then did a double switch, putting Marshall in LEFT FIELD for a batter, and then bringing him back in to pitch to the next guy? The look on Soriano’s face was priceless. I am kind of surprised that doesn’t happen more often, though.

      1. wax_eagle

        I was watching that game. Thought it was a very intelligent managerial move.

        1. DocPeterWimsey

          Zimmer did that with Lancaster and Assenmacher a couple of times. I seem to remember disaster ensuing (or nearly ensuing) on a lazy flyball to LF on which the pitcher in LF looked for all the world like a pitcher in LF….

          1. DocShock

            Whitey Herzog did this a few times with Todd Worrell. I remember him putting him in Right Field for a batter against the Cubs in 1989.

      2. Cyranojoe

        What? That’s… that’s priceless…

        1. JulioZuleta
      3. justinjabs

        That was one of my favorite Lou moments ever.

  6. Melrosepad

    Looking at picking up the book from Amazon once my next paycheck comes in. Might try convincing the wife to pick one up for the local high school library (she is the head librarian). Any other really good Cubs or baseball in general books?

  7. Dude

    Brett, wrong link on the shout out for Chris. It leads to the Midway tweet instead of Amazon.

    Chris, congrats on the early success!

  8. CubFan Paul

    Camp just can’t keep the ball down. His stuff looks good & crisp but he’s hanging everything.

  9. Jim

    Whats the preliminary head count for friday?

  10. Diesel

    Why would it have mattered how many runs the Cubs had scored in the bottom of the 8th inning? When Gregg came in it was a save situation therefore as long as he stayed in to finish the game he would have been credited with a save.

  11. DONNIE621

    The problem with all this “Gay” stuff is they don’t want acceptance they want celebration. And if you don’t celebrate it you are scorned… end of conversation.

    1. TWC

      If by “end of conversation” you mean you’re not posting comments any more, then I look forward to the door hitting you in the ass on your way out.

      1. Katie

        I agree with the hippie.

    2. hansman1982

      I am guessing the gay person just wants to be able to be themselves around the people they live and work with. Which, regardless of how you feel about homosexuality, we are talking about a real human with real feelings.

      Typically, the ones that “don’t want acceptance they want celebration. And if you don’t celebrate it you are scorned” are media types/ that are more worried about their name than the other person.

      1. DocPeterWimsey

        Well, there is another element: if you want a stuck see-saw to move, then you don’t sit on it, you jump on it. When you are told that you should feel ashamed for wanting to be openly gay (or a black in the front of the bus or a woman working outside the kitchen), then the way to throw it back in their collective face is to do with pride. That’s jumping on the stuck see-saw right there!

        My take is this: what would the Saudi’s do? (Sometimes, “what would the Texan’s do?”) I then do something opposite!

    3. Boogens

      “The problem with all this “Gay” stuff is they…”

      Whenever a sentence contains the word “they” in that type of context whatever follows is usually shortsighted (at best).

    4. cjdubbya

      I don’t think he did this to draw attention to himself. Rather, I think he did it so others in the future won’t have this sort of attention drawn to themselves.

    5. JulioZuleta

      Not a coincidence that the guy who saying “end of conversation” and won’t open his mind to further discussion also won’t open his mind to people that are different than he is.

    6. Dynastyin2016

      Or….they celebrate acceptance.

  12. RoughRiider

    Do we, and if so why, care if a person that plays a proffesional sport or has any other job is homosexual ? It’s a non issue.

  13. EQ76

    I do partially agree with DONNIE621 on what I think he was meaning to say, and agree with Hansman1982′s take on the media angle too..

    Listen, people who don’t agree with homosexuality aren’t all angry gay-bashing-phobics, some just simply don’t agree with it. You still treat them with respect and kindness, but at the same time don’t want people to force them into celebrating it.

    The media likes the controversy so they stir it up as if all people are “all in supporters” or a hate group. There is a middle ground and many are in it.

    1. RoughRiider

      Ahmen.

    2. RoughRiider

      Well put.

