Unsurprisingly, It Is Goldman Sachs That Brokers Peace Agreement Between A-Rod and Steinbrenners

Author:
Publish date:
Updated on

Goldman Sachs is really starting to frost my cookies and I don’t think it would be off base to say I’m not alone in this sentiment. Not content with merely getting through each quarter without taking multi-billion dollar writedowns and running the government, and keeping Lloyd Blankfein’s Oxy addiction out of the Journal, the bank (employees John Mallory and Gerry Cardinale, not representing the firm per se but nonetheless making everyone’s hands dirty) felt the need to broker a deal between mortal enemies Alex Rodriguez and Yankees management that would pay the disenfranchised third baseman at least $300 million if he breaks Barry Bond’s career home run record of 762 (and counting). No one is saying that the two parties shouldn’t have been reunited so that they might experience another pitiful season together, and Mr. Rod can wear stripes while he continues to never win a World Series ring, but why did Goldman Sachs (via employees who weren’t technically doing working at the time, but whose actions nevertheless reflected poorly on the firm) have to do it? We get it, you’re Goldman Sachs, you’re amazing, you’re wonderful, you can do no wrong and can’t help yourself but go out in the world and do right. Guy banks want to be you, girl banks (and gay banks) want to fuck you. You have nothing else to prove, and you’re only alienating people with this shit. Why don’t use do something really noteworthy, like hire a chief executive who has hair? Does Stan O'Neal fur? We hear he's available.
Also, I think you should look at this.
Yankees May Pay Rodriguez for Home Run Record [NYT]

Related

Goldman Sachs Can Fix This

A week ago today, a man named Greg Smith resigned from Goldman Sachs. As a sort of exit interview, Smith explained his reasons for departing the firm in a New York Times Op-Ed entitled "Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs." The equity derivatives VP wrote that Goldman had "veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say I identify with what it stands for." Smith went on to note that whereas the Goldman of today is "just about making money," the Goldman he knew as a young pup "revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients." It was a culture that made him "love working for the firm" and its absence had stripped him of "pride and belief" he once held in the place. While claiming that Goldman Sachs has become virtually unrecognizable from the institution founded by Marcus (Goldman) and Samuel (Sachs), which put clients ahead of its own interests, is hardly a new argument, there was something about Smith's words that gave readers a moment's pause. He was so deeply distraught over the differences between the Goldman of 2012 and the Goldman of 2000 (when he was hired) that suggested...more. That he'd seen things. Things that had made an imprint on his soul. Things that he couldn't forget. Things that he held up in his heart for how Goldman should be and things that made it all the more difficult to ignore when it failed to live up to that ideal. Things like this: