Master Index of Archived Threads


Big Unit Fathers Love Child, Remains Asshole

Rotblatt Mar 28 2006 02:13 PM

[url=http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0327063bigunit1.html]Big Unit[/url] comes up small in the parental department, suing his child's mother for $100,000 in day care payments he had paid over the past 8 years.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 28 2006 02:48 PM

In Randy's defense: The kid is 16 and she hasn't been in day care for years, but the mom has continued to collect day care payments from him. On the other hand: His lack of interest in this daughter is appalling. He only met her once. I can't imagine being that disinterested a parent, even of a love child. It's pretty cheap to sue the mom. It has to mean bad blood between the two. The amount of money that Johnson has paid is chump change to a guy who makes as much as he does.

Elster88 Mar 28 2006 02:57 PM

He probably makes 100 K in two weeks just on interest.

Centerfield Mar 28 2006 03:21 PM

What's amazing here was that Randy Johnson managed to find someone to sleep with him back in 1989 when he wasn't even good.

KC Mar 28 2006 03:23 PM

The man can tie it in a knot.

MFS62 Mar 28 2006 03:27 PM

Now THAT was a meaningful thread title. KC, you owe me something to clean off my monitor and keyboard. Oh, and a can of soda, too. LOL! Later

Edgy DC Mar 28 2006 05:00 PM

The necessity of payments being necessary for an older child seems irrelevant if (a) it was agreed that they would continue, and (b) they were sent without legal coersion, more than implying that Johnson consented. Guess they wanted to get retroactively petty after the car request.

Nymr83 Mar 28 2006 05:29 PM

theres nothing uncommon about getting "retroactively petty" in cases like this. i usually have sympathy for the guy when the court awards custody to the woman and then adds insult to injury by making him pay more than his fair share for stuff. i have no sympathy for an assclown like johnson who wants nothing to do with his kid and is rich enough that these requests are not big financial burden on him.

Rotblatt Mar 28 2006 05:32 PM

Nymr83 wrote: theres nothing uncommon about getting "retroactively petty" in cases like this. i usually have sympathy for the guy when the court awards custody to the woman and then adds insult to injury by making him pay more than his fair share for stuff. i have no sympathy for an assclown like johnson who wants nothing to do with his kid and is rich enough that these requests are not big financial burden on him. Seriously. If I made $16M a year, I'd be passing out cars to my illegitimate children like hotcakes.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 28 2006 06:42 PM

Rotblatt wrote: I'd be passing out cars to my illegitimate children like hotcakes. Daddy?

Frayed Knot Mar 28 2006 10:05 PM

Making fun of Yanquis is fun and all - but this is a virtual non-story and for the Daily News to splash this all over their front page is slimy at best.

Nymr83 Mar 28 2006 10:17 PM

i dont think its slimy at all, johnson should be called out on his bad parenting.

Rotblatt Mar 28 2006 10:17 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 28 2006 10:32 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Daddy? Hah! Talk to me once I start making my $16M per, bucko. Until then, I admit nothing.

Frayed Knot Mar 28 2006 10:30 PM

Nymr83 wrote: i dont think its slimy at all, johnson should be called out on his bad parenting. Johnson's parenting doesn't affect his very public job and therefore doesn't need to be a topic for public consumption.

Rotblatt Mar 28 2006 10:38 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 28 2006 11:03 PM

I almost agree, Frayed, but he really brought this on himself. A lawsuit against the mother of his child for $70K, plus interest, when he makes $16M per year? It seems incredibly petty and mean-spirited. If you're stupid enough to pull shit like that, you deserve to have your face plastered across a crappy newspaper. edited for formatting.

ScarletKnight41 Mar 28 2006 10:44 PM

Not that I have any love for Johnson, but we don't know his side of the story. Are we even 100% sure that he's this kid's biological father? Could that be the reason he's asking for the child support money back?

Nymr83 Mar 28 2006 10:50 PM

i'm sure he can afford a paternity test.

