Skip to content

Jonny Gomes doesn’t know how unions work

Aug 6, 2013, 9:40 AM EDT

Peter Gammons spoke to Jonny Gomes:

 

I wonder how Gomes felt about a union defense when he was suspended in 2008 for jumping on Coco Crisp during a benches-clearing brawl, threw several haymakers and ended up getting suspended for five games? I wonder if Coco Crisp offered his opinions about his union dues being used to defend Gomes. I also wonder if Gomes thought about his union when he signed any of the four free agent contracts he has entered into in his career.

Your union is your union, Jonny. You’re in it for everything it entails, not just the stuff that benefits you.  Of course, even if you hate A-Rod and his cheating, if his defense creates some precedent which keeps the league from, say, suspending you for 50 games the next time you jump on a pile, he is doing you a bit of a solid, OK?

  1. deadeyedesign23 - Aug 6, 2013 at 9:43 AM

    Wow that’s a false equivalency if I’ve ever seen one.

    • dan1111 - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:03 AM

      I agree this is a poor post.

      1) The implication that Gomes must support any decision the union makes because he has benefited from the union in some way is dumb. In fact, it is possible for Gomes to like some stuff that the union does, and not like other stuff. There is nothing inconsistent about that. Stuff like free agent contracts is therefore completely irrelevant.

      2) Would it really be inconsistent to think the union should defend against suspensions for on-field behavior, but not violations of the drug policy? If so, why? The two seem like very different issues.

      3) How do we know that Gomes even supports union defense of anybody? The fact that he is a union member doesn’t prove that he agrees with their role in suspension appeals.

      • sometogethernow - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:40 AM

        To (2) –
        One (a player or just any old observer) can definitely think that a union should defend one and not the other, but the defense of A-Rod isn’t based on someone’s ideal of what should happen. Rather, it’s based on defending how the league has treated him, and defending him from arbitrary punishment, under current, standing policy.
        In that sense it is part of the union doing its job, just as a defense of suspension for on-field behavior would be, and it is part of the union’s mandate to fight for fair treatment of its players.

      • dan1111 - Aug 6, 2013 at 11:28 AM

        @sometogethernow, I happen to agree that the union is doing its job by defending A-Rod.

        My point is that people can disagree, and it doesn’t necessarily prove that they are illogical or ignorant. I don’t appreciate Craig’s combative response to Gomes’ comments, claiming he “doesn’t know how unions work” and should know what’s good for him and support the union whatever it does.

  2. buffal0sportsfan - Aug 6, 2013 at 9:44 AM

    Let’s just hope Mike Napoli doesn’t decide to take Jonny Gomes’s brain too.

  3. cur68 - Aug 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM

    More Deep Thoughts, with Jonny Gomes…

    • historiophiliac - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:11 AM

      He’s no Jack Handy.

      • cur68 - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:21 AM

        He certainly is not Jack Handy. But he IS useful. Its a question of deeper thinking, really. Here we have a union’s job: protecting the best interests of the players and ensuring that they are treated fairly. How hard is that to understand? Well, judging from some of the comments and Jonny The Sage Gomes: VERY. Very hard indeed.

        Its really not that complicated. No one from the union is saying Alex Rodriguez should NOT be punished. He should be. We all think he should be. But he should be punished FAIRLY. In compliance with the negotiated rules. JUST LIKE GOMER WAS PUNISHED. Its not complicated nor is it a false equivalency. Nevertheless, here we are with confusion and dissonance all around.

        This is an interesting dissonance. How is the simple concept of fair punishment being so wildly misinterpreted? Is it rage? If so, at what, or whom? I think I shall call this phenomenon “A-Rage”. Perhaps, when I understand it better I will choose a better name (perhaps the ragers are on ‘roids? In which case it might be better to call it “Rod-Rage”. We won’t know until analysis is complete).

