Skip to content

Someone actually thinks Matt Harvey posing nude is a legitimate problem

Jul 10, 2013, 1:31 PM EDT

Of course it’s Bob Klapisch who, after noting that he is a subscriber to and reader of a magazine that features nude pictures of Matt Harvey this week, argues that it’s a real awful bad thing for Matt Harvey to pose nude in that magazine this week:

We’re beginning to learn there’s more to Harvey’s success than a blistering 98-mph fastball. He’s also been blessed with a keen self-awareness, which means he knew exactly what he was getting into with ESPN, not to mention a follow-up photo fashion shoot with the New York Post. Turns out Harvey’s talent and brains are matched by his ego and vanity … Harvey has nothing to be ashamed of. He’s baseball’s most dynamic young arm and, as the magazine proves, in great shape. But why would Harvey brand himself as the naked pitcher? What’s the upside to such a reputation? If Harvey wants to prove he’s enlightened and open-minded, there are a million other ways to express that without putting a bull’s-eye on his back.

“Ego and vanity!” So serious these nudie photos are!  Such an unprofessional, narcissistic thing to do! It’s something A-Rod — that awful human being — would do, not professionals.

In other news:

source:

source:

source:

Know what? I think Harvey is gonna be just fine.

  1. DelawarePhilliesFan - Jul 10, 2013 at 1:35 PM

    Historio, waiting for you to chime in…..

    • stlouis1baseball - Jul 10, 2013 at 3:16 PM

      I think I made her mad. She gets that way sometimes when you successfully debate her.
      Of course…in her defense…we all do on occasion.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Jul 10, 2013 at 4:23 PM

        Shame on you!

    • historiophiliac - Jul 10, 2013 at 4:56 PM

      /opens door

      Well, this is awkward.

      /backs out, hangs sign: “Bats Only Beyond This Point”

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Jul 10, 2013 at 4:58 PM

        hahahaha :)

      • historiophiliac - Jul 10, 2013 at 7:49 PM

        Maybe I should’ve gone with: “No Gloves Beyond This Point.”

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Jul 11, 2013 at 9:58 AM

        As long as you know what your mitts are on ;)

      • anthonyverna - Jul 11, 2013 at 1:05 AM

        No glove? No love.

      • historiophiliac - Jul 11, 2013 at 9:10 AM

        So true.

  2. El Bravo - Jul 10, 2013 at 1:40 PM

    Anyone else see the homoertocism here or is it just me? I mean, I like to sit shirtless with my dudes often and for no reason but still…

    • DelawarePhilliesFan - Jul 10, 2013 at 1:49 PM

      This was the traditional Media Day Pick Up Hoops game. Braves were shirts, Yankees were skins

    • stlouis1baseball - Jul 10, 2013 at 2:16 PM

      Absolutely I see it. It’s precisely why it creeps me out!

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jul 10, 2013 at 4:06 PM

        You mean, you’re getting a rise out of it?

      • stlouis1baseball - Jul 10, 2013 at 4:15 PM

        Lol! I guess it depends on your definition of “getting a rise out of it” Sandy. I have a feeling in this case…our definitions differ.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jul 10, 2013 at 4:19 PM

        Definitions be damned! As long as you know that I will always accept you no matter what, Lou.

  3. chill1184 - Jul 10, 2013 at 1:43 PM

    Its because Harvey is a Met, the NY media is trying to create a controversy that doesn’t exist. The fact that some of these dolts are comparing him to Mark Sanchez (because of the photoshoots) is a joke. For one thing Harvey has something called talent

  4. pjmitch - Jul 10, 2013 at 1:44 PM

    Craig,

    Gotta say, well done with setting up your point with the 3 photos. Genius!

    • moogro - Jul 10, 2013 at 10:23 PM

      Yes. Awesome. As I scrolled, I was hoping for a fourth, a close up on the eyes. More sequential pictures, please. Great use of the medium.

  5. mybrunoblog - Jul 10, 2013 at 1:48 PM

    NY media and sports radio is making a big deal about the Harvey beefcake semi nude shots. Harvey also did a modeling photo shoot for the NY Post a few days ago. These guys are missing the point here. Harvey is a rookie pitcher. He is getting paid good $ to do these photo shoots. Harvey (and likely his agent) are striking while the iron is hot. How many young pitchers blow out their arms or never pan out? Tons of them. Make the money when you can. I imagine we’ll see Harvey doing appearances and card shows too. I’d do the dame thing if I were him. One serious arm injury and Harvey could be a high school gym teacher in 5 years with great stories to tell his students.

    • Joe - Jul 10, 2013 at 1:51 PM

      “I’d do the dame thing if I were him.”

      You’d be a cross-dresser if you were Matt Harvey? Interesting choice.

  6. yankeepunk3000 - Jul 10, 2013 at 1:49 PM

    Craig keeps poping up with these pics. It scares me to know other people know this about players. I thought it was only in my house on my wall over my bed. I know my wife thinks its wierd but I’m a Yankee fan so its cool.

    • moogro - Jul 10, 2013 at 10:24 PM

      I, for one, don’t mind the word pooping.

  7. sdelmonte - Jul 10, 2013 at 1:51 PM

    As a prude, I dislike the whole Body issue. It’s better than the wholly sexist SI swimsuit issue. But that’s damning with faint praise. If I had kids, I would hope there is a “do not send this to me” option in a subscription. (Not that I would subscribe to the other 25 issues, mind you.) And I have to wonder if any athletes tell ESPN that they would never appear nude.

