Bio not provided
@Purple Drank @Shmolnick Plus it's very difficult to get past all the BS posts to the actual discussion.
9 months, 3 weeks ago on If There’s One Good Reason to Fire Don Mattingly…
@Purple Drank @Shmolnick It takes forever to scroll through the comments on here, so I just scan them quickly. And I don't completely agree with the consensus. A change at the top CAN make a difference. Plus, I'm way past being patient enough with this team to advocate the prudent approach.
Mike, I totally understand why you seem to be willing to give Mattingly a pass (for now) for the Dodgers' awful season so far - injuries are not his fault, Kemp still rehabbing the shoulder, Ned's typically poor roster construction, etc. I get that. And it's 1000% clear that Ned Colletti needs to NOT be the GM of this team for a million reasons given here and elsewhere over the past few months and years.
As we all know, the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Having Mattingly manage the team, I would argue, IS doing the same thing over and over again. Therefore - insane. Will another manager do significantly better? Maybe, maybe not. But it is quite clear to me that a malaise has settled over this team. Like it or not, the manager sets the tone and it's his job to motivate his players. Sure, Donnie Baseball can't hit for them, he can't field for them, he can't pitch out of the bullpen. But he is clearly NOT motivating the team to play better. Poor fielding, mental lapses, the bunting, the maddening tendency to manage defensively, and his almost now legendary misuse of the bullpen (thanks, Joe Torre School of Bullpen Management!), can all be traced, again one could argue, to the failure of the manager to address those issues. Since in all practicality, Ned is NOT going to be relieved of his GM duties at least until after the season ends (and then only if the Dodgers don't make the playoffs), some kind of change has to be made. Sometimes you HAVE to shake things up to change the general emotional and intellectual preparedness of the players on the field. Will shaking it up help? It surely won't hurt.
I like Mattingly. He's a good guy, the players like him. But he is on the hot seat, and replacing him is the single most significant change the team can make short of firing Colletti and getting all new players, both of which will not happen. Sometimes a change in leadership CAN make a difference. Not even trying would be, well, it would be insane.
(What I really want to know is this: what does MSTI the Dodger fan think? We already know what MSTI the blogger thinks.)
@LurkingAtWork @Shmolnick I'd give Tim Wallach or Davey Lopes the job for the remainder of the season.
10 months ago on So You Want to Fire Your Manager
Mike, I understand that you've been riding the Prudence Train for a while, but there is a legitimate opposing view. And that is, that while it is true that the players have to perform and do their jobs on the field, and it is equally true that the Dodgers have been overburdened by injuries, at some point, a big market team with this payroll has make some kind of move to get the team out of their malaise. Yeah, Ned's responsible for this mess and is and has been way over his head since he got the GM job, but it's the manager and his coaching staff who are responsible for training and motivating their players to do well. If we let the players be responsible for "doing their jobs" then why in hell have a manager in the first place? The manager is ultimately responsible for the game-to-game performance of his players. Something must be done to shake this team up. Status quo is not getting the job done. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We're there now.
If it were up to me, Ned would be gone in a heartbeat, then Donny Baseball would be let go at the All-Star Break if the team doesn't markedly improve. But it's not up to me. Kasten won't make a move until the off-season, not wanting to be seen as panicking or whatever ego-driven reason he has. But these repeated mistakes with in-game strategy that Mattingly makes IS losing games. He manages by the book and then by "feel." I like Mattingly. The players seem to like him, but they are not RESPONDING to him on the field. The bullpen mismanagement, the bunting, the adherence to this silly right-left baloney, the sitting of the hot hand - I'm sorry, but the buck stops at his desk. How much time WOULD you give Mattingly before you advocate a change? Again, he does not seem to learn from his mistakes; instead, he repeats them. Being nice to these highly-paid athletes may play well in the locker room, but it's not yielding results on the field, injuries or no injuries. Maybe a manager who's more of a hardass would get better results. Hey, at least it's something that hasn't been tried.
Anyway, I'm not one of those fly-by-night fans who panic at one loss. This has been going on for a while with Mattingly. My gut tells me that he just not smart enough to manage this team. It's time to make a change, in my humble opinion. Or mark my words, his in-game bumbling will give away more games.
Flame away, folks. :-)
@Mike Petriello @pablogoldstein But diving in a completely meaningless game is a completely different matter altogether. I think you're too forgiving, Mike. To quote Don Corleone... "Then I do not forgive."
11 months, 3 weeks ago on Hanley Ramirez Needs Surgery, And We Ponder A Reality In Which The Choice Is Between Dee Gordon & Juan Uribe
@WestonTaylor The lack of thought behind your comment is astounding. It was not the same game. It was a "championship" game in a useless tournament. Hanley took it seriously; he wanted his country to win and played harder than he probably would have in a spring training game. The Dodgers aren't paying him to get hurt playing for his home country, they're paying him to play MLB, and that requires spring training. Had he gotten hurt in a spring training game, I would still be pissed off but I would accept it as part of the MLB experience. The WBC is NOT part of the MLB experience. It was a completely meaningless game that resulted in a completely unnecessary injury.