        In the meantime, I shall study this…
        /adjusts monocle, fills pipe, steeples fingers…

      • koufaxmitzvah - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:24 AM

        Good enough, smart enough, and people really do like him…. Unlike the rest of the House of Representatives.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Aug 6, 2013 at 11:18 AM

        The Sox needed a Papelbon replacement, in more than just the bullpen. Paps was always the leader in deep philosophical thoughts communicated to the press. Now they have the dude with the mohawk

    • indaburg - Aug 6, 2013 at 12:31 PM

      To be fair, Jonny Gomes does not understand how a lot of things work.

      • APBA Guy - Aug 6, 2013 at 12:43 PM

        Inda, I think you’re right on target with that comment.

  4. andreweac - Aug 6, 2013 at 9:47 AM

    Gomes has true GRIT. You only have true grit if you are completely oblivious to life outside of baseball, women and alcohol. See Mantle, Mickey. If you understand an aspect of life not revolving around baseball, women and alcohol you are not gritty.

    • historiophiliac - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:12 AM

      Blueberry pie is kinda gritty.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:23 AM

        Grittier than Neopolitan ice cream?

  5. jayscarpa - Aug 6, 2013 at 9:56 AM

    Literal much?

  6. sdelmonte - Aug 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM

    Alas, this makes him very much a typical American now.

  7. natslady - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:01 AM

    Nope, sorry, not buying it. I’m with Gomes on this one. Big difference between a pile on and cheating. I understand the union has to do it–everyone is entitled to a defense, even Rodriguez. But I also understand his point of view and I DON’T understand yours, Craig. I’m done with your soul-baring. Not impressed.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:56 AM

      You do realize that the MLBPA is fighting the decision not because they think Arod didn’t use PEDs, but the punishment doesn’t fit the crime right? This is exactly what the MLBPA does every time a player is suspended for actions on the field, that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.

      • myopinionisrighterthanyours - Aug 6, 2013 at 1:18 PM

        Church, how do you figure the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. It seems many people are overlooking that the extra year comes from A-Rod’s (mostly attempted) obstruction of the investigation, including buying off and/or intimidating witnesses and the attempted purchase and destruction of documents linking him to Biogensis. Yes, you can use the Melky fake website as a parallel, but IMO it is a poor one, as this goes far beyond what Melky did.

    • daveitsgood - Aug 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM

      Well yes, there is a big difference. One action has the intent to cause harm or injure another person, the other doesn’t. But the purpose of the Union remains the same in both instances, to protect the players interests at large, especially when arbitrary punishments and precedents are being established.

  8. jcmeyer10 - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:03 AM

    Give Gomes a break. He was clearly speaking in a metaphorical way.

    Haha, I love Gomesey. He’s the new leader of the new idiots.

  9. bigt12789 - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:04 AM

    Damn Craig, a bit snippy this morning? From a purely financial standpoint, how can you make the comparison between how much it cost to defend Gomes to how much it will potentially cost to defend A-Rod during this appeal process? Hell, even from a non financial standpoint, why the hell are you trying to compare any previous suspension to the mess/circus that douche A-Rod is creating right now?

  10. bobwsc - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:05 AM

    Rodriguez remains the center of Craig’s universe. just launch AlexRodriguezTalk already; how much different would it be from the section devoted to Notre Dame?

    • historiophiliac - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:17 AM

      You don’t *have* to read them, you know. I skipped a few yesterday…and over the last couple of weeks. I think you have Freedom of the Eyeballs or something that makes you not required to read things. Pretty sure that’s the in the Declaration of Rights and Freedoms and Big Gulps. Goooood Bless Amuricuuuuuuuh….

      • heyblueyoustink - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:34 AM

        Well, be careful with the freedom of Big Gulps, especially if in the presence of Emperor Bloomberg.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:35 AM

        He totally got decapitated on that one, didn’t you see?

