Post
by Chest Rockwell » Mon May 21, 2007 5:35 pm
Originally posted by Buster:
Greg:
Nice pot shot, "I guess it makes for a better story without quotes. I'm too much of an old-fashioned journalist, I guess."
With respect to Fielder's pinch hitting appearances, you are correct, inexplicably, I made an error in presenting the correct number of times that Fielder pinch hit. It was certainly not intended, nor did it change anything of substance in the column. I did not need to misrepresent the actual number of pinch hitting appearances to demonstrate how poorly this matter was handled.
The truth is quite clear. The NFBC created a precedent previously, and then chose not to follow that precedent.
As a litigator, I have been taught to distinguish anything. You can distinguish the precedent by explaining that one was done preseason (Castro and Fielder), and that Cust was during the season. However, that is a distinction without any difference. The key here isn't what might have been going on in your or Tom's thought process, but instead what was going on in the participants heads when they were considering bidding on Cust and Reynolds.
If one looks back at the rationale behind the Castro and Fielder decisions, and then considers that Cust played only two innings in the outfield in 2006, one could reasonably expect that the prior precedents would be followed. Others might assume that as Cust played two innings in the outfield in 2006, then he qualifies in the outfield. Therein lies the problem.
The bottom line is that there was confusion by the participants, and this confusion was certainly not the fault of the participants.
As a participant in the NFBC, how am I (or anyone else) to know if the NFBC is going to follow the written rules or the prior precedent? The simple answer is that there is no way for any of us to be sure, absent sending you or Tom a message. That should not be the case.
CREATiVESPORTS.com is a huge proponent of the NFBC. We publish an Opinion Editorial (the NFBC Zone) on a weekly basis, with the participating writers and Lawr Michaels taking turns writing about their thoughts, experiences, trials and travails. Often, we promote the NFBC. On occasion, we may point out perceived flaws.
I am certainly not the journalist that you are. The vast majority of my writing is legal briefs for courts across the country. I don't often include quotes in those briefs.
Quite frankly, with respect to my Op-Ed column, I did not see the need to include quotes from you, Gekko, or any of the participants who may have been negatively impacted due to what I believe was a series of botched decisions. That was my decision, and seeing that it was a column about my thoughts, I think that the decision was correct.
I do not take pot shots at you, Tom, or anyone else in the NFBC family (with the exception of Gekko who I once called an Internet troll).
I am sorry that you did not like my column. I did not like your decisions on Cust/Reynolds. You may like to know that originally I was going to write about the arbitrariness and capriciousness of the Friday DL rule, but the Cust/Reynolds issues seemed much more compelling.
By the way, if you do a search for "Reynolds" even tonight, here is what you get:
Players with Last Name's beginning with 'reynolds'.
Mark Reynolds - 3B - Ari
Shane Reynolds - MR - Ari
While Shane Reynolds certainly may be a middle reliever, I think that it is clear, NOW, that Reynolds is not yet a third basemen.
For what it is worth, I did not bid on either Cust or Reynolds, so I have no personal agenda in this matter either way.
Buster H., Esq. That boy sure is proud of the fact that is a lawyer, the over/under for the times he mentions it in a post is 2.4- in the last one hope you bet the over Lance.
