A friend and I are arguing about the nature of competitive sports and the competitive spirit at the heart of them.
Specifically, we’re discussing the apparently dead trade of Fred McGriff from the Tampa Bay Devil Rays to the Chicago Cubs. McGriff, a power hitting first baseman, has (as of about 8AM this morning) decided to exercise his no-trade rights and not move from the D-Rays (with a record of 27-61, 26 games out of first) to the Cubs (51-35, 3 games in first).
The report from ESPN is here:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2001/0710/1224578.html
McGriff is quoted as saying that he has a wife and kids to think about and that he’s tired of traveling.
I find this to be a betrayal of the nature of sport. In my opinion, the only thing that should matter to a professional athlete is winning a championship. All else needs to be secondary or you’re betraying your commitment to professionalism.
I feel that McGriff is, in effect, saying that he’s more comfortable earning his pay and not winning than he is earning his pay and winning.
My pal (he writes for me) argues that McGriff has already won his championship (Atlanta, 1995) and now may decide to be comfortable if he chooses. I think this is a specious argument. Every year that a player commits to playing he also commits (in my mind) to wanting to win. By indicating a lack of concern for winning a player turns against the basic tenet of sport.
As for me, I’d much rather see a player who is traded say, “I’ve just gained 30 games in the standings! I’m in a pennant race!” than somewho who places his personal comforts above winning.
Am I wrong in thinking that, if a player isn’t primarily concerned with winning a championship, that player should retire and leave the field to those who do?