    But this is all personal preference. And it’s sort of cool that a Met is being featured in anything at all. Besides, does anyone remember who was in previous issues?

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 10, 2013 at 2:04 PM

      If I had kids, I would hope there is a “do not send this to me” option in a subscription

      I’m curious but why? What’s wrong with being proud of one’s body?

      • sdelmonte - Jul 10, 2013 at 2:15 PM

        I am uncomfortable with any sort of public nudity. It’s a religious thing.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jul 10, 2013 at 2:17 PM

        Really Church? You don’t understand why some people would have a problem with their kids seeing the photo of Matt Harvey or Mike Stanton?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 10, 2013 at 2:29 PM

        You don’t understand why some people would have a problem with their kids seeing the photo of Matt Harvey or Mike Stanton?

        Honestly, yes. While I know there’s the segment of the population that feels “everything is bad and yucky and I want to shield my children from it” in this country, I’m talking about the more rational members of society. What’s so wrong with seeing these pictures? For one, it’s not like you’re seeing the full monty or anything? I’ve seen far worse looking people showing almost the same amount of skin at the beach as the Stanton pic.

      • lmoneyfresh - Jul 10, 2013 at 2:46 PM

        How else are you supposed to shame your children into hating their bodies and sexuality?

      • stlouis1baseball - Jul 10, 2013 at 2:51 PM

        “I’m talking about the more rational members of society. What’s so wrong with seeing these pictures?”

        Fair enough. And for what it’s worth…I agree.
        Please know I was referring specifically to young kids.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jul 10, 2013 at 4:11 PM

        I don’t think it’s bad or yucky, but I it is body objectification.

      • Kevin S. - Jul 10, 2013 at 4:18 PM

        Being opposed to body objectification is fine, but if one did have an ESPN mag subscription and kids, wouldn’t this issue be a teaching moment if one had a problem with it? It’s not smut.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Jul 10, 2013 at 4:33 PM

        Correct, Kevin. My mom turned the SI Swimsuit issue with Carol Alt in Africa into a teaching moment.

        I learned I like brunettes in red bikinis.

  8. stlouis1baseball - Jul 10, 2013 at 1:58 PM

    Damn it C.C.! That photo creeps me out.

  9. jayscarpa - Jul 10, 2013 at 2:04 PM

    Who are the two scrawny dudes in the back of the photo? One looks like the guy from Harold & Kumar.

    • stlouis1baseball - Jul 10, 2013 at 2:25 PM

      Edgar Renteria and Rey Ordonez.

    • itsacurse - Jul 10, 2013 at 2:27 PM

      I believe that’s Renteria and Ordonez

    • yahmule - Jul 10, 2013 at 6:45 PM

      Edgar would have started flexing if Orlando Cabrera had been invited.

  10. Kevin S. - Jul 10, 2013 at 2:22 PM

    Francessa was blathering about this yesterday, too. Am I the only person who doesn’t see this as attention seeking?

    • anthonyverna - Jul 11, 2013 at 1:07 AM

      Mike Francessa does anything to try to get attention to himself.

  11. stevietimmy - Jul 10, 2013 at 2:26 PM

    Not sure what a picture of Menudo has to do with all of this.

  12. tbutler704 - Jul 10, 2013 at 3:16 PM

    I’m amazed ESPN can get these guys to take off all their clothes. Nude is not a good look for a man.

  13. Old Gator - Jul 10, 2013 at 3:46 PM

    In a few weeks, I want to ask Harvey and Giancarlo Stanton whether or not they think those photos made it easier for them to get laid, even a little bit. If either one answers yes, Klapisch – broken down old middle aged fool that he is – has his answer.

    • historiophiliac - Jul 10, 2013 at 5:01 PM

      Do you seriously think either one of them has a problem with that? Lolo Jones, on the other hand, is a completely different matter.

      • Old Gator - Jul 10, 2013 at 9:21 PM

        Of course not. Groupie mentality women line up to throw themselves at the mock-heroic media market dopplegangers occupying the same vectors in spacetime as the Iron Giant or Harvey anyway. I was just giving that sanctimonious jackass Klapisch a hard time from here and hoping for a little spooky action at a distance, you know?

      • historiophiliac - Jul 10, 2013 at 9:46 PM

        I’m with ya.

    • moogro - Jul 10, 2013 at 10:27 PM

      Shorten that to a few days.

  14. stlouis1baseball - Jul 10, 2013 at 4:29 PM

    “Being opposed to body objectification is fine, but if one did have an ESPN mag subscription and kids, wouldn’t this issue be a teaching moment if one had a problem with it? It’s not smut.”

    Absolutely Kevin! And great point. I try to have them every day in fact. Good post.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 10, 2013 at 6:29 PM

      As usual, Kevin explains shit far better than I could. It’s basically what I was getting at.

  15. thebadguyswon - Jul 10, 2013 at 7:07 PM

    Klapisch can eat a Mets fan’s johnson. No one cares what a Yankees shill has to say about the Mets.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Ace-killer Giants do it again
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Bumgarner (3399)
  2. J. Shields (2981)
  3. T. Ishikawa (2767)
  4. T. Lincecum (2322)
  5. M. Morse (2318)
  1. Y. Cespedes (1991)
  2. L. Cain (1986)
  3. B. Posey (1854)
  4. B. Roberts (1594)
  5. A. Wainwright (1558)