Plaschke on Tim Crews' family

I think Smasher is right. I think many of the recent posts are missing the point.
Plaschke wasn't besmirching anyone, just pointing out that a family that lost a father/husband is still out there. That's all.

 

Plaschke seems to be suggesting the organization should do something, otherwise why did he give them the owner's phone number? In any case, I have no problem with Plaschke's intentions, I'm just saying the story leaves the reader with a big, obvious question -- Why? Why aren't any of Crews' old teammates coming around? Could it be because he was a drunken boater who caused a fatal accident? I'm not going to gush over a story that leaves that kind of big question just hanging out there.

 

Ballplayers don't routinely stay in touch. You play somewhere, you have friends, people move on, you get new friends. When they were still having old-timers games, it was often the first time people had seen each other in many years.

 

Fine, except Plaschke's apparently saying that's not the case. If it were, then the fact that teammates haven't stayed in touch with the Crews family would be totally normal, and hardly worth a story.

 

It was a good column...I guess the "message" just strikes me as a bit odd.

If I wanted friends of my late husband to visit with my teenage son, I'd probably call and ask them politely. I'm not sure a guilt-tripping column in one of the nation's largest newspapers would be the best method.

Beyond that, I'm not sure that any organization owes them anything. If the wife of a deceased player called and asked for tickets or something, I definitely think it would a nice gesture to make sure they were accomodated. Maybe a visit through the clubhouse for the son or something, I don't know.

 

It's interesting, I read the column and enjoyed it very much, but after reading the discussion, I see the other side. Now I can't stop thinking about the fact that Steve Olin's family doesn't have a husband and father either, and Crews is (at least mostly) responsible for that. I guess that's what a good discussion should do.

I thought the ending was fine. I think it helps to have read previous Plaschke columns though. He's a guy who isn't afraid of sentiment and he's sincere. But Piotr is completely right. If Peter King or Mitch Albom wrote this column, people would lose their f-ing minds because it would seem self-serving as all get out. But I have no doubt that Bill meant what he said to the Crews family, and wasn't just looking to jerk readers around and make them cry as part of his manipulative Dreams Deferred nonsense or whateverthefuck. I do agree, however, that this was more about Crews' son than it was about Plaschke.

Here is a question: Couldn't Bill have still told this story about the Crewses without putting some of the "blame" on the Dodgers? I guess every writer/columnist has to do the reporting and come to his own conclusions, but would have been lost by simply telling the story of how the mom had to play the role of mother and father? Bill could still express to the son that the father would have been very proud. And he could still express that what happened that night on Lake Nellie all those years ago still ripples almost 15 years later. What was gained by essentially saying "shame on you" to the Dodgers?

Not knowing the answers, I simply put that out there for discussion.

 

Tommy Lasorda threw his gay son under the bus, I don't think he or the Dodgers are going to make exception for an ordinary right-handed reliever once left off a postseason roster. Again, Plaschke makes it appear like he was a huge part of the team's success and collective soul. Who else is furthering this notion besides the columnist?

I enjoyed the column very much, and the guy's work is usually transcendent, but the absence of response from the opposing side is baffling.

 

Forgot about Lasagna's little denial of his son.

Agree with your post. Now tell me how to get my post count reset . . .

 

I asked Webby like all polite boys should

 

Here's something to consider. Plaschke has nominated himself to be the Dodgers watchdog. Most of this stems from the bumbling ownership of Frank McCourt. Plaschke thinks McCourt has to answer to him. But virtually every decision that McCourt and his people have made have turned out bad and had to be re-evaluated and changed. Examples: Start with the GM, DePodesta (and other VP level front office people who were hired and fired within the first two years); rebuilt the seating behind home plate and didn't angle them enough so the people not in the first row couldn't see; had a blanket giveaway that had the years of the team's World Series titles, but the years were wrong; added three rows of seats in front of the originals and bumped the prices so high that original season-ticket holders (from 1962) couldn't afford them; changed the parking lots this season and made them worse than before, with a raise in parking prices from $10 to $15. There are a lot more, too.
Plaschke maybe just took this opportunity to do an update on the family of a player he knew and at the same time get in another dig on the Dodgers.

 

So which Dodgers watchdog has bigger incisors then, Plaschke or Simers?

The idea of a stupendously wealthy developer being answerable to a newspaper columnist -- and I admit such is the case here -- is really quite silly.

 

Plaschke has more impact. Everybody just tells Simers to fuck off.