      • cur68 - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:35 AM

        Hey! I heard that song song live at a ballgame on Sunday at CBP. Unfortunately I was in the restroom along with about half the ballpark, all of us tapping kidneys returning beer, but it WAS a stirring lil tune. I tried to remain at attention throughout and complete my bid-ness in an entirely respectful way but I couldn’t get my hand over my heart or salute (not without serious risk to my shoes or the surroundings). Still, given what I WAS doing, I think I managed a near equivalency of respectful. Or something.

      • historiophiliac - Aug 6, 2013 at 11:27 AM

        Because you’re a Royalist ferreigner, you don’t know — you’re supposed to make a star in the urinal if you’re at the toity when it plays. FYI, for next time.

      • cur68 - Aug 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM

        Make a star? er…how? I don’t think I can ask the guy next to me for help, either. In fact, the fella at CBP next to my urinal cut a Death-Fart, mid song. I took this to be a profound display of patriotism . . . or drunkenness, either one. At any rate he didn’t appear the sort to offer advice on “making a star”. I shall have to go practice this “making a star” thing.

      • heyblueyoustink - Aug 6, 2013 at 11:03 AM

        Hey Cur, did ya have a good time. Nice ballpark, eh?

      • bobwsc - Aug 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

        you’re right, mom.

    • indaburg - Aug 6, 2013 at 12:37 PM

      People who normally never talk about baseball are asking me about this. They know the baseball nurse knows about this. This story is transcending baseball. If you don’t want to read about it, I suggest you unplug.

  11. pisano - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:12 AM

    Gomes doesn’t appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed.

  12. bosoxfan15 - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:12 AM

    Craig, who peed in your Cheerios this morning? I usually enjoy your articles, but this is a bit snippy if you ask me. Just stick to reporting news and not your biased opinion on unions.

    • Gamera the Brave - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:27 AM

      I continue to be concerned with people piling on Cheerios.
      Why, if we MUST pee on breakfast food, why must it always be on Cheerios?…
      What did Cheerios ever do to you?

      I think we must all take a long look in the mirror, and ask ourselves this question.

      -Alex Rodriguez

  13. offseasonblues - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM

    Good grief, Craig, Gomes isn’t testifying in court or running for public office. He’s a baseball player expressing how he feels about ARod playing last night, and that’s the interesting part.

  14. mornelithe - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:40 AM

    I wasn’t aware that being part of a Union removed your right to have an opinion. You may disagree with that opinion, but it’s still his to have.

    And yes, there are clear parallels between a brawl, and someone abusing PED’s for years, tampering with witnesses, attempting to purchase, conceal and/or destroy evidence of wrong-doing. A very apt comparison you drew there Craig. In no way is that taking things to the extreme.

    • js20011041 - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:56 AM

      Gomes is entitled to all the irrational and absurd arguments he wants. Craig’s comparison IS apt. The union exists to protect it’s members. All members. Not just the popular ones. It’s idiots like Gomes that will be the first ones to bitch when owners eventually obtain the power to void contracts for failure to perform to a contract. The simple fact is that the majority of players are literally too stupid to realize that this whole charade is about money, not integrity.

      • mornelithe - Aug 6, 2013 at 11:00 AM

        Gomes didn’t make an argument, he simply voiced an opinion. Notice how he’s not actively attempting to stop the Union from doing anything. He stated how he feels, and that’s it.

        And no, the comparison is not apt. It’s a clear over-reach.

      • js20011041 - Aug 6, 2013 at 11:08 AM

        How is it an overreach? Craig compared Gomes opinion with an equally absurd hypothetical opinion. Gomes does have the right to voice his opinion. The rest of us also have a right to call him out for having an idiotic opinion. That’s all Craig was doing.

  15. johnholly1039 - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM

    Craig, would you have a job if A-Rod didn’t exist?

  16. bosoxfan15 - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:52 AM

    I agree a union is paid to represent their members, but… Doesn’t the union have to represent the non-cheaters that A-roid* stole from? How many players did he play against who didn’t take ped’s? He gets paid more than Any other player in the league and had to cheat his way to get there. I say the union should dump him for being a selfish tool.

