Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
Jon's other site:
Screen Jam
TV and more ...
1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with
If you have ever wanted to feel like a major leaguer, here's a quick and easy path.
Get yourself involved in a scandal - surely, that's easy enough to do - and then, when someone asks you about it, say something that doesn't … quite … fly.
It could be a quote you regret a moment later, or that you didn't believe even as you were saying it. Or, like Michael Scott on The Office, you could be completely oblivious as your foot goes deeper into your mouth. However it goes, you are qualified to be a tempest in an MLB teapot. Because, let's face it, these people have agents, managers, publicists, wives - they can get some of the best advice there is to get - and still boot the moment.
While most fans and reporters know that the court of public opinion is not the same as a court of law, few can resist the urge to glean deep truths from the statements of the scandal-stricken. As a result, anything short of an unqualified declaration of innocence leaves the media target trapped in speculation and innuendo.
Every week, it seems, we do the dance. Last week, America tangoed with Angels outfielder Gary Matthews, Jr. and Rangers utilityman Jerry Hairston, Jr., alleged to have received human growth hormone from a mail-order pharmacy in 2004, as well as Dodger spiritual leader Tommy Lasorda, alleged to have had hormone issues of another kind entirely.
Of the three, Hairston was the only one to douse the media fire without having to call 911.
"I have never taken steroids ever," Hairston told reporters. "I have never taken anything illegal. Period. I want to squash that right now."
Hairston's response exuded innocence. Moreover, it warded off the nagging follow-up questions that can lock a player uncomfortably in the spotlight. While his statement is not proof that his conduct has been aboveboard, unless any firm incriminating evidence emerges, Hairston's words stand as the last word.
Earlier in the week, in response to allegations in a new book by convicted madam Jody "Babydol" Gibson that he paid for sex, Lasorda began down a similar path to Hairston's.
"I have never heard of this woman and don't know why she would accuse me of something like this," said Lasorda, the former Dodger manager and current special advisor to team owner/chairman Frank McCourt, in an initial statement.
Again, though Lasorda's words only lined up his he-said next to Gibson's she-said, Lasorda benefited from being clear. Considering that Lasorda's sex life is probably something that the U.S. Congress will feel grateful to ignore, this probably the only response he needed to render the conversation moot.
Sure, some people will exploit the salaciousness no matter what, but no worse than anything Lasorda would have experienced in six decades of locker-room talk.
However, Lasorda went a step further in his response, adding that if Gibson "prints these lies, I intend to sue." Lasorda is not the first person to threaten a retaliatory lawsuit, and in fact, many media consumers expect as much. Unfortunately, even though a lawsuit might be a reasonable response, it is not always a sensible one in the face of legal costs and/or expected outcomes.
So a couple of days later, when Lasorda told the Times that he probably would not sue, he reopened the door for speculation against him. In essence, Lasorda changed his story, and that didn't serve him well. It didn't change the reality of whether he is guilty or not, or how much his guilt matters, but it did allow fans and reporters who saw the subsequent report to believe that he is backpedaling.
There's no law that says you have to care about public opinion. But if you do, then every statement you make needs to be clear and to the point - precise without being overstated. Otherwise, you're going to let the public write its own truth.
This brings us to Matthews, who can only hope that the law will save him, because in the news cycle, he was sinking.
Confronted with accusations that, from a legal standpoint, might not be much more foreboding than Lasorda's - investigators alleged Matthews received an HGH shipment the year before MLB banned the substance, a scenario that may allow him to earn immunity from prosecutors in exchange for testimony against bigger-fish suppliers - Matthews still faced a baseball world wondering whether he transgressed on his way to a career-best year in 2006, a performance that keyed his five-year, $50 million contract from the Angels.
Matthews' initial response, presumably the best he could offer under the circumstances, was not reassuring. He said he was not "in a position to answer any questions" without saying why, leaving it for others to fill in the blanks.
Statements in the ensuing days only seemed muddle matters further.
"When I get more information from my people I can say more," Matthews added. "If I don't have all the information, it puts me in a bad position."
Some people no doubt are thinking that Matthews' people should be getting information from him.
Before the week was over, Angels manager Mike Scioscia and owner Arte Moreno were notably impatient with Matthews' response, expressing that the longer it took for Matthews to issue a definitive response, the worse it looked. By the weekend, after Hairston's on-point quotes made Matthews look even worse by comparison, Matthews retained crisis management firm Sitrick and Co., Los Angeles' most famous public-relations mop-up unit. (Sitrick's motto: "If you don't tell your story, someone else will tell it for you.")
