Gary Sheffield knows why African-Americans are disappearing from MLB

Q: What was Sheffield's reasoning for the paucity of blacks in the minor leagues?
A: Black people cannot be controlled like Latins so Major League teams sign Latin players instead.

Q: Is that answer correct?
A: No.

Okay, then. We can have a conversation about increasing black participation. We can have a conversation about the social and economic settings regarding the Latin athlete.

However, this conversation will not involve Sheffield.

 

People are still talking about it, for one.

And two, you keep defending him. And I like to argue. And you started making the argument about people disliking Sheffield days ago, so your new point there is bullshit.

 

I knew me moving on from a few callous words would magically morph into defending those comments.

Incredible.

I may as well delete my comments regarding baseball in my community, as well as the economic impact of outsourcing plays in the African American community and how baseball mirrors their big business counterparts.

I somewhat liked the opening of the neglected pandoras box Sheff barely touched on. You on the other hand dismiss it and choose to see the devisiveness around two words as if it speaks for the overall body of his comments.

 

What makes it not true? Are you disputing Carlos Guillen's experience?

 

The paucity of black players does not exist because Latins answer "how high?" when told to "jump."

This isn't difficult. You have stated many reasons here why there are less black players. None of those reasons were "Latinos just do what they are told and white people like that."

 

And where did Sheff say that? Clearly he's coming from the standpoint that importing players that come cheaper with more to lose is something baseball has taken advantage of at the expense of potential African American ball players.

Is it really out of the realm of possibility that many immigrants are willing to take on more for far less than someone that's american born?

why is Carlos then agreeing with him?

 

Saying let's move on over and over again and that we shouldn't ignore his message just because of one word is defending him. Saying that anybody who criticizes Sheffield in this instance does so because they dislike him is defending him.

But as usual, you pick out the parts in others' posts that you can use in your arguments rather than actually reading the whole thing.

And don't you think part of the problem in this debate is that Sheffield actually hurt his own cause by how badly he made his point?

Yes, it sounds more plausible when you argue it. Because you are doing a much better job in illustrating the issues than he did.

 

When did Sheffield bring up money?

 

Around the same time you mentioned him saying Latins "jump" at a given moment.

 

Yes. That was Sheffield's implication. There was nothing in his statement about money.

If you want a legitimate conversation about black people in MLB have one. Just don't include Sheffield in it.

 

Exactly. And linking Sheffield's comments to money is a bit more of a leap than the jumping thing. The latter is simply hyperbole. The former is inferring information that was not actually in his statements.

 

He's more qualified than either of us to speak on it considering he is an African American ball player.