This may be true, but the fact that he'll likely be one of the better players is the precise reason the O's will suck yet again. A team of Millars would fail to make the team worth watching. He doesn't qualify as anything more than a bit player on a decent team.

After this Wally episode passes, the O's are facing an off season where they'll be staring at yet another 90+ loss team that has few bargaining chips for disassembling. Also, not much ready in the minors. It ain't getting better any time soon. The O's brass may not understand the Wally lashback, but I sure hope they understand the coming lashback regarding the continued suckage. They haven't had a clue about much for close to 15 years now.

Yup, those are indeed two really scary things, to which you have to add a third: some recent contributors to this blog apparently don't get it either. One fella likened the episode to somebody going to a company picnic at the place where he used to work [!]. Y'know, have a brewski, roast some wienies, what's the big deal...Yikes!

NB: this is not Titov drunkenly ripping on people who express an opinion on KM's actions; hey, free country, express your brains out, etc. This is Titov drunkenly expressing dismay that the three constituencies above evidently do not fully perceive (or do so only in order to dismiss them) the sentiments of dismay, outrage, betrayal, etc., felt and voiced by others.

MLB's fraternization rule is apropos here, for the concept as much as the rule proper (which I can't cite). We all know players on opposing teams may be friends; but we all agree-- MLB, players and fans-- that these friends are not going to pal around on the diamond before a game because the perception this fosters is anithetical to the whole concept we're selling and buying, that these are determined opponents.

And the protection of this perception should (indeed must) extend to all MLB game functions, regardless of whether one of the perceived opponents is, in fact, off duty while the other is not. When you're in a theater, which is what a ball park is, of course, the rules of the "play world" must be observed.

When you're watching a production of Hamlet, you don't expect the performance to begin as the melancholy Dane, sword in hand and wearing tights, steps before the audience and says "Let's have a hand for my friend Chuck, who's going to do the voice-over thing at the beginning tonight to kick us off. He used to play the king [boo! hiss!] when we did this thing in Ontario, but we fired him and now he's appearing in a theater of the absurd production in Baltimore, I think it is. Anyway, c'mon out and take a bow, Chuck!"  

When you're in a movie theater watching a crime drama, you do not expect an actor to turn to the camera and announce "Folks, the dude playing the gangtser is actually a nice guy, wouldn't hurt a flea in real life." That kind of breaking of the 4th wall is Just Not Right, and would likely be met with demands for refunds by various of the paying audience who expect certain perceptions to be maintained. Ferris Bueller can face the camera and talk to us; Elliot Ness can't (and a suited-up Hamlet shouldn't).

I'm not against fraternizing as such, even on (or near) the playing field in some sports: one of the nice things about college lacrosse was splitting a keg with the other team after a game, a practice that rugby also seems to encourage. But nobody was paying to see us play college lacrosse (and a good thing, too) and there was no agreement that we would observe the exteriors of "opponent status" before or after games.

If KM and the Orioles FO think what they are involved in marketing is a club sport or a comedy, and that the linked perceptions of opponents-arena (theater)-rivalry are merely some sort of option the delusional can maintain if they want, then they are very much mistaken-- and very much need to be reminded of this.

If certain other fans feel that reminding them, and in no uncertain terms, amounts to some sort of overreaction (aside from the use of obscenities, which is a different issue), then I am here to say No, it is not. It is a natural reaction. And we wish you perceived that.