To think, even if he couldn't offer a straight denial, Matthews could have avoided most of these verbal gymnastics by just saying, "It's a legal matter, and I wish I could comment but I'm not allowed to." He could have taken himself all but out of the public dialogue - unless someone like his general manager, Bill Stoneman, picked at the scab.
Oh wait - that's exactly what happened in today's editions of the Times.
"We've made it clear to (Matthews) that we want him to make a statement," Stoneman said. "We've encouraged him to get the facts out, get his side of the story out, whatever that story is. I understand that when lawyers get involved they generally tell you to be quiet about things. That doesn't address the public side of it."
The subtext of Stoneman's statement is fury, because surely, Stoneman realizes that at this point, Matthews would have declared his innocence if his legal situation wasn't, at a minimum, nuanced. Matthews falling on his sword is all well and good, but with a government investigation underway and his fate still negotiable, it should be understood that there is a limit to what it's prudent for Matthews to say. As the Times points out today, a still-avoidable conviction against Matthews could add jail time and extend his MLB suspension from 50 to 80 games.
When Hollywood celebrities such as Mel Gibson, Michael Richards of Seinfeld or Isaiah Washington of Grey's Anatomy make a mess with offensive behavior, the path to public rehabilitation - 1) contrition, 2) seclusion, 3) Barbara Walters - is so well-traveled, it might as well be called a freeway. For baseball players, the roadmap is less clear, which makes the first turn all the more important.
Ultimately, we could learn that Hairston is more guilty of crimes against baseball or the law than Matthews is. It simply can't be emphasized enough that the truth of what these players did is more important than the truth of what they said.
But that won't ease the upcoming days and weeks for Matthews. And it's a lesson for celebrities of any ilk: Be innocent or be ready. Don't wing it. If you've done anything wrong, anything that might in a faraway galaxy be construed as wrong, start preparing your public defense now. Because if you don't find it convincing, few will.
Don't leave it for the public to fill in the blanks, because the public will take its No. 2 pencil and blacken the wrong bubbles.
You might think that you don't care what the average citizen thinks. Maybe you shouldn't have to care. But you probably do.
How cynical of you...
The news of this month doesn't change how suspicious Stoneman should have been of Matthews' ability, even if Matthews is innocent. I don't think the press or fans will let Stoneman off the hook - especially when they're tending toward criticism of him for his work of the past couple of years.
Like Colletti, Stoneman's fate depends more on how well the prospects perform than anything.
Apparently it is so successful, scandalized politicians and religious leaders (you know the examples) are using it too.
1 Is it cynicism if it's true?
Hmmm, where have we heard that name before?
Getting messier (John Rocker!? Just when you thought you heard the last of the guy). Also, ends the "Jr."s only phenomenon.
And for all his flaws, Beltre was a better investment than Matthews. So I think the situations compare that well. In any case, I'm not sure that fans care about GMs being duped. I think they expect GMs to know better.
http://tinyurl.com/yo7ks8
http://tinyurl.com/37blwe
"(Note: From my seat in the press box, I cannot see the batter, the third baseman, the shortstop's upper body, the second baseman's upper body, the left fielder or the right fielder. There will be a lot of hearsay involved in today's game accounts, but put that aside.)"
I can't for the life of me picture the configuration that would provide for such a view
Memo to Bill: Ain't gonna happen.
vr, Xei
http://www.presstelegram.com/dodgers/ci_5371098
Jon, you might want to add the Press-Telegram's Dodger site to your sidebar along with the other papers:
http://www.presstelegram.com/dodgers
Jon, very eloquently put. Matthews looks guilty as hell.
Who is it you're paraphrasing? The LA press is more like a blind doberman: biting every hand within reach that doesn't first try to feed it.
That is exactly--I mean, word for word--what my union rep told me when three kids minsconstrued something I said and got their parents and administrators involved. I was going to speak my peace but:
a) the union rep was bigger than me and held me back from going to what I was told was an angry meeting and
b) the words in bold above stopped me in my tracks.