Frayed Knot Mar 28 2006 10:58 PM

After the story broke Johnson released a statement acknowledging that he fathered a child years prior to his current (and I believe only) marriage. It was not something that was in general public knowledge and he wanted to keep it that way in part for the girl's privacy. And yes, him filing the suit is what brought this into the public eye but it's still poor (and slimy) judgement to splash it all over a front page and to justify doing it because WE decide that $70,000 isn't significant enough for him isn't any of our business either.

Rotblatt Mar 28 2006 11:03 PM

ScarletKnight41 wrote: Not that I have any love for Johnson, but we don't know his side of the story. Are we even 100% sure that he's this kid's biological father? Could that be the reason he's asking for the child support money back? See, that's the thing. He admits to fathering the child, and he's still paying $5,000 a month in child support. He just wants the $750 extra in day care costs he paid per month for the last eight years. That's $72,000. He also wants another $25,000 in interest. Assuming RJ loses 50% of his salary to taxes, he nets $666,666 per month (coincidence?). Maye the mother's a real piece of work, but it's still just cheap and petty.

Edgy DC Mar 28 2006 11:04 PM

Agreed. Should have been all over the back page of the crappy newspaper.

ScarletKnight41 Mar 28 2006 11:14 PM

Rotblatt wrote: Maye the mother's a real piece of work, but it's still just cheap and petty. FK - I wasn't aware that he acknowledged paternity. In that case, I agree with Rotblatt. You support the kids you bring into the world - Period! As to whether it's newsworthy, I'd say it is. Johnson is a public figure, and the fact that he is refusing to support his child is worthy of public comment. OTOH, it doesn't merit the front page (or the back page, IMO) - make the coverage proportional to the importance of the story (which, in this case, isn't much).

Frayed Knot Mar 28 2006 11:48 PM

He's not refusing to support the child. And let's not pretend that the paper ran with this out of some concern over child safety or deadbeat dads. This is nothing more than celebrity dirt dishing being passed off as if news.

MFS62 Mar 29 2006 09:26 AM

I'm getting this image of a 6'-plus girl with Unit's face. *shudder* Hope she's good at volleyball or basketball, because I don't think 'runway model' is in her future. Later

Yancy Street Gang Mar 29 2006 09:30 AM

Her photo is in the Daily News today. Sad to say, she got her father's looks.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 29 2006 09:32 AM

A tiny photo included with this story: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/403993p-342083c.html

Edgy DC Mar 29 2006 09:38 AM

Not much to conclude from there.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 29 2006 09:41 AM

The picture was quite a bit bigger in the print edition.

silverdsl Mar 29 2006 10:10 AM

There are always two (and usually more) sides to every story so I think it's hard to know who's in the right or wrong in this dispute. But while it's great that RJ has been sending child support to her all these years I think it's really unfortunate that he hasn't seen his daughter since she was born. Many people are more interested in gossip about celebrities personal lives than about what the celebrities do professionally. I don't think that this story should be on the front/back page of the morning papers but the reality is that it sells papers.

KC Mar 29 2006 11:22 AM

I just passed the receptionist and turned over her NY Post and she's on the front cover. Not a very flattering hairdoo.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 29 2006 11:25 AM

I'm sure if your receptionist knew she was going to be on the cover of the New York Post, she would have had her hair done.

Centerfield Mar 29 2006 11:26 AM

I saw the print version. She looks like Randy.

Edgy DC Mar 29 2006 11:26 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 29 2006 11:27 AM

Not too many 6'1" 16-year-old girls have their act or look fully nailed down. The poor kid is probably OhmyGawding through the day as her name is all over the internet.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 29 2006 11:27 AM

]The heartbroken love child of Yankee superstar Randy Johnson yesterday broke her silence for the first time to describe how the peevish pitcher coldly responded to letters she sent him as a little girl pleading to meet him. "I would get cards back from him with just his signature - 'Randy,' " said Heather Renee Roszell, 16, who bears a striking resemblance to her "Big Unit" father.

Elster88 Mar 29 2006 11:27 AM

She's the one to feel sorry for.

Elster88 Mar 29 2006 11:28 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 29 2006 11:30 AM

What a fucking rag the Post is. They should display it next to the Enquirer.

Elster88 Mar 29 2006 11:29 AM

I have a guess as to who the next pitcher to attack a mediot will be.