    3. Patrick W.

      I agree that not all people who oppose homosexuality hate homosexuals. But homosexuality is not something you “agree” with or not. You can’t disagree with a fact. Homosexuality exists. The sun rises in the east, you can’t disagree with that. So what the people who say they “disagree” with homosexuality are actually saying is they “don’t approve” of homosexuality, and that’s where the argument really lies. There are a variety of reasons why people disapprove of homosexuality and the vast majority of those reasons rooted in religious tradition.

      The reason this story is important, both for those of us who don’t disapprove of homosexuality and those poor souls who do, is it is another example that gay people are all around us, are in no way different than us in the jobs that they do, can be celebrated for their successes, and should not be dismissed as “less than” anybody else because of their sexual orientation. It is important whenever it can be shown that it be shown that a person’s private sexual practices in no way precludes a person from being a member of society with the full privileges and expectations of every other member. That’s worth some so-called celebration. If one mind is changed because of one person’s brave announcement, or one person’s rainbow pin, or one person’s march in a parade, that’s an important advancement for a society who’s goal should be inclusiveness.

      1. bbmoney

        I’ll go ahead and be the one to say it. This may be the best Comment I’ve ever read on this site.

        Patrick W. bringing it. Well done.

      2. EQ76

        Patrick W – It’s ridiculous to pick on the semantics of my comment. I’m fairly sure that most intelligent readers understood what I was saying and the point of my comment. this wasn’t one of the greatest comments in the history of this site, it’s nitpicking one word for the sake of arguing.

        …”those poor souls that do (disapprove with homosexuality)” – that’s the kind of comment I’m talking about. It’s OK to disapprove, disagree, whatever word you want to use.. it doesn’t mean you hate a person because you don’t approve of their actions nor does it make you a “poor soul”.

        there’s a lot of things in this world I personally don’t agree with.. (ohh, I’M SORRY GRAMMAR POLICE!!!) don’t approve of, but I don’t hate a person for it, I just simply don’t agree with it. So people need to quit making those who feel that way into villains.

        1. JulioZuleta

          I think Patrick is saying that it doesn’t make sense to say you “disapprove of homosexuality.” That’s like saying I disapprove of a person being white or black, or tall or short; it doesn’t make sense. I think in MOST instances, someone saying that they disapprove of it, is just them softening the blow of indicating that they don’t like gay people. Also, referring to the Bible is kind of a cop out as well (not that you, or anyone else has done this on here, but an ESPN guy did yesterday). I think most people familiar with the Bible/religion in general recognize that the general message is tolerance and acceptance. If you want to be nitpicky and literally interpret every line of the Bible, you’ll find that pretty much everything is against the Bible…

          Like Brett, I look forward to when this isn’t even a story anymore.

          1. EQ76

            Well i never intended to get political or biblical with this matter.. just tired of people stereotyping the other side of this issue. I’ve had gay friends/acquaintances throughout my life and never have hated any of them or shown any hate towards them, in fact I’ve been a good friend to most of them. I do view it as a sin, and they know it. It’s fine.

            To be clear, I am a Christian and understand the Bible pretty well. I’m a worship leader at my church, my dad is a pastor of a church, I’ve taken many bible classes and studied extensively under some pretty sharp people.

            JulioZuletta, most people don’t read and/or study the Bible at all (even most Christians) so, naturally there’s a severe lack of true understanding of the message of the Bible.

            You said, “I think most people familiar with the Bible/religion in general recognize that the general message is tolerance and acceptance”. No, that’s not the general message of the Bible, not even close.. the general message of the Bible is to serve, obey and follow God. That we’ve all sinned and need salvation, that the salvation comes through Jesus (God’s son) and we are to study and learn about Jesus and the teaching of the apostles in the New Testament and spread the gospel of truth to the world, as living examples of Christ.. fleeing from sin and getting closer to God.. loving Him with all we have. That is the general message of the Bible.

            So, how should a Christian treat homosexuality? Simple, treat people who are gay the way Christ would, with love, respect and kindness, just as you would and should treat anybody.. but it still is a sin and is wrong according to several biblical references.