His point was this: I thought--hell, I knew--that I was innocent but that it didn't matter very much if I was going to wing it in a meeting where everyone involved assumed I was guilty until proven innocent. I'm fine, the kids are now fine with me... the situation just kind of went away. In retrospect, the union rep couldn't have been more right--had I went into that meeting, I would've made things worse.
Does this mean "Be innocent or be ready to lie" ...?
"It ain't the crime, it's the cover-up."
Straightforwardness is implicit in that simple recommendation.
Tomorrow is another day...
Loney 2 more hits, LaRoche 1 more Error.
Jeff (LA): Why was Clayton Kershaw ranked higher than Scott Elbert on the Top 100 prospect list?
Jim Callis: (2:12 PM ET ) Same stuff but with more polish.
It worked for Hugh Grant. It worked for Charlie Sheen. Sometimes the "I'm sorry, I screwed up" thing actually works.
(I recognize Matthews may not have this option or that its a $55M option but Stoneman isn't going to void the contract. The Union won't let him and he'd look as stupid as he actually is for signing him in the first place. Stoneman will hope and pray that Matthews has a good season.)
The only way the LAA don't wind up with egg on their face is if Artie voids the contract and fires Stoneman.
I wonder if the suicide rate increases in LA when Rick Monday is doing radio?
And, maybe everybody could put all Dodger related posts in bold so that they can be easier to find.
I don't think Jon wrote that on drugs, though maybe the Dodgers defense will drive many of us to start taking them if it continues in regular season. ;-)
Also since the collective bargaining agreement already addresses penalties for this type of drug use, I don't think teams can act unilaterally and void it. Now the Angels can go Kevin Appier and Russ Ortiz (just for you Bob) and waive him and pay him off but there is no way they do that.
46 David Bell owns it, sort of.
Bell acknowledges receiving the shipment but tells SI the drug was prescribed to him "for a medical condition," which he declined to disclose, citing his right to privacy.
Flat-out denying it now and getting caught later is also a bad publicity scenario; at least it was for Rafael Palmeiro.
NASA to Brock: 'She's all yours'
Its honestly never has bothered me.
The only times it has bothered me were when the player came off of them, and underperformed.
And basically tell the players if they want to play baseball, these are the rules. That is the only way to get the story contained.
That won't help Gary Matthews but I think that taking stand like that would be Selig's legacy.
There was talk of the Lakers voiding Radmanovic's contract for breach. Why would this be any different?
If interested email at my nickname @yahoo.com (the name up there to the right of the number of the post) interested.
As a result, I have very little faith in "the system," which makes me not want to care much about it.
I'm with you for the most part, guys juicing so as to improve their performance, really has no bearing on me. If they want to put themselves at risk for the sake of their wallets and my entertainment, who am I to complain?
The problem lies with the integrity of the game. You have a bunch of people who couldn't care one way or the other if guys are roid'n and you have a bunch of people who think it is the worst possible thing you can do in the game. There is no happy medium so I am indifferent to the whole mess. I just like players and hate players. Plain and simple. If I found out a player I liked was on something (Mark McGwire for example), it doesn't necessarily lessen my opinion of him. What McGwire and Sosa did to revive national interest in baseball in the mid-90's factors into the way I feel about McGwire as a whole. As for another known user, one Barry Bonds, I hate him just because he's Barry Bonds. While I always respected his abilities as a player, his personality on and off the field, I could do without. I formed that opinion a loooooooong time ago. When it came to light that he was juicing, it just gave me yet another reason not to like the guy. It was almost a freebie!
I guess what I am saying is that every single steroid case is unique and we need to view them that way instead of making blanket statements that encompass every offender under one umbrella of shame.
1. Kids. Enough said.
2. Barry is a user breaking Aaron's record who wasn't.
3. Why should those players not willing to use them be forced to. Example: If I am better than average and everyone below average can bring themself up to me though PED why should I have to take them to regain my advantge.
4. Health reasons
This phrase gets used a lot, but for me, it doesn't have much meaning. I sometimes think "Wow, it kinda sucks that steroid users are breaking old baseball records." But then I think, who's to say the old record-holders were pure as the undriven snow, and even if they were, do I really care that much about records? Do they really have any significance in my life?
vr, Xei
xeifrank@yahoo.com
No more than Jennifer Hudson winning an Oscar :)
Jennifer who...?
"Integrity of the game" is a phrase that can be comprehended many different ways. It just depends on your specific outlook. What are the important aspects of baseball to you personally? Much like if someone asked you what the best Beatles album ever recorded was.......there is no right or wrong answer.