@PWEEEEG @Shmolnick My hatred for the WBC is far stronger than your love for it.
As for me, I DO blame the WBC for this injury, and I blame the Dodgers for not protecting their investment, and I blame MLB for letting this travesty of a marketing campaign for baseball infringe on major league baseball's spring training. Just a stupid decision all around, and there's no avoiding that conclusion. I hope the Dodgers have learned their lesson - no more WBC. It's true that Hanley could have sustained this injury in a spring training game, but he didn't. He got injured playing in a meaningless, useless competition that turned out to be disastrous for some MLB teams. Now as for Hanley, I am now sort of pissed off at him for shirking his Dodger duties. I never liked the WBC but now I LOATHE it. Completely and utterly. I will never support it, never, ever ever ever. And my opinion of Hanley Ramirez has declined as well. Forgive? Never.
As for who should play where, I think Cruz at third and Dee at short is the best combination we could hope for. Which is exactly why I think Mattingly will rotate Uribe, Cruz and Gordon between the three positions until Hanley returns.
<snark>OMG Mike, I think you found the Dodgers' answer to third base! </snark>
1 year, 1 month ago on On the Continued Existence of Juan Uribe
No, there doesn't have to be a limit to how much Guggenheim can spend. We've suffered enough under the cheap McCourt regime. This is payback.
1 year, 1 month ago on Dodgers Depth Chart Analysis: Not Exactly the Keys to the Keystone
Nice suit. Seriously.
1 year, 1 month ago on Hyun-jin Ryu Is Styling
@DavePomerantz @Mike Petriello @Disgruntled Goat @WBBsAs Not saying that I agree with this, but another way to approach the issue is to ask the question "Did the player's action affect his play on the field and/or the outcome of a game?" Assuming this basis, and given that our entire criminal justice system is based on innocence until guilt is proven, then one must ban players whose actions affected their play on the field - to wit, players who have been PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TO HAVE THROWN GAMES OR WHOSE ACTIONS AFFECTED HIS PERFORMANCE OR THE OUTCOME OF GAMES. Gambling on an actual game is not the same thing as throwing a game. Does anybody really think that Pete Rose deliberately threw a game as a player? Reasonable doubt. I agree about Shoeless Joe, he had a great 1919 Series. Again, reasonable doubt. By this way of thinking then, steroid use, when proven, absolutely affects a player's actions on the field - it makes him unnaturally bigger and stronger. Therefore, steroid use should be seen in the same light as throwing a game - it affected the actual play on the field and the outcome of games.
Just another way of looking at it. Personally, I just think Pete Rose should be allowed in the HoF because he was a great goddamned player and whatever legal arguments lead to that result I'm fine with.
1 year, 1 month ago on It’s the Best Day of the Year
@Mike Petriello @Disgruntled Goat @WBBsAs Either way as long as its consistent. Nobody ever said professional ballplayers were angels so I guess I come down on the side of "ban none."
@DBrim @Shmolnick You miss the point. It's about the moral authority that baseball claimed when it banned Rose and Jackson yet did NOT ban Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, etc, all of whom CHEATED in one way or another. All cheaters or no cheaters. Can't have it both ways.
@Mike Petriello @Disgruntled Goat @WBBsAs Joe Jackson was banned from baseball for allegedly gambling. Cobb and Speaker also got caught gambling but weren't banned. Where's the moral authority? Rose gambled on baseball and was banned. There's a dangerous moral inconsistency going on here and in my opinion, that inconsistency negates any and all moral authority that baseball might have had. Either ban ALL cheaters or ban NONE. You can't have it both ways and still claim moral authority. Therefore, if Rose and Jackson were banned then Cobb, Speaker, Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa et al should all be banned. The precedent has been set. If you want to see the steroid cheaters get into the HoF, then you absolutely MUST reverse the ban on the others.
Moral authority must be absolute or it has no meaning. There cannot be a middle ground.
Anyway, that's my opinion. And yes, this issue DOES piss me off A LOT.
I have two recurring thoughts about the MLB Hall of Fame:
1. IF-THEN Statement: IF no Pete Rose and no Joe Jackson, then no Barry Bonds and no Roger Clemens. One set of morality, not two. End discussion.
2. The HoF is loaded with second-tier stars. I've felt for a long time that there should be two branches of the HoF: An upper level for the TRUE superstars (Ruth, Cobb, Mays, et al) and a second level for guys who had great careers but can't honestly be mentioned in the same breath as the guys in the other group. Tony Perez in the same group of Ruth and Mays and Cobb? PUH-lease.
That is all.
@Mike Petriello Oh yeah. That's why.
1 year, 2 months ago on 2194 Words on Andre Ethier, Michael Bourn, and Trade Value
Why is that I'm always afraid that the guy we trade away is going to have an MVP season as soon as we get rid of him, and the guy we get back will get hurt immediately?
I predict that Kemp will win MVP honors in 2013 to go along with the first of many Dodgers World Series victories. Now excuse me, I need another vodka and cranberry juice.
1 year, 2 months ago on Once Again: Josh Hamilton Or Matt Kemp?