            Not everyone agrees with the Bible, that’s fine. But those who do shouldn’t be punished and ridiculed for it.

            Me personally, I don’t really care much if Jason Collins is gay or not.. It doesn’t affect me. I just don’t want to be told how to think. I don’t force people to have to believe everything I do, so people need to quit belittling Christians because they choose to agree with what the Bible says.

        2. TWC

          The problem with using the word “agree” is that it implies that homosexuality is a choice. It’s not. And if you think it is you are very, very wrong.

          But this kills me: “I’m fairly sure that most intelligent readers understood what I was saying and the point of my comment.” What whiny, insulting, defensive crap. And the “GRAMMAR POLICE” complaint? Patrick W. commented on your word choice in an attempt to advance and clarify the bigger picture. You took it as a personal attack. Grow up. Don’t post on a public forum if you’re too thin-skinned to deal with any feedback you might receive.

          1. EQ76

            TWC – I was trying to defend my point that using the word “agree” wasn’t really the focus of my point. I made a point and a small detail was magnified and attacked. I’m fine, I’m not all worked up here. I’m typing. the problem with typing is that you cannot determine mood or motive behind a sentence and it gets interpreted however the reader chooses to take it.

            So to attack me TWC by telling me I’m typing out “whiny, insulting, defensive crap” you are doing the exact same thing back at me dude.

            Everyone has blown past my point… some people think homosexuality is a sin.. that doesn’t make them hateful bigots and It’s ok to feel that way too.

            1. Patrick W.

              So, I just want to take a little issue with this. I did not magnify and attack or attack at all your point. You had a 5 sentence point, and I used 1 of those sentences to make a broader point. I viewed what you were saying is “some people disagree with homosexuality and it’s wrong to suggest their disagreement is rooted in hate, an idea that is perpetuate by a conflict-hungry media.” I wanted to point out that semantics, in this case, matter. I think it’s important to note that when somebody says they “disagree” with homosexuality they actually mean they “disapprove” of it, a point that you (EQ) have agreed with through acquiescence when you say that I’m picking on you for using the wrong word (which implies, I think you agree, that you do in fact disapprove).

              So I made that point in my first paragraph, the one you take umbrage to, and made a second point about the importance of this story. In that point I said those who “disapprove” of homosexuality are “poor souls”. Let me explain my thinking there. I view any thinking that allows a person to pass judgement on (or disagree with/disapprove of) another person’s private, consensual and innate sexual preference weakens the empathy and compassion for fellow people. Voicing your disapproval, in fact the mere act of making the choice of disapproval, is in a way segregating the person you are judging as “other” and that to me is a pitiable thought process.

              1. EQ76

                Patrick.. understood. Obviously it’s difficult to express each of our opinions and adequately explain our lifetimes of experience, knowledge and feelings in a simple few sentences.

                I’ll simply say that a Christian can disapprove of what they believe (based on the bible) to be a choice to sin and not be a pitiful, poor soul or judgmental hate-filled bigot. I know in today’s day and age it is not the popular viewpoint…

                True, his preference is a private matter.. a private matter that he, the media, ESPN, etc. have made largely public which in turn, opens the door for discussion.

                Most Christians are not reacting to the gay person so much as they are the massive agenda to force us to embrace it. That and that alone is what I’m pushing back against.

                1. Patrick W.

                  I would hope that as a Christian you look at me the athiest as a poor, pitiful soul. :)

                  I have never once suggested that you or all other self-identified Christians are hate-filled bigots. I *am* suggesting that you are judgmental, which, we all are (I think smokers are gross). I am also suggesting that I think you would be happier, in the long run, if you didn’t use that book to make decisions on what’s agreeable and disagreeable, worthy of approval or disapproval, and instead relied on a common collective view of right vs. wrong.