    • nbjays - Aug 6, 2013 at 11:53 AM

      “How many players did he play against who didn’t take ped’s?”

      I dunno. How many players did he play against that DID take PEDs, or are STILL taking PEDs but have not yet been caught?

      Don’t presume innocence on the part of all the non-A-rods in the MLBPA.

  17. Steve A - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:53 AM

    I believe Craig is using Gomes’s comment as a way to point out that those who do not like that the union is “defending” A-Rod are missing a large point. The union is “defending” A-Rod against the unfair punishment levied by MLB as it relates to the CBA and JDA. Had MLB offered a 50 game suspension to A-Rod, I strongly believe the union would not support an appeal by A-Rod.

  18. Steve A - Aug 6, 2013 at 10:55 AM

    There is one bit of literal reason in Gomes’s comment. I would also hope that the players’ union dues are not going toward A-Rod’s personal lawyers. They should be going toward the union’s lawyers, though.

  19. msullyldp - Aug 6, 2013 at 11:21 AM

    I think he was talking about Jonny Gones, not Gomes. Totally different guy.

  20. aceshigh11 - Aug 6, 2013 at 11:32 AM

    “Hey, look, man…Jonny Gomes got ripped and took a walk off a roof, okay? No big loss!”

    “That ain’t what I heard. I heard that the Bat got him.”

  21. barkleyblows - Aug 6, 2013 at 2:32 PM

    Yeah thank god for unions. Nothing like protecting scumbags and lazy ppl.

  22. psousa1 - Aug 6, 2013 at 2:56 PM

    Jonny Gomes is hitting .239 and is the 4th/5th outfielder and he is one of the most valuable players on that team. He has probably won them 5 games with clutch hitting and clutch defense.

  23. brent4033 - Aug 6, 2013 at 4:22 PM

    This is just a Liberal writer wanting to defend unions. All they do is steal from their members and contribute to far left nut jobs. They are now used to raise money for criminals and to reward lazy people. If you earn it they will pay you! If they don’t and you have value to offer a company leave and work somewhere else because smart business people will want you. Teachers Unions are now covering for people who are breaking the law and not letting the districts fire them (New York & California). Some for crimes against children. Keep it classy unions. They also try to use intimidation tactics to scare people into becoming members. If you are in a union I dare you to investigate what they do for you, NOTHING! Look at Detroit, run into the ground by liberals and unions. Is that what you want to support? Use google people, all of the truth is out there if you just give a ____! Google every word Obama says or these unions say, it is all there in front of you. Truth hurts sometimes. Sorry I was raised properly and don’t want anything given to me, I WANT TO EARN IT! Oh and these absurd pensions your unions force on companies, THEY BANKRUPT COMPANIES! Good luck working for a closed down company. Craig will probably delete this, that is what they do, they dont want discussion. They just want you to shut up, bend over and take. Screw that!

    • Anoesis - Aug 6, 2013 at 6:35 PM

      Your argument in a nutshell:

      Some cars were poorly made and others were operated by incompetents. Therefore, all cars should be banned.

      Hey, at least I stuck with your Detroit theme.

      I’ve had my own issues, both positive and negative, with belonging to a union, but to say they are nothing but bad news is to ignore the simple historical fact that we’d all still be the equivalent of indentured servants if not for unions. Once upon a time politicians helped people, banks were customer-oriented, and oil companies cared about their reputations. There is nothing on this earth imagined by humans that cannot be corrupted.

  24. Anoesis - Aug 6, 2013 at 6:28 PM

    Seems like a bad week for Johnnys (Jonny, Jhonny, et. al.).

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Orioles turn AL East on its head
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (3823)
  2. R. Castillo (2944)
  3. A. Rizzo (2420)
  4. A. Pujols (2091)
  5. H. Ryu (2063)
  1. E. Gattis (2041)
  2. C. Davis (1883)
  3. B. Belt (1865)
  4. J. Hamilton (1857)
  5. C. Young (1782)