PDA

View Full Version : Pearlman's a clown


Juan Pizarro
02-27-2003, 12:49 PM
After the pro-Jeff Pearlman thread for his view on the Indians -- to which I posted the following -- I thought it would be apt to spend time talking about how he downgrades the White Sox.

Anyone who has ever read Pearlman knows that he's a cheap-shot clown who thinks he knows way mroe baseball than he does. Anyway, here's what he wrote in response to a Twin fan (and, Jeff, sorry to say, there's only ONE rotation spot in play, pal).

What's your take on how the Minnesota Twins will do this year? I don't think they are a fluke because it's a 162-game season and you have to have some talent to win 100 games, as they did last season. Do you think Minnesota has the best chance to win the AL Central again? --C.J., Edina, Minn.

Pearlman: C.J., while the Twins don't quite have 100-win talent, there's a good chance they'll reach the magic number. Here's why:

Kansas City
Detroit
Cleveland
Chicago (White Sox)

The Twins are a very good team in a very bad division. Even with the addition of Bartolo Colon, the White Sox -- a trendy pick to overtake Minnesota -- still have two open rotation slots, Frank (The Big Easy) Thomas and a second baseman named D'Angelo Jimenez (Writer's Note: In San Diego Padres history, there has likely never been a player more loathed by his teammates than Jimenez. Good skills, no effort).

Minnesota, meanwhile, features four guys (Brad Radke, Eric Milton, Joe Mays and Rick Reed) who are each capable of winning 15 games as well as a slew of good, if not great, young players. And the Twins are loads of fun.

FanOf14
02-27-2003, 12:51 PM
Who said anything about being pro-Pearlman, I just thought it was funny...

Juan Pizarro
02-27-2003, 12:54 PM
Fair enough, man. That guy just makes me mad, though. :angry:

FanOf14
02-27-2003, 12:56 PM
It's woman to you! ;) :)

In all honesty though, the guy's journalism seems to be more of a stand-up routine rather than any kind of informative writing.

Juan Pizarro
02-27-2003, 01:02 PM
Sorry about that goof, Fan! And, yep, your second point is one I heartily agree with.

Foulke You
02-27-2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
It's woman to you! ;) :)

In all honesty though, the guy's journalism seems to be more of a stand-up routine rather than any kind of informative writing.

Unfortunately, that is the state of sports journalism these days. You have the clowns on ESPN Sportscenter to thank for that. Being funny and entertaining became more important than actual knowledge in sports journalism years ago. I just wish someone can combine the two.

fhqwhgads
02-27-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
In all honesty though, the guy's journalism seems to be more of a stand-up routine rather than any kind of informative writing.

I don't know about non-informative. I was unaware of the Padres' problems with Jimenez. If he continues this way with the Sox, I can't even begin to imagine how much fun that clubhouse will be:

Thomas: What kind of fielding was that? You don't even look like you're trying!

Jimenez: Sorry, Frank. Maybe my skills are diminishing.

Thomas: Why, you little...

:gulp:

GO TWINS!

Juan Pizarro
02-27-2003, 02:03 PM
In his late-season time with the White Sox, the team had no problems with Jimenez. He started looking a lot like the guy who at one point was one of the Yankees' top prospects.

If he's the worst of the Sox's problems, they'll be just fine.

(Maybe the Padres are just mad Kenny Williams robbed them blind on that deal.)

FanOf14
02-27-2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Juan Pizarro
In his late-season time with the White Sox, the team had no problems with Jimenez. He started looking a lot like the guy who at one point was one of the Yankees' top prospects.blind on that

I was thinking the same thing when I read that piece of the article. I thought I even remembered one of the guys say how he was a good teammate...maybe I was hallucinating...

gogosoxgogo
02-27-2003, 04:40 PM
Jimenez doesn't give effort? Did he watch any of this kid last year? He was busting his ass. I want to see a quote from a teammate that says he's a slacker.

jeremyb1
02-27-2003, 05:09 PM
everyone is so impressed with the twins "rotation depth". they have four guys capable of winning 15 games. big deal. the sox top four starters won 65 games last season. if each of the twins first four starters win 15 games that makes 60. i just don't think there rotation is a huge advantage like most would make it out to be.

Lip Man 1
02-27-2003, 08:45 PM
Many folks here at WSI have mentioned the exact same things as Perleman, that the starting rotation is basically young and still unproven, that the 2nd base / leadoff position is a question mark and that you don't know what you are going to get from Frank Thomas.

I don't understand why some are so upset over this. He's said the same thing that we've been mentioning at WSI.

Lip

fuzzy_patters
02-27-2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Many folks here at WSI have mentioned the exact same things as Perleman, that the starting rotation is basically young and still unproven, that the 2nd base / leadoff position is a question mark and that you don't know what you are going to get from Frank Thomas.

I don't understand why some are so upset over this. He's said the same thing that we've been mentioning at WSI.

Lip

I agree with your point about the White Sox weaknesses. However, I believe he is overstating the Twins abilities a bit. I don't believe they will be better than they were last year, and the White Sox should be because they now have two aces. So, if the Twins couldn't win 100 games last year, I don't think they will this year, either.

I believe the Sox and Twins are a pair of teams that if they played the same season 10 times in a row they would average 90 wins. Of course, one season is not 10. The key to this season could be if one team gets on an extended hot streak or if the other one gets on an extended cold streak. Teams can catch lightning in a bottle for one season, and that could be what determines this one.

Juan Pizarro
02-28-2003, 09:19 AM
It's not necessarily what he said, although there are factual errors. (His statement that there are "two slots" open in the rotation shows he's lazy, sloppy, ignorant or some combination of the three.)
His rumor-induced slap at Jiminez is cheap, especially without attribution.
Since the Sox have had that kid, what has he done to warrant that? He was part of the late season kick start that has boosted morale, and not knowing that is lazy on Pearlman's part as well.
I've just read enough from this clown over the last few years to know he really likes the fact that he gets to talk to ballplayers, he's not below baiting them if it serves his needs, and he's jealous enough of his contacts that if they dish him dirt, he'll cover for them.
All that, and the fact that what he says a lot of times makes you wonder how much baseball he actually watches -- or what he sees when he does.

jeremyb1
02-28-2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by fhqwhgads
I don't know about non-informative. I was unaware of the Padres' problems with Jimenez. [/B]

there were two articles about it in yesterday's papers (southtown and herald?). it talks about how this offseason jimenez started hearing about how his former padres teammates were calling him a bad teammate. he claimed he felt shut out from the rest of the team and they weren't very supportive of him. one article suggested he was upset he forced to go through rookie rituals such as carrying veteran's suitcases after he'd worked so hard to come back from his accident and paid his dues as far as the rookie traditions when he was still on the yankees.

in the article, jimenez talked about how comfortable he felt in our clubhouse last season and how he could have fun and joke around with the players here. maggs, was quoted as saying they all liked him a lot.