Friday, December 7, 2007


Despite the insistence of your co-workers, calendar and your iPod; despite the fact that no reindeer or jolly fat men brought you socks and underwear this morning; and despite the fact that you are at work and not sitting at home having your first drink of the day (we can't be the only family that does that, right?), don't believe the hype: today is not December 7, it is December 25.

Christmas, it seems, has come early this year . . . . at least for those of us who despise Alex Rodriguez, or, should I say . . . Slum-Rod.

It seems that the New York Times has discovered that despite his mega-fortune, Rodriguez is a less-than-ideal landlord of the properties that he owns in Florida (though, despite my colorful title, the article specifically says he is not a slumlord).

In a disappointing turn of events for A-Rod, Jason Varitek has been named tenant representative for the Newport Riverside apartments.

He is also portrayed as a cheapskate when it comes to doling out money from his foundation:

Rodriguez has earned nearly $200 million over the past decade, but, according to 990 tax records dating to 1998, he is a cheap tipper to his foundation.

In eight years of available documents, donations averaged $30,000 a year and gifts distributed to the community averaged $13,000 a year. In 2002, A-Rod did not contribute more than $5,500. In 2006, the foundation did not give away more than $5,090 despite a fund-raiser that collected $368,000.

Of course, the article itself does nothing to advance the debate on A-Rod. For those of us who cannot stand him, despite his baseball prowess, we read the article and immediately see evidence of a cold, calculating guy, who only plays by the rules technically, both on (and apparently off) the field.

By contrast, though, people who defend A-Rod, and who believe that A-Rod receives a disproportionate amount of flack and criticism merely because of his salary, read this article and see confirmation of their position; i.e., that everything he does is cast in a negative light, and subject to intense scrutiny.

The only difference is that I am right.

1 comment:

Open Bar said...

Repairing his image after this ought to be quite a *project*, even for A-Rod.