Sunday, April 30, 2006 |
Pickoff Moves
Today's Birthdays
Phil Garner LAN b. 1949, played 1987. Yes, the current manager of the 'Stros, "Scrap Iron" played a half season in a Dodger uniform. By the time he ended up in Chavez Ravine, he was a ghost of his former three-time All-Star self (once with the A's and twice with the Pirates), hitting only .223/.268/.348 for Houston, and slumping his way to a .190/.299/.270 line in 126 AB with the Dodgers. 38 at the time, he only cost the Dodgers a PTBNL of no consequence, and had the salutory effect of allowing Tommy Lasorda to move pieces around so somebody else besides the recently injured Mariano Duncan could play at short. Garner signed as a free agent the next year with the Giants, got a back injury that cost him almost all but a September's worth of games, and retired thereafter.
Tony Mack CAL b. 1961, played 1985
Jeff Reboulet LAN b. 1964, played 2001-2002
Paul Wachtel BRO b. 1888, played 1917, d. 1964-12-15
Anaheim Considering Appeal Of Name Case
Unless Arte drops his demand for the city to pay his legal fees.The City Council is not expected to decide on an appeal until after a May 12 court hearing, in which city attorneys will ask for revisions in the formal language that accompanied the verdict. The city claims the team could interpret portions of that language as a legal blessing to drop "of Anaheim" and sell themselves as the Los Angeles Angels.
Roster Notes
- Hector Carrasco will make his next start in place of Bartolo Colón on Monday. Hold onto your hats...
- Ozzie Guillen, providing an example of why he is easily my most hated manager in the AL:
"If Escobar is going to hit somebody, he should hit himself," Guillen said. "A.J. has nothing to do with the dumb … play they made, Josh Paul and him. And, all of a sudden, you're blaming A.J. You have to be dumb enough to blame somebody when you screw up.
Had the AL posted a competent umpire behind the plate, Escobar is out of the inning and we have no problem. "Dumb play", my ass.Update: Talk about an arrogant prick:
“People in Los Angeles should remember that play like the Bill Buckner thing,’’ said Guillen, recalling Buckner’s infamous error in the 1986 World Series.
Buckner? If the AL posts anybody besides Doug Eddings behind the plate in that game, the inning is over and this never even registers. But to cast the Chisox' lucky break as some kind of an Angels failing... wow, what an appalling lack of class. Ozzie, you're right down there with Frank Robinson now. Jerk.“It’s nobody’s fault Josh Paul didn’t tag the guy. It’s nobody’s fault (Escobar) tagged the guy with the wrong hand. Blame yourself. And now you’re going to hit somebody for no reason? You can get somebody hurt with no reason.’’
- Bartolo Colón still isn't even doing light toss yet.
- Juan Rivera is eligible to return to the lineup on Monday, but probably won't. Will they send Kendrick back down?
- Eric Gagné has started throwing, and reports no pain. He thinks he'll be back in three or four weeks. Right.
- Hey, it's better than a bucket of balls: The Dodgers, needing a pitching coach for their Rookie-A Orem team, scoped out Charlie Hough. Hough was under contract with the GBL's Fullerton Flyers, so Tommy Lasorda decided to ask for his contract in exchange for 10,000 baseballs. It didn't work out, but I suppose it also beats being traded for a case of beer.
- Grady Little says that Chad Billingsley could force his way into the big club regardless of whether there's an obvious role for him. Jeez, how about as a replacement for Lance Carter?
It's basically impossible to get a defense jury verdict overturned on appeal absent instructional error. The City got the jury instructions it wanted.
They'd basically have to convince an appellate court that no rational juror could have found in the team's favor. Obviously, that's not going to happen.
Are these people really that stupid? Even if the court of appeals disagreed with the jury's verdict, it would have to uphold the verdict unless it was unsupported by the evidence. There was evidence to support the team's position. Therefore, the City will lose any appeal.
But maybe they figure that they already owe Arte about $7 million, so what's another half million or so? Although it would supposedly cost the City only $150K to appeal, you have to pretty much double that because the City will have to pay Arte's costs and fees on appeal as well after the verdict is upheld.
: 4/30/2006 05:00:00 PMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.