I'm with you on records not having significance in my life. Am I not going to be able to sleep at night because Bonds breaks Aaron's record? Of course not, I have 60 hour a week job that pretty much takes that option away from me. Will I be disappointed or disgusted? Of Course! But that's only because it's Barry Bonds and I don't like him. If it was someone else who used PED's at one time or another in their career I don't think I would really have a problem with it. Nobody will forget Hank Aaron or his record or better yet, the prejudice and obstacles he had to overcome to be one of the greatest. Bonds passing him will not tarnish his accomplishments or make the public forget anything. It's just a new number to remember as far as I'm concerned.Then in a few years we can all celebrate when stupid A-rod breaks Bonds' record!
If baseball shared your views the only players that would be playing were the ones that were willing to damage their long-term health, shrink their balls, put gaps in their teeth, etc.
What about great athletics that couldn't make the show because they refused to sacrifice their body/health?
Who says that hasn't generally been the case for a long time now?
What is that? Do your teeth space because your head gets bigger or something?
If PEDs were ever proven to not be as harmful as some think, would that change your mind?
As an example: Why should those not willing to go to graduate school, be forced to bc everyone else is getting masters degrees?
In my opinion, its all about having personal freedom to better your own self, and to what extent/risks you're willing to take to achieve it.
Sure, some guys would probably decide that pro sports wasnt for them, if they knew they had to enhance themselves to do it. But is that really a bad thing?
He has to be a regular.
1B is probably the best way.
Well in the NFL, that is already the case. The ones that are playing, ARE willing to damage their long-term health. They are sacrificing their future health (by taking so many hits, constantly lifting/conditioning, etc), to live the good life right now.
I say good for them.
you say one of our best prospects is a "spare part" so pretty much anything you say can be discounted as jiberish as far as I can tell.
http://tinyurl.com/2ayhvr
"So your big right-hander tied for the league lead in wins, but he might be your No. 3 starter at best. He saved his best stuff of the season for the All-Star Game, then faded down the stretch. He can be overpowering, but he's also a pill.
What do the Dodgers do with Brad Penny?
Trade him, if they're smart. According to sources around the club, Penny tends to be at his finest when it doesn't really matter. He tends to question and berate teammates in full view of the public. With Derek Lowe, Jason Schmidt and Randy Wolf considered the most valued starters on the staff, and the team crying out for a power hitter, general manager Ned Colletti has an obvious move to make -- if he can find the right deal."
And, as if on cue, Penny was pounded today.
http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/justforfun/quotes.shtml
Actually, the phrase should be "driven snow."
Shakespeare uses the term in "A Winter's Tale."
It comes from this meaning of "driven" according to the OED:
driven, ppl., a.
2. Of snow: Carried along and gathered into heaps by the wind; drifted.
Maybe, but the line-up may not be set in stone just yet. Lots of times guys earn and loose jobs pretty quickly in March/April, brittle infielders not withstanding.
I read this last night. I can recall the one incident with Lofton. Were there any others that justify this evolving into "tends to question and berate"?
83 - If someone else started this and I missed it, I apologize, but in any case, please review the code of conduct guidelines on the right-hand sidebar.
good call, sorry- it was a knee jerk reaction post.
Brad Penny is a slightly-above-league-average-starting-pitcher pitcher!
I know. It's a rough world out there.
Yeah, but I don't like that phrase. It makes me think of snow that has been driven on by (e.g.) cars, which doesn't seem nearly as "pure" to me as snow that has not been driven on by cars.
Penny scares me, because if he isn't very significantly improved from the end of last year than he is a #5 pitcher, but I don't think there is enough reason to question his character. If he could bring Rocco Balldelli into the fold then I would trade him in a second.
A dead man tells no tales...
Penny for Baldelli then trade Pierre to Marlins and we eat half his contract.
What did that call what when Kirk Gibson did what...?
"He tends to question and berate teammates in full view of the public."
21 years ago, in the last few days of spring training when one of my favorites and the best player on the team, Pedro Guerrero, ruptured his tendon sliding.
The Dodgers were done and the season had not started yet.
So first, no injuries, second, how are the guys who were hurt last year doing physically?
Third concern is how the prospects are doing against MLB pitching or hitters, respectively.
