Ok, I get Martin with his French-Canadian ancestry, but how did you include Loney? I've never seen his ethnicity traced or mentioned, other than African-American. I even did a couple of searches and they turned up no mention of the lineage of he or his parents. Is this something you assumed?
i know its in japanese but this site: http://hochi.yomiuri.co.jp/baseball/npb/news/20140111-OHT1T00217.htm says he's cut his list of suitors to Yanks, Angels and Dodgers.
LA and NY have the advantage if his wife is the factor the following suggest. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/ya...-back-in-japan-after-meeting-with-mlb-teams-0
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...gment-pictures-featuring-hot-fiancee-released Loney is now married to Nadia and they have a child who by all considerations is biracial so that should get some folks steaming a ready to pop a cork. Awesome when you think about it. Yes he is biracial even if both parents are African American. Hmmmm most people have mixed heritage in their ancestry and just looking at James somewhere in the family tree there is. This is a sports thread but most folks will understand the message. Remember Hannibal and his trip North?
The Dodgers have had a recent history and a strong current push towards cultural pluralism in the program. Tanaka fits in with that as does the current and probable future roster. If anyone has a problem dealing with that they may want to question their ability to remain a Dodger fan and still have a good day.
That doesn't even begin to make sense. He may be in a biracial relationship, but that does not make HIM biracial. But enough about that, I was just trying to make Koufax justify his inclusion of Loney in a post he shouldn't have made to begin with. Back to the Tanaka Syndrome.
anyone have espn insider? grizz? The level of the Dodgers' aggressiveness in pursuing in Tanaka may be defined by the progress, or lack thereof, in extension talks with Clayton Kershaw, according to ESPN's Buster Olney (Insider subscription required). __
Hmmm with regards to Loney's race. People in Africa are dark skinned. African Americans who aren't dark skin almost certainly have White ancestry if not from their immediate parents than from elsewhere down the line. That makes us bi-racial.
It would make typical agent logic to try to use one client to create a market for another. Boras does it all the time. As Irish notes by holding up the Kershaw contract the pressure on the Dodgers to sign Tananka increases. Solid business move. Also clearly Kershaw should get a lot more money than Tananka and his signing may set the stage for Kershaws next contract here, there or anywhere.
bi·ra·cial (b-rshl) adj. 1. Of, for, or consisting of members of two races. 2. Having parents of two different races. bi·racial·ism n. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. I think we can agree that when the term is used it most often refers to immediate parents, not general ancestry. In regards to the latter, probably 80-90% of the world is now biracial.
First of all I wish this wasn't happening in the Tanaka thread but whatever, I'm bored. I think you are way off on this number. Unless you want to start considering Korean a different race from Chinese and German different from British. If you just look at the Genghis Khan numbers I think that verifies my point. It is thought that he passed along his genes to .5% of the world. Impressive, yes, but it would still take a lot of Genghis Khan's to put our population of 7 billion at 80% biracial. Now, will the world one day become 80-90%? Yes, I believe so. Actually, I'm sure it will one day be 100% biracial but not for probably hundreds if not thousands of years. My alternate argument is much shorter. The world is actually 0% biracial because biracial is not a real thing. 100% of people in the world are part of the human race.
Perhaps this is important if it helps people to appreciate. I am what many call African American and am on the light skinned side. My wife is White and what many would call White. Our sons are what everyone considers Bi Racial. Their wives are what others would call White. What does that make their children? Had they married Black females would their very light skinned children have been called Black or Biracial? Does being Biracial disappear after one generation? We and others think not. This becomes important in a baseball thread because free agents often want to play in communities where they are comfortable. Fortunately LA is so diverse it really doesn't matter to most. Tananka wants to play where he is comfortable and that may be why the accepted cultural pluralism of LA and NY have those cities up on his list.