                  You should, based on your stated beliefs, look at that second paragraph and shake your head and think “I need to pray for that poor soul” in the same way I look at what you have written as evidence that it continues to be important that we shout from the mountain tops (witness, if you will) to our brethren that there is no good reason to judge a person as being agreeable or disagreeable or worthy of approval or disapproval based on their sexual orientation; and flooding the market with that message will no longer be necessary when society is inclusive enough to agree.

                  1. EQ76

                    Agreed man. We are all hypocrites if we don’t stand for what we believe in and yes I am praying for you! 😃

          2. Blublud

            I disagree that homosexuality is not a choice. It’s no different then heterosexuality. It is definitely a choice. We can’t control who we are attracted to, but to act on those attractions is definitely a choice.

  14. justinjabs

    Unless Marino Rivera decides not to retire and signs with the Cubs, or Craig Kimbrel is traded to the Cubs for Ryan Dempster (who was sent to CHC from BOS to continue the compensation saga), Bullet #1 is how the closer situation should be handled. I like it.

  15. JR

    What about Adam and Eve. I dont think it was Adam and Adam. Point is it doesnt really bother me. I dont have to answer to the man upstairs. I have friends that are gay and i couldnt care less but I dont have to make a deal out of it.

    1. No Longer JR (formerly (The Original) JR)

      I have posted over the years (sparingly) as “JR” and most recently as “The Original JR” to distinguish myself from others who have posted also using those initials. I feel compelled to make clear neither this post (which I find presumptuous and offensive) nor opinion are mine. I will post under “No Longer JR” from here on out.

      1. JR

        good to hear. My opinions are mine,,,

        1. Former JR

          That’s cool Current JR. I really am not bothered by your comments in the slightest, but KNOW that a lot of people freak when things like Adam and Adam are said. The last thing I want to do on here is talk about homosexuality in sports, so I changed my handle. Good luck..

          1. No Longer JR

            Nor am I “Former JR” whose comments are not mine and whose opinions I do not share. Now to compose a chart of all the Current, Former, No Longer and TBA JRs!

    2. JR

      I’m one of the JR’s as well and this post definitely isn’t me either. I prefer to leave sexual orientation talk in sports alone. I Want no part of it. i will be changing my name as well after the Adam and Adam comments above…

  16. RD

    Back on the subject of the Cubs, I was curious what the long term plans are with James Russell. He has been our best reliever the last few seasons and has looked dominant this season. I am not really sure how many years of control we still have on him. Does anyone know? I wouldn’t be surprised if he netted a nice prospect in a trade although I would like to keep him around. Thoughts?

  17. Blublud

    On the topic of being gay……..

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking that being gay is wrong. However, that’s does not give anybody the right to treat a person who actions doesn’t have an inpact on the personal well being of any other person any differently then we treat any other person. I will admit that I think being gay is a sin and its wrong. However, I would also be the first person willing to stand up for gay rights. Gay people are Humans and they have feelings just like any of us. They deserve to be who they are. Who am I to say that a gay man’s sins are any worse then my sins. I think people need to get off of the whole “they” are different mindset. If a teammate of mine was gay, so what. As long as there is a level of respect, and there is no violation of my private space, standards that are no different for them then any other teammate, then who cares. It about winning and doing it the right way on the field. As fans, that what we should care about. Off the field, they have to live their live the same as you do. People need to stop being so closed minded.

    Sorry if I got to personal or to off topic.

    1. mudge

      We’re all gay, at the end of the day. Woo-hoo!

  18. Jed Jam Band

    I am saddened, as I do not arrive home from my collegiate studies (trying to sound fancy) until later Friday. Well, good luck and don’t get into too much trouble, ya silly Cubs fans.

  19. DONNIE621

    Hey Brett… My nephew died of aids… he was homosexual. SO WHAT DO YOU KNOW OF MY FAMILY.

  20. Spencer

    It’s interesting that everyone was very careful to avoid (or at least attempt to curtail) political discussions when the whole Joe Ricketts/Rahm Emanuel flap was going on.

