(Thanks to SoSG reader Ryan for the heads-up!)
Understanding that no one team can truly lay claim to a man's legacy, this quote nonetheless struck us as...odd. From "Martin Luther King III trying to become part owner of Mets" at the New York Post:
"It's fitting with the legacy of Jackie Robinson essentially transferring to the Mets; what better place to have African-American ownership than with the Mets," [TV executive and investor Larry] Meli said.
(Bolding ours.) At the risk of taking the bait, I'll just say this: Jackie Robinson was signed by the Dodgers, he spent his entire career with the Dodgers, and he won a World Series with the Dodgers.
15 comments:
One of the things I've noticed over the last few years has been the Mets' attempts at usurping Jackie Robinson's legacy, from naming their rotunda for him and hosting his wife on Jackie Robinson Day.
IT'S NOT EVEN THE SAME FUCKING BOROUGH!
If you've only noticed it the last few years, you haven't been paying attention. And be careful when you say "The Mets" because it's "The Wilpons" who have the fixation with the Brooklyn Dodgers.
Their party line is "Jackie Robinson played for the National League in New York, and we are the National League team in New York, so we honor his legacy" - which of course is bullshit. The Jackie Robinson Rotunda was in place for Citi Field Opening Day, long before the Mets Hall of Fame or the championship banners or a whole host of other things, the first thing you saw when you got to the top of the escalators after coming through the rotunda was the "Ebbetts Club" (now renamed the Champions Club).
But this is all Fred Wilpon. All of it.
I think they host Rachel Robinson for reasons of proximity - she is a woman of advancing years - but I don't think you can get on someone for commemorating the day with pomp and circumstance. You really can't. You can, however, excoriate Fred Wilpon on the rest of it.
Thanks for the insight, MG!
Yeah thanks for that frank insight, MG.
Look, I appreciate all teams honoring Jackie's legacy, and it's appropriate to do so and the Dodgers don't "own" his legacy - that legacy plays itself out every day in baseball in every team. But jesus, trying to claim him the way the Mets have is just - well, creepy. His spiritual home is with the Dodgers, and that is indisputable.
Hats off to any team who wants to recognize and honor him, including the Mets, but let's not fight over his memory.
In their respective current states both teams should be fighting over the legacy of Roger Cedeno.
I hear the Red Sox are considering claiming Jackie Robinson's legacy for their own, too.
"Jackie Robinson played for the National League as a Brooklyn Dodger with a "B" on his hat, and we are the American League team in Boston with a "B" on our hats, so we honor his legacy."
@Paul 10:37p: Nice
@Paul - I take it we've given up on Alex Cora's legacy. I knew we'd never win that one :(
In the first year of New Shea (pre Mets museum), there was way more Brooklyn Dodgers stuff around the stadium, probably 60:40 Dodgers:Mets, to the point where Mets fans complained. Since the museum was built it's now probably 70:30 Mets:Dodgers (maybe Mets Grrl can confirm that). The museum also ups the percentage of hideous poly pullovers
The Mets want Jose Valentin's legacy as well.
Red Sox should be the LAST team to claim the legacy of a Black player. For shame, BoSox!
That's the (sad) truth.
I don't have a problem with ANY team honoring Jackie, but the organization that stuck their neck out against segregation deserves some respect for it, dammit.
@DB - I went to a Pawtucket-Rochester game a few years back and noticed 5 or 6 black PawSox players on the field. I thought to myself "You poor bastards. I hope you get traded because there's no way you're getting the call-up to the Red Sox"
Post a Comment