Ok, this got way out of hand, I'm sorry it got started. Biracial can mean many things but I think it is accepted in todays culture that a 'biracial family' means the parents are of different colors, no matter what their ancestry contains. I am sure the percentage I threw out there is way off, but my point was that from the dawn of time races have been mixing and in this day and time not many can be sure of all the branches in their family trees. If like, Tuborg, you want to call biracial going back several generations, that is certainly not wrong. I'm sorry this thread got hijacked and I regret my part in it. Peace.
Will left-hander Clayton Kershaw sign a long-term deal with the Los Angeles Dodgers? It was sometime in the middle months of last season that theLos Angeles Dodgers dangled the idea of what would essentially be a lifetime deal in front of Clayton Kershaw -- a whopper contract for something in the range of $300 million. At that time, Kershaw, pitching in the middle of a season with high stakes for the Dodgers, deferred the conversation. So here we are in early January, and it could be that, as with the Don Mattingly talks, Kershaw and the Dodgers will soon finish dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s and close the deal they started discussing a long time ago. But Kershaw is now just 10 months from free agency, and for many players and agents, getting this close would almost certainly mean testing the open market. If there is, in fact, an impasse in the Dodgers-Kershaw negotiations -- if, in fact, he wants to explore his options -- this will shape Los Angeles’ aggressiveness in its pursuit of Masahiro Tanaka. By now, the ambition of the Dodgers’ ownership is apparent: They want to rule the baseball world. They want to win as many championships as possible. They want the best and most marketable team as possible, and they’re willing to pay top dollar for it. Given that context, they really can’t afford to sit around and hope that Kershaw re-signs. If Kershaw leaves, they’ll need somebody really good to replace him, to team in their rotation with Zack Greinke and Hyun-Jin Ryu, and there aren’t many pitchers of Tanaka’s ability who will become available between now and the start of the 2015 season. The Dodgers could trade for David Price, meeting the Rays’ steep demands for prospects and giving Price a whopper contract. They could hope that Max Scherzer leaves the Tigers next fall and hits the market. But for the Dodgers to achieve their goal of global domination, they need to lock up a rotation anchor in the months ahead, whether it’s Kershaw or Tanaka or Price or Scherzer. I don’t really know Kershaw, but I have spent some time around him and walked away with this strong first impression: He cares less about money than the vast majority of people I’ve known in the game. He’s a smart person who has a strong sense of himself, what he wants in his life, and I don’t think he’ll ever define himself by the dollar figures on his paychecks. Kershaw has already made about $20 million playing baseball and will nearly double that with his salary for 2014. My guess is that if you told Clayton and Ellen Kershaw this was all the money he would have in their lifetimes, they would be far more than OK with that. If money was a force that drove the pitcher, he would’ve probably finished the deal with the Dodgers last summer; he would’ve rushed to grab a pen, because the offer was staggering, more than $100 million more than any contract signed by any pitcher. So what’s he looking for with this next big career decision? He’ll likely get a record-setting deal no matter where he signs. Does he want to pitch for the Rangers, in the area where he grew up? Or will he ultimately sign with the Dodgers -- and certainly the delay must be something of a surprise to the leaders of that franchise, who are not accustomed to being told no. But the Dodgers’ sense of where these talks are may define their willingness to invest in Tanaka.
It's gotten down to if you marry the same species as a criteria. Which, as we all know, could be a taboo that will fall in the near future... Stay tuned for a human/bonobo hybrid. Chimpanzees are too savage actually; bonobos being much more evenly tempered and not given to murder and cannabalism, both traits which occur within chimpanzee groups. (I actually find it odd that when one kills another, it is known as "murder", not just killing another one. But it is a negative if your husband/wife kills and eats you, IMO. Just my feelings on this). Gorillas are out as potential mates, as they are aloof and self centered, as we also are well aware of.... not good at dinner parties at all. Most of them are total vegans, so forget about getting a burger with them. And you really need a big car and they won't wear seat belts. Bummer.