  21. Anon

    I can’t help but think that it SHOULD be an issue to have an openly gay athlete. My thought process tells me they should be separated, much for the same reason you separate girls and boys in the locker room. If it starts at the major league level as them being OK sharing a locker room, when does it trickle down to elementary schools? I do not want an openly gay child sharing a locker room with my son or daughter. I don’t care if they’re gay, but we keep boys and girls locker rooms separate for a reason. What happens if you start letting openly gay children be in the locker room with children of the same sex whom they’re attracted to? As parents, would most of you be OK with this?

    1. Edward

      Hate to break it to you but but we likely all shared locker rooms with gay people growing up. If you have kids now, they are likely sharing them now too.

      1. Danny Ballgame

        I found this to be true in my sports “career” recently. Still think the dude is one of the best people I know and he was by far the toughest player on my team. Makes no difference who he is attracted to.

      2. Pat

        And if you have ever done it, it can be uncomfortable (especially when you recognize him as a creepy old guy who tried to pick you up at a bar one night).

  22. millhah

    Brett, I think it’s time to ban the handle JR!

    1. Cyranojoe

      LMAO!

  23. mudge

    All of us grow up showering with gays, bisexuals and straight people. It wasn’t an issue for me. Being with women at nude spas and beaches hasn’t been an issue either. We all have bodies. It’s really okay.

  24. Greenroom

    As a hetero-sexual (I am), this is something to ponder.

    http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/heterosexual_privilege.pdf

  25. tsb

    Opposing gay people in the locker room does not automatically mean you are a “homophobe,” anymore than if you oppose women in the locker room means that you are a mysogynist: That said, there have been gay baseball players (off the top of my head,I can think of one admitted, and one that was well known when he was a player), and all the horrible things that were predicted would happen; but they did not. If a gay person could not control his attraction to his teammates, it would have been obvious, especially in the shower room. There would have then been news stories about gay bashing and controversy a long time ago.All in all, doesn’t seem to be a problem.

    1. Rick

      If opposing gay folks in the locker room isn’t being a homophobe, then what would you call it?

      1. Hansman1982

        If this were a discussion about a woman joining a baseball team who wanted to be in the locker room and he took a similar stance, would that make him a sexist?

        1. mudge

          Yes.

          1. tsb

            No; if there is a long line at the men’s restroom at Wrigley, and some guy walks into the women’s restroom, would a woman be a sexist if she tells him to get out?

        2. MIkeL

          Really, really bad comparison.

          1. tsb

            Why? Because women are allowed to be uncomfortable while men are not? Rather sexist, yes?

            1. MIkeL

              It’s a bad comparison because its not the same as a gay man being in the men’s locker room or a gay woman being in a women’s locker room.

              1. tsb

                By definition, a heterosexual is attracted to someone of the opposite sex. Thus women may be uncomfortable with a male in their space, which is the same as a man being uncomfortable with a person that is attracted to his gender, i.e., a homosexual male. Not saying this is reason to not have equal rights to a gay person, mearly stating that this is not a mental illness.

              2. Anon

                The comparison is identical. You’re ignorant to think otherwise.

                1. MikeL

                  Nope…it’s not.

                  1. Anon

                    OK then, why do we have separate restrooms? Why aren’t the communal?

            2. Patrick W.

              No, because a women’s restroom is universally expected to be occupied by women only and a locker room in men’s professional sports is a place where not only do you see the players on the sports team but also members of the coaching staff, trainers, and media members of both genders. Also, in the hypothetical locker room, it would be policy as to who can and cannot enter and what time, while if they changed the policy of the women’s restroom it would no longer be a women’s restroom.

              1. tsb

                Oh, so it’s all semantics: Using your logic, if it is called a “team “locker room”, only persons on the team may enter, i.e., no reporters, visitors, et al, only players and coaches.

                1. Patrick W.

                  Yeah, again, semantics matter. Example: Bank means place where banking takes place, a Post Office is a place where you mail things.
                  OF COURSE it’s semantics. It’s a called a women’s restroom, so semantically it means it’s a place where women go to “rest”, and it is UNIVERSALLY accepted that only women go there. A team locker room could absolutely be a place where the team only may enter, and at times it is, but it is also UNIVERSALLY accepted that other people than the team might be in the locker room, like a reporter for example.