As far as actual performance, until you can take your spring stats with you when the season starts, I don't pay that much attention to them.
But again, this is only my take.
Ah, I see. Yes, well, I believe the word was something along the lines of "leadership".
--
On a different subject, for those 4 of us who care, the only way to see Big West conference tourney games this week is to watch them on the web by paying for BigWestTV (and not if you have a Mac), and then if you're one of the like 3 cable services in the country that offer ESPNU for Friday's games, and then if you still care, the championship game Saturday is on ESPN2 at least. BigWestTV? ESPNU? I paid extra to get Fox Sports Net Pacific and they're not covering it either.
I think something smaller is more likely. Something like Repko to the Marlins or Tomko the the Jays. There are just too many decent/good players and only a few spots between here and Vegas.
How great would it be, though to have Baldelli?
Because he's on Pros vs. Joes.
120 >Sob!<
Yes. Fire, will to win, etc.
So today was my first day in Vero Beach watching our beloved Dodgers from some fine seats pretty close to the Dodgers' dugout. Here are my pseudo-scientific observations and impressions from today's game...
1. Penny was throwing decently hard, but everything was up in the zone and he didn't seem to be hitting the corners. His change-up actually looked quite good but he used it sparingly. Curveball looked decent, but didn't quite have its normal break.
2. Kuo seemed to be throwing harder than Penny, but it might have just been an illusion. The homer he gave up was wind-aided and should have been a warning track fly ball. Some of the balls called on his walk to Miles were quite questionable, but overall his control was a bit shaky in his first inning. Had some trouble spotting his curveball.
3. Saito and Broxton looked like they were in midseason form, but the scrubs (Smith and Montero) looked pretty scrubby. Tsao had some good life on his fastball but didn't show much of a secondary pitch.
4. Loney had a lot of trouble in RF today. His first mishap was a short pop-up that he got no jump on and might have lost in the sun - either way it looked bad. The 2nd was a gapper that he took a bad angle on and could have caught with a normal route. The 3rd was a slicing fly ball down the line that he completely overran and landed about 10 feet behind him.
5. The offense hit a good amount of long line drives, but they always seemed to go right at the outfielders. Loney made solid contact on all his hits though they were all ground ball singles. LaRoche has a true power swing, but he kept hitting the top of the ball and chopping it toward 3B. Damian Jackson looked terrible at the plate, continuously second-guessing himself and check-swinging on good pitches.
6. The error called on LaRoche should have been given to Kent since the throw was probably shin-high and Kent just plain dropped it. I'm assuming it was a veteran call to give the error to the rookie.
7. Hu made a great diving stop on a grounder up the middle, managing to get a force on the play. He hit the ball hard both times but came up empty.
8. Got autographs from Loney and Hu after the game and a picture with Loney who was an extremely nice guy and signed more than anyone else after the game.
If anyone has any more requests for player evaluations, you can e-mail me at karl.hungus at gmail.com or continue to comment and hopefully I'll catch your question.
Karl Hungus ayyy.
Think that means a big one is coming?
How can a cable man afford to go Vero Beach?
In today's notes, Penny said he was working on a 2-seam fastball and wasn't throwing particularly hard by design, he said he felt fine after his outing.
I wouldn't worry about guys like Smith and Montereo, they probably won't be pitching next week.
Ned mentioned today on the radio that aside from La Roche and Miller, he has been impressed with Tsao and that he may have a spot in the bullpen when the team come homes from Vero Beach.
3. Ned said on radio this morning that Tsao was one of the pleasant surprises of camp.
4. Not to overvalue defense, but I never liked the idea of playing a significantly superior defender in a postion where he is average or worse - I also hated Wes Parker in the OF. Why give away any advantage, no matter how small?
3. Ned said on radio this morning that Tsao was one of the pleasant surprises of camp.
4. Not to overvalue defense, but I never liked the idea of significantly superior defender in a postion where he is average or worse - I hated Wes Parker in the OF, too. Why give away any advantage, no matter how small?
It might be best for both sides if Matthews were just suspended (with pay, I guess) or voluntarily took a leave.
142 No, my birth year is 1980, 1994 was just the year when the first Overkill album I ever bought came out. It was actually purchased in 1997.
I still have 4 more games on the schedule and hopefully I'll get to the park earlier to watch some batting practice next time. I took a few pictures today, I'll try to post them somewhere when I get back.
