Surprise Trade Transforms Fernando Perez from Cubs Convention Attendant to Cubs Convention Disappointment

January 8, 2011

(Chicago, IL) – Today the Chicago Cubs staked their claim on the 2011 season by pulling the trigger on a long-rumored trade for Tampa Bay fireballer Matt Garza. While the Cubs paid a steep price in prospects for Garza, his presence dramatically improves the Cubs’ rotation in the face of stiffened competition in the NL Central.

Garza wasn’t the only player the Cubs netted from the Rays. The team also added lefty pitching prospect Zach Rosscup and outfielder Fernando Perez. Perez, 27, is no longer considered much of a prospect, but teammates rave about his spirit and positive attitude.

And best of all? It turns out Perez is a huge Cubs fan.

“Oh man, I’ve been a Cubs fan for years,” Perez said, peering from behind a giant, blue foam finger. “How do I put it? I’ve played for the Rays. When you play for the Rays, you’ve just got to have a top-of-the-line club to be a fan of, you know? A real winner to fall back on.”

“But when I was 13, a man in a Yankee hat gave me a massage that lasted just a little too long, so I ended up just rooting for the Cubs.”

The timing of the trade has had a fortuitous twist for Perez, who says he had passes to attend next week’s Cubs Convention, but now gets to attend as a player.

“I was looking forward to meeting my heroes Carlos Zambrano and Ryan Dempster, but now, people are going to be looking forward to meeting me!” Perez exclaimed before being rebuffed in an attempt to give a passerby an autograph.

“One minute, I was going to be the guy bitching about the Cubs giving up way too much to get Matt Garza, and the next, I’m going to be the guy folks point to when they say ‘that’s the guy who put the Garza trade over the top.’ Believe me, fellow Cub fans, I wasn’t on board with moving Chris Archer and Hak-Ju Lee until I heard the Cubs were getting me thrown in. I look forward to discussing this with you next week.”

[Ed. - Oh my, this has gone... poorly. If you're here because of Fernando Perez's thorough and not altogether incorrect fisking of this article, I would encourage you to read my mea culpa at Bleacher Nation: New Cub Fernando Perez is Not Happy with Me, and He's Probably Right. The short version? Sorry to Fernando and the readers for what was, ultimately, a crappy and unfunny article.

UPDATE: Fernando says there's no hard feelings, which I appreciate. His counter-apology is unnecessary, but accepted.

I think he's still got the wrong impression of me - both as a person and a writer - but (cliche alert) we only get one chance to make a first impression. I bombed mine with Fernando, and probably quite a few prospective readers. All I can do is try harder next time. And spell "heroes" correctly.]


26 Responses to “Surprise Trade Transforms Fernando Perez from Cubs Convention Attendant to Cubs Convention Disappointment”

  1. Boomshakalaka on January 12th, 2011 2:47 pm
  2. Chris in Scottsdale on January 12th, 2011 3:52 pm

    Deadspin just picked it up too…

  3. Arnold on January 12th, 2011 4:23 pm

    And it’s worth pointing out, too, that Perez is right: this isn’t funny. Keep on fucking that chicken, though.

  4. Tweets that mention Surprise Trade Transforms Fernando Perez from Cubs Convention Attendant to Cubs Convention Disappointment | The Cubs Brickyard - Chicago Cubs Jokes, Sports Parody News, and Blog -- on January 12th, 2011 5:03 pm

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Patrick Monaghan, Patrick Monaghan. Patrick Monaghan said: RT @outfieldrambler: I couldn't help responding to this great piece of art.// Garza's response [...]

  5. Chris on January 12th, 2011 5:22 pm

    Now I see what all the talk is about. Babies could write better than this.

  6. Corey on January 12th, 2011 5:28 pm

    Ha, it’s funny ’cause you guys suck at what you do.

  7. Duey on January 12th, 2011 5:39 pm

    Nice job douche-nozzle, you showed us all that a new outfielder can write circles around your drivel. Ace……….ha ha ha ha ha.