                  1. Patrick W.

                    Good time to suggest an idea isn’t legitimate because it’s just semantics: “You said women’s restroom… nuh uh, it’s a LADIES room!” “OK now you’re just arguing semantics”.

                    Bad time to argue against an idea as semantics: “You said it’s a women’s restroom, nuh uh, men are expected in there too”

                    1. tsb

                      Speaking of semantics, Bleacher Nation is described as a site for the “The latest Chicago Cubs rumors and Cubs news, together with commentary and analysis.” therefore this entire conversation should be violates the laws of the great god semantics, thus it should be prohibited until it becomes a specific Cub issue.

                  2. Hansman1982

                    If we simply called them “locker room” without the adjective, could men and women move about at will?

                    Why are the sexes segregated when it comes to facilities? Just because people started putting names on signs?

                    some people don’t want their bits on display to others who may be attracted to them.

                    1. MIkeL

                      “Some people don’t want their bits on display to others who might be attracted to them.”

                      And again the idea that that is what will happen if gay men are allowed to be in the same locker room as straight men( a gay man making a move on a straight man) is ignorant and based on lies and stereotypes. If a straight man is constantly fearful of another man finding him attractive (even though nothing sexual ever happens), then it sounds like the straight has the issue, not the gay man.

                    2. Pat

                      Mike, as I posted earlier, that exact thing did happen to me. To suggest it cannot or does not happen is as foolish as suggesting it happens all the time. It can happen, and it is something to take under consideration when looking at the realities of the situation.

                    3. Hansman1982

                      So what does it say when I have a same reaction to having women see my bits?

                  3. Pat

                    The difference between a bank and a post office is not a matter of semantics.

                    Also you might look at current California proposed legislation before stating it is UNIVERSALLY accepted that only women should use the women’s room.

                    1. MikeL

                      Pat–

                      I never suggested that.

                      Here is is what I put in another post:

                      “Those who believe that having gay athletes WILL cause problems are ignorant, uneducated, and are listening to lies, rumors, and stereotypes. Now, does that it will mean something will NEVER happen? No, because there are gay men who are assholes just like there are straight men who are assholes. ”

                      Pat, let me add this. I know that straight men have sexually assaulted straight women. I know that straight women have sexually assaulted straight men. I know that lesbians have assaulted sexually straight women, and I know that gay men have also sexually assaulted straight men. I also know that straight wrestlers at a high school raped a gay kid. I also know that “straight” members of a baseball team raped a gay teammate by ramming a baseball bat up his ass.

                      The bottom line is this: There are bad people in every corner of the world, but to sit here and put people in the box. I am sorry that happened to you, but you can’t generalize an entire demographic.

                    2. Patrick W.

                      Point it out to me when it is no longer proposed but in fact legislation but beyond that if the legislation passes it will no longer be universally accepted… if it wasn’t universally accepted there would need be no legislation. The proposed law proves my point.

                    3. Pat
                    4. Patrick W.

                      OK now you’re just arguing semantics. (See how that works?)

                    5. Patrick W.

                      :)

      2. tsb

        Back in the day, the Soviet Union came up with the idea that instead of jailing persons with alternate opinions, they would just declare they were mentally ill and then they could be silenced without having to have a trial, even a private one. That’s why I detest the term “Homophobia” or it’s derivatives. Even if opposition to homosexual practices is silly, it doesn’t mean you are mentally ill: it just means you are ignorant.

    2. MIkeL

      It doesn’t make you a homophobe, but it does make a person ignorant and uneducated. I’m gay and have been in locker rooms dominated by straight guys. I didn’t sit there and try to see every guy’s dick, nor did I try to jump them or rape them in the shower. Guys who think gay guys will check need to get over themselves because (1) a lot of guys are not attractive and (2) gay athletes also know that this is a professional environment and it would be really stupid to make a move on another player. People being “uncomfortable” with gay athletes are often uncomfortable based on rumors and lies that they have heard over time.

