Mike Adams is done as a good reliever, at least in the AL.

Mike Adams is done as a good reliever, at least in the AL.

You mean after Josh Hamilton rips his arms out?

"Sometimes Josh is hard to figure out," and, when asked about Texas trying to re-sign the free agent outfielder, he said, "I'm not sure if it's in the best interest of the Texas Rangers or not."

This mild comment is spun to be public criticism? Jeesh

Isn't Adams a free agent?

Isn't Adams a free agent?

Arb eligible I think.

I didn't see much of Adams this year, it was certainly his worst in a while though still decent (or maybe watching the Jays bullpen has lowered my bar). Is there something specifically wrong with him?

EDIT: Or worst year ever. Wow, he's been consistently good his whole career when he's been able to pitch.

Yeah, this doesn't really sound like criticism to me.

Spivey, why do you think Adams is done? Is the prognosis on his thoracic outlet surgery poor?

From the excerpt here, it doesn't seem to be anything like Adams ripping Hamilton. The quote, "I'm not sure if it's in the best interest of the Texas Rangers or not" doesn't necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with Hamilton as a player or teammate. A realist knows that giving a huge long term contract to Hamilton may squeeze the Rangers' future payroll so much that it limits the team's options in the future. Since Adams doesn't know what the Rangers plan for their future budgets, it's perfectly reasonable to say that he isn't sure if it's in the Rangers' best interests. Unless Adams made some other statements that reflect poorly on Hamilton as a teammate, this doesn't strike me as a big deal.

While Adams' comments seem pretty harmless, I'm still thinking "OK RANGERS, WE GET IT -- YOU ALL HATE JOSH HAMILTON!"

Seems like not a week goes by without somebody from Texas ripping the guy.

From the excerpt here, it doesn't seem to be anything like Adams ripping Hamilton. The quote, "I'm not sure if it's in the best interest of the Texas Rangers or not" doesn't necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with Hamilton as a player or teammate. A realist knows that giving a huge long term contract to Hamilton may squeeze the Rangers' future payroll so much that it limits the team's options in the future. Since Adams doesn't know what the Rangers plan for their future budgets, it's perfectly reasonable to say that he isn't sure if it's in the Rangers' best interests. Unless Adams made some other statements that reflect poorly on Hamilton as a teammate, this doesn't strike me as a big deal.

I'm going to disagree. Spoken by one of us, it would be the logical inference. But I can't say that I've ever seen a player take this particular approach to a team's plans, particularly with a teammate with Hamilton's skill set.

It's possible Adams is the otherwise non-existent bird who's looking at this from the perspective of the team's allocation of resources, but I don't think that's a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

If Adams sees this "allocation of resources" meaning they don't want to spend any extra money on Mike's raise then I could see him adopting this perspective. Perhaps Adams knows he's leaving and is doing his buds a solid by coming out and saying that Hamilton is a hyper-toxic D-Bag. Maybe it's something completely crazy like a little Cindy Sandberg effect, but I don't think so.

After listening to the interview it sounds like Adams is saying Hamilton is a weird, streaky dude that has periods when he sucks, and if you build your team around him there are times when you won't have a center. He is working so hard to not say anything bad, but the interviewer just leaves