Aug 13, 2010, 10:12 AM EST
As tends to happen when someone’s bad behavior is made public–just think back to all the Tiger Woods stuff for the most recent prominent example in sports–stories about Francisco Rodriguez being a bad guy are coming out of the woodwork now.
Bob Klapisch of the Bergen Record passes along this gem about Rodriguez and Mariano Rivera:
Rodriguez’s reputation was damaged even before joining the Mets. On the eve of the 2008 All-Star Game at the Stadium, Mariano Rivera ordered clubhouse attendants to keep K-Rod’s locker as far away as possible. The Yankee closer, a deeply religious man, decided he couldn’t stand even one night of K-Rod’s excesses.
Klapisch goes on to chide the Mets for not reigning in Rodriguez earlier, suggesting that their lack of control over the closer “in part, is why Rodriguez went off on a family member on Wednesday, because somewhere in his consciousness he knew he could get away with it.”
That seems like one hell of a leap in logic to me, although certainly making the Mets responsible for his beating up a 53-year-old man is a great way to sell newspapers and given how dysfunctional the whole team has been few people are going to stick up for them no matter the claims.
- Merry Christmas from HBT! 43
- THE YEAR IN REVIEW: HBT’s most commented-upon stories of the year 84
- The Yankees are treating Alex Rodriguez differently than they treated Derek Jeter. So what? 36
- Braves sign setup man Jason Grilli to two-year contract 13
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot 120
- Phil Hughes signs a three-year extension with the Twins 27
- The Padres have talked to the Phillies about Cole Hamels 23
- Why is John Smoltz a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame? 63
- Bud Selig will get a $6 million a year pension. Which is obscene. (145)
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot (120)
- Today’s specious anti-Mike Piazza-for-the-Hall-Fame argument (94)
- St. Petersburg City Council votes down deal to allow Rays to look for new stadium site (90)
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” (85)