I hear this term mentioned often. It's usually tossed around by people when disecting a player having a down year. Is this simply something people use when maybe statistics don't support their argument that the said player must be traded, not traded for, not signed as a FA, etc?
I think it really came to me when I hear ARod is a cancer. I had to step back. When he became a Yankee, wasn't he the better of the two shortstops when it came down to he and Jeter? He moved over to a different position without a squeak of dissatisfaction. He knew and we all knew, that this move would disable him from the chance of being known as the best SS ever to play - as he was on the pace for it.
What exactly is a clubhouse cancer?
Here in my town, it was Pat Burrell when fans finally saw he wasn't going to be the next great thing. It was also Bobby Abreu. Scott Rolen? - yep. Jason Werth once everybody realized he wouldn't be resigning? Sure.
This bugs me a bit. It seems to give those who absolutely despise statistical information free realm to trash players simply based on their gut - and usually their gut is wrong.
Rolen should have been catered to IMO instead of how the Phillies ran business. With Burrell and Abreu, okay they played enough that we had a window to see they hit their limits. Werth? Our genious GM here in town discombobulated any chance of extensions when he went public during the signing period mentioning Werth in the past tense already
But I've heard other players mentioned in this same vein. Eric Bedard comes up - and I've heard nothing but great things about him the past five seasons. Enough to the Orioles to try to get him back a few years ago and Seattle bidding to retain him. If a guy's that bad, would his past teams still be so enthusiastic about getting him back?
I just wonder, what drives fans to target a player as a "clubhouse cancer"? Is it because it's an easy out that can't be quantified by what said player's done on the field?
I'm sure every city has their own, and I'd like to hear what drives this.
I think it really came to me when I hear ARod is a cancer. I had to step back. When he became a Yankee, wasn't he the better of the two shortstops when it came down to he and Jeter? He moved over to a different position without a squeak of dissatisfaction. He knew and we all knew, that this move would disable him from the chance of being known as the best SS ever to play - as he was on the pace for it.
What exactly is a clubhouse cancer?
Here in my town, it was Pat Burrell when fans finally saw he wasn't going to be the next great thing. It was also Bobby Abreu. Scott Rolen? - yep. Jason Werth once everybody realized he wouldn't be resigning? Sure.
This bugs me a bit. It seems to give those who absolutely despise statistical information free realm to trash players simply based on their gut - and usually their gut is wrong.
Rolen should have been catered to IMO instead of how the Phillies ran business. With Burrell and Abreu, okay they played enough that we had a window to see they hit their limits. Werth? Our genious GM here in town discombobulated any chance of extensions when he went public during the signing period mentioning Werth in the past tense already
But I've heard other players mentioned in this same vein. Eric Bedard comes up - and I've heard nothing but great things about him the past five seasons. Enough to the Orioles to try to get him back a few years ago and Seattle bidding to retain him. If a guy's that bad, would his past teams still be so enthusiastic about getting him back?
I just wonder, what drives fans to target a player as a "clubhouse cancer"? Is it because it's an easy out that can't be quantified by what said player's done on the field?
I'm sure every city has their own, and I'd like to hear what drives this.
Comment