      1. tsb

        Apparently you didn’t read my original post; there have no problems with gays in the locker room in the past, so I don’t think there will be any problems in the future. So what more do you want?

        1. MIkeL

          No, I read your post and you basically said there have never been problems with gay athletes, at least nothing recorded. Those who believe that having gay athletes WILL cause problems are ignorant, uneducated, and are listening to lies, rumors, and stereotypes. Now, does that it will mean something will NEVER happen? No, because there are gay men who are assholes just like there are straight men who are assholes. You said opposing gay athletes in the locker room doesn’t make you a homophobe. Ok, but if you just said that records show that there haven’t been any major incidents with gay athletes in the locker room (I DID however, recently a story about “straight” high school wrestlers raping a boy in the locker room because he was gay) then one would be ignorant and uneducated if they are trying to keep gay athletes out of the locker room.

          1. tsb

            ignorant and uneducated yes, but not crazy.

            1. MIkeL

              What is with this mentally ill kick you are on? Look…..people are prejudiced towards others in this world and they are bigoted. Some people hate gay people simply because they are gay. You can call it whatever you want, but that person is still prejudice and a bigot. I am not throwing the mentally ill label at anyone because as recently as 40 years ago the APA listed homosexuality as a mental illness.

              1. tsb

                Should a gay person be allowed to play major league baseball? Yes
                Is a person that wants to keep a gay person from playing baseball ignorant and silly? Yes
                Is a person that says “gee I would be uncomfortable with a gay person in the locker room” the scum of the earth, who wants to gay bash or kill gay people? No
                I think you’ve won the war, but you still want to keep on fighting.

      2. Anon

        Then why do we even have mens and womens restrooms? The concept began because they wanted privacy away from those who might find them attractive. That’s the basis of opposite sex, no? So how can we have that with homosexuals in the locker room?

        1. MikeL

          No. They created to different bathrooms that were tailored to the makeup of their genitalia and to the needs of each gender which are obviously different for men and women, not because they “wanted privacy from those who might find them attractive”. Another reason why you argument falls flat: I am pretty sure you have shared the restroom with a gay man at one time or another. Were you ever assaulted? The fact that you use the restroom with other men hasn’t stopped you from using the men’s room, has it?

          1. MikeL

            Ouch….meant to say “They created different bathrooms that were tailored to the make of their genitalia….”

            1. Anon

              Now you’re using fallacy in your argument. If they made restrooms to cater to opposite genitalia, why wouldn’t we all share a mensroom? They have both toilets and urinals. Men could use the urinals and women the toilets. Restrooms were created for a place to “do their business” away from prying eyes of the opposite sex, because of sexual attractiveness between the two sexes. That line is crossed with homosexuality.

              Whether or not some one acts on their thoughts is not the issue. The issue is that they have access to a place that is supposed to be a comfortable environment. It’s no longer comfortable if someone who could possibly find you attractive has access.

              Restrooms and locker rooms are separate for a reason. And regardless of what you try to argue, it was for gender related reasons that come down to sexual interest.

              1. MikeL

                You are going on that incorrect assumption that if a gay man finds a straight attractive, they will act on it. Once again….as I have said many times….that is based on lies and stereotypes.

                I am gay.

                When I step in the urinal next to you, I don’t peek over to see how big your dick is.

                Guess what?

                Contrary to popular belief, guys don’t even do that in a gay bar even when it is a bathroom full of gay guys. You want to know why? Because we know (most of us, there are bad apples in all walks of life) that it is really inappropriate to do such a thing.

  26. willis

    I’m really glad a baseball game of importance is starting in 45 minutes.

    1. DarthHater

      You mean the Reds and Cardinals, right?

      1. willis

        LOL, hell yes that’s what I mean. You kidding? I don’t know about you but I’m jonesing for more Kevin Gregg delightfulness, with hopefully a guest appearance from Mr. Ransom.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.