  8. TheBeenStewDotCom on January 12th, 2011 5:47 pm

    Perez writes his own blog? It’s not as good as Zito’s diary, though:

  9. Scarey on January 12th, 2011 6:03 pm

    Wow, didn’t think Perez would be so sensitive about it.

    BTW, that’s not a pedophile joke. I’m pretty sure it’s a shot at the Cubs and how comparitively the Yankees have a long storied franchise. Lots a Yankee fan could talk about. The Cubs… they’re just the Cubs.

    I don’t think this was supposed to be personal at all.

  10. EhKae on January 12th, 2011 6:08 pm

    Wait a second, this post was supposed to be funny?

    Nice pedophile line (you’re right Scarey, it’s not a joke, jokes are funny) you hack. If you had any real comedic or writing talent you wouldn’t need to resort to such pathetic attempts at humor, Ace.

  11. Scarey on January 12th, 2011 6:16 pm

    It wasn’t a pedophile anything. It wasn’t about pedophilia.

  12. TR on January 12th, 2011 7:09 pm

    to Scarey

    pretty sure that is a molestation drop, what else would a massage that lasts a little too long mean?

  13. AYO on January 12th, 2011 9:59 pm

    Fernando Perez just owned you, and he’s completely right. Horrible article, you fuck

  14. ahem on January 12th, 2011 10:00 pm

    If Fernando’s baseball career doesn’t work out, he can replace you

  15. New Cub Fernando Perez is Not Happy With Me, And He’s Probably Right | Bleacher Nation | Chicago Cubs News, Rumors, and Commentary on January 12th, 2011 10:17 pm

    [...] week I wrote a parody piece about Perez, the outfielder the Cubs acquired in the Matt Garza deal, suggesting that the trade surprisingly [...]

  16. Shut down this blog on January 13th, 2011 12:51 am

    If you’re going to do a mea culpa every time the subject of one of these unfunny articles calls you out on it, then why bother at all? I’m sure you thought this was hilarious when you wrote and posted it, so when the person fights back, you turn into a spineless coward. Either stick to your guns or go home. I’d recommend going home.

    And yeah, anytime you write something about getting a massage that “took too long” at age 13, it’s pedophilia. You must be the guy who told the officer “She’s 12??? She told me she was 14!!!!

  17. VanSlaw on January 13th, 2011 2:04 am

    Ace, as you have already admitted, this is not you at the top of your game. I’ll assume, from other things I have read and seen about Mr. Perez, that his reading of this post also does not represent him at his critical and rhetorical best.

    I do want to warn you, however, that, judging from the overwhelming display of wit and perspicacity in the Algonquin Comments Field, your best move is to–in the wise words of the clearly level-headed “Shut down this blog”–”go home.” While heeding this advice might entail developing a high tolerance for mixed metaphors (your other decision, after all, is to “stick to your guns”), such is the risk taken by a writer who earnestly reaches out to another who has taken offense at the writer’s work, or, to put it in further borrowed words, a “coward.”

    Do remember, Ace, that while I may believe that you have writing chops, there are many others waiting in the wings for the opportunity to display their keen insight on what makes for fine writing. To wit:

    “Horrible article, you fuck.” [Obviously, a bit derivative of David Mamet, but you have to admire the writer who is not afraid to bare the gutters of his soul.]

    “Nice job douche-nozzle.” [Nice choice, switching to a different part of the douche. "Bag" has become sooooo pedestrian.]

    “Babies could write better than this.” [In the case that you feel this statement needs no explanation, allow me to apologize should I come off as pedantic. However, this one had me stumped for hours. Then I realized that the fact that "babies"--who do not "write" in any true ontological understanding--wasn't simply an errant choice. The very point is predicated upon the fact that babies indeed CAN'T write! Deep stuff indeed. Dust-in-the-wind-type stuff.]