(Picture crazy old man from The Simpsons)
So Bob, have you figured out how to do live blogging from Staples?
I disagree. I was a Simers hater but I have really grown to like him because of the radio show. Putting aside his sthick, during interviews he asks the tough questions and doesn't let his guests get away with anything. Rogan's questions are so soft, like most sportscasters, out of fear of never getting another interview, as to be unlistenable. I agree the banter gets to be a little much but I like the show. Plus they spend almost zero time on the NFL which I appreciate.
His reason for telling this story, Eric Stults is pitching for the Dodgers tonight.
Dodgers lead 2-0 after 3.
It was four letters.
I'm not giving Loney a total free pass today, but he did have the sun facing him so it could be just another adjustment he has to make during his transition.
Eric Stults becomes the first pitcher to go 3 innings, 0 runs, 3 hits, a walk and 2 strikeouts.
The 25+ roster guys in the lineup are Kemp, Ethier, Repko, Betemit and Saenz.
4-0 after 3 1/2.
Dessens pitching now.
Did someone say "Karate Kid?"
Ralph Macchio got the part over two other actors. I was one of the other two.
Yes, they most definitely made the right choice.
5-0 after 4 1/2.
Dessens pitching his second inning.
Marlin's announcers now telling the Matt White story about his billionaire rock pile.
He's peculiar suffering. It's only about men's golf.
Elmer Dessens pitches a scoreless 5th, 5-0 Dodgers, thus far, the trends against the Cardinals and Marlins from 2006 continue.
And Wilson Betemit continues his not-so-strong bid for the 3B job.
Interestingly, when Ned was talking about Valdez today on the radio, he mentioned that Valdez and Betemit were out of options.
They still want to give La Roche some time in the OF this spring.
So he remains a 4th/5th outfielder. Also, you can't buy into his stats in Spring Training too much because you don't know who he was facing, game conditions, etc.
That fan is going to have a loooong season.
Mike Megrew pitched a quick 6th inning, now 6-0. Young walked in the 6th and eventually scored on a ground out.
Dodgers sure hit plenty of singles. I suppose I should get used to it. Its not so different from last year.
Seems like Ethier and Loney are the same hitter. Both make good contact, can go both ways and have marginal power.
I don't really have any mythbusting skills, but I wonder if I could just hang around, get coffee, be a test subject on occaision.
I'd like to feel like I was giving something back.
I give you
Jason Pierre
185 Get the feeling Loney and Ethier are ready. Kemp and La Roche are close and will bring power--later this year or next. This is wonderful; Abreu, Young and even Hu seem to feel they can make it too. I'm so euphoric I can't even see where the reality slap is going to come from.
Though its early, if you take the veterans who have ML stats, and use the ST stats of the young you would have a team that would make me mostly optimistic. However, using these two rules you would also take two who would make me nervous, Valdez and Penny. Oh well.
It may not necessarily be proof, but, is there another explanation for D4P's railing against Jennifer Hudson yesterday, and his failure to condemn Suffering Bruin for having wanted an acting job?
>>> Because the Marlins played a split-squad doubleheader and they were short on pitching, Nic Ungs was brought up from Minor League camp to throw one inning. Repko homered on Ungs' first pitch.
http://tinyurl.com/ytsxl9 <<<
(On Bad Altitude...)
He makes some really good points, is generally too hard on most of the people involved in the Dodgers story, and seems to ignore a lot of the other good young players they have either ready, near ready, or some time in the near future ready to contribute -- but that's okay, I enjoyed reading it anyway!
If Nomar showed himself to be an adequate left fielder, which is a reasonable possibility for a former shorstop, that would benefit Gonzalez, who isn't a fulltime player anymore. Obviously it would help Loney, giving him more ABs and allowing him to play his natural position.
Didn't Nomar say that he willing to go wherever the Dodgers put him? Why wouldn't the Dodgers get him out there for some flyballs, with the understanding that it is not a full-time gig?
I say this while acknowledging that it is possible that Nomar would struggle to read flyballs. Further, the left fields in the NL West are more difficult than many others. It's conceivable that Nomar would be a liablity in LF, yet I think the benefits of getting some feedback on his OF abilities outweight keeping the status quo.
But maybe I could plead small sample size?
Anyhow, my specialty is commenting on dead threads, so who better to have #200, after everyone's long gone?
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.