    “Keep on fucking that chicken, though.” [Beware--BEWARE--the man who is vigilantly aware of all Internet memes from last year. It takes true skill to reference what is otherwise considered a dead phrase in the comment section of a blog. A 2011 Blogger of the Year Candidate and the recipient of my FTW! LOLCAT Award. Also.]

    “Nice pedophile line (you’re right Scarey, it’s not a joke, jokes are funny) you hack.” [Now, I'll admit, this one had me flummoxed. I thought that the word imagery that this writer conjured was at once obfuscatory and tantalizing. Putting aside the logical coup de grâce scored at the mercy of Scarey in the parentheses (let's face it: jokes ARE funny; otherwise we'd call them "nokes"), I just couldn't decipher what must be a metaphor, the concept of a line of pedophiles that you, Ace, have set upon "hacking." I don't think this person was being literal, so perhaps he was celebrating your systematic putting down of deviance. However, the rest of the comment seems to be critical in nature. I also weighed the notion that he was using "line" and "hack" as computer lingo, and that through your use of technology, you had entered a world of deviance yourself. Hmmm. Of course, I entertained the idea that he had forgotten the comma before the direct address of "you hack," but I quickly dismissed that possibility, as one who is so quick to disparage publicly another's "comedic or writing talent" surely must possess said talent himself or herself. Thus, this phrase remains an enigma, a brilliant utterance whose meaning is lost to the ages.]

    So there you have it: those who would have your job. I guess the moral of my comment, Ace, can best be expressed in the following with all the pith I can muster: “Watch your back; there’s always a younger and hungrier avatar.”

  18. Shut down this blog on January 13th, 2011 9:33 am

    This is interesting. We’re all anonymous on the Internet, as has been acknowledged, and now another anonymous person attempts to give Ace advice while trying to 1) elevate himself about the rest of us by using a thesaurus and Round Table references (I too have books by Woollcott, Parker, Benchley, even Harpo Marx, and bonus points if you know why I included HIM) and 2) denigrate the other commenters by snarkily analyzing their opinions. He (or she) encourage Ace to “watch his back”. Alrighty then.

    Here’s the thing, though. I believe my comment still stands. Why apologize? You wrote it, stand by it. Otherwise, if every time the subject of one of your little missives takes issue with one you back off, then yes, you’ve got no spine, no courage of your convictions. THAT’S what will elevate you in the blogosphere. Because the alternative is to say “here’s something I think is funny at the expense of someone else until that person complains, at which point I’ll go put myself in the corner with my tail between my legs.” I’m fairly certain no one who frequented the Alqonquin did that very often, if at all.

  19. Scarey on January 13th, 2011 10:15 am

    “He writes better than me and has a better vocabulary. The only logical explanation is he has several sources open in front of his keyboard with which to extend his abilities past his actual inherent knowledge.”

    Spoken like a true dumbass.

    By they way, I’ll have to take a dunce cap for myself. I kept reading mAssage as mEssage. I guess it was a pedophile joke. However, to those that are “above such immaturity” please answer me this: have you never laughed at the old guy down the street in Family Guy?

  20. Shut down this blog on January 14th, 2011 12:48 am

    I’ve never watched Family Guy so no, I’ve never laughed at any old guy.

  21. Anonymous on January 14th, 2011 1:53 am

    Oh, hooray! Most of the commenters here burst through the front door, shit on the lobby rug, and then got the hell out of Dodge. You, Shut, on the other hand, have returned, no doubt in the hopes that Ace would take your bait. Perhaps yours is a special kind of hyperreal psychosis. Muy delicioso!

    I did happen to be aware that Harpo Marx was a frequenter of the Algonquin Round Table, but even if I wasn’t so aware, I could have simply Googled the information, so are you still comfortable awarding me my bonus points? Why offer the challenge at all, unless you were laboring to construct the ethos of an intellectual? (How the hell could I possibly even know what that means?) Fine, I’ll bite: you’re a smart guy. You probably don’t even OWN a thesaurus.

    But I do have to admit that I am in awe with the logic that supposes that since I a) am on the Internet, b) said some semi-smart things, and c) am not you, I couldn’t have possibly have crafted the post without resorting to a thesaurus. Prescient is the person who reaches beyond criticism of the text and makes assumptions on how the writer must craft. I marvel at your gift, sir.

    Since I am bereft of your clairvoyance, I can only assume that the same logic was applied when you came to the conclusion that not only was Ace’s original post “unfunny” but when Ace agreed and wrote a mea culpa, he had committed the greater sin of not standing by his work. You are probably right that the members of the Algonquin Round table rarely, if ever, apologized for something they wrote. Why? Because they all were insufferable pricks—pricks with large egos (save for Harpo—I recall seeing in a documentary Groucho’s daughter confessing that she preferred spending time at Uncle Harpo’s house instead of at her own dysfunctional home).

    Large egos leave little room for open minds. Keeping one’s ego in check allows one to try to reach consensus, even if such an action threatens to keep one’s fame from “elevating.” Of course, Ace made it clear in his apology that he has no desire to increase traffic at The Cubs Brickyard, that he writes here for fun simply. I’m fairly certain you would have caught that. (Not being as gifted as you at determining literacy practices, I can only assume that you read the post in full.) Maybe he shouldn’t have tossed his post aside lightly (but thrown it with great force?). However, I think his act shows more resolve, to be frank. Of course, if I could better follow my own advice and Ace’s example, I wouldn’t be writing this retort now, but, hey, we’re all works in progress, n’est-ce pas?

    Perhaps I should also work on my satirical writing. While I’m sure not everyone missed my attempt to point out the irony of denigrating a writer with less-than-stellar writing, you didn’t seem to get the point, and that’s a mighty big miss on my part. You charged me with attempting to “elevate myself” (you seem to be REALLY into elevation—are you a member of the Otis family? A conquest of Steven Tyler?) with my last post; perhaps my ego was intervening. Or perhaps—perhaps—the tone and diction of my comment was intended to underscore the irony. I could have simply said that knee-jerk reactions, filled with vile ad hominem attacks, to a parodist blog post is the sort of weak sauce that is typically the province of repressed donkey fuckers, but I was hoping to keep the discourse civilized.

    Here’s the thing, bub. You’re clearly a smart dude. In “real life,” we might have a good shot at being friends (hell, if you’re a Cub fan and a bookworm, for all I know you ARE one of my “real life” friends). In this weird, wild virtual world, however, Ace is a friend of mine. I wrote my comment to make him feel better about the callous rimming going on in his blog. I’m sorry if my comment analysis ruffled any real-world feathers. However, I am not sorry that I wrote it. [Insert cheeky emoticon here.]

    The truth is, I’ve no interest in a flame war. So let me try that reaching out thing: if you are indeed a Cub fan—and have a high tolerance for homoerotic innuendo—check out the Sons of Ivy discussion board on this site. Let’s say it’s sorta like the Algonquin Kiddie Table.


  22. VanSlaw on January 14th, 2011 1:54 am

    That was not intended to be anymore anonymous than “VanSlaw” is.

  23. Fernando Perez Announces His Presence With Authority | Rays Index on January 14th, 2011 11:01 am

    [...] Cubs Brickyard wrote a post making fun of ‘Nando that somebody forwarded to Perez (translation: Perez googled his own [...]

  24. Shut Down This Blog on January 15th, 2011 2:12 pm

    Wow, VanSlaw, for a guy who has no interest in a flame war, you sure spend a lot time saying so.

    I wasn’t trying to bait anyone. I was merely expressing my opinion. I apologize for hurting your feelings.

  25. VanSlaw on January 15th, 2011 2:18 pm

    “I apologize for hurting your feelings.”

    Okay, now I’m genuine concerned about your reading comprehension.

  26. VanSlaw on January 15th, 2011 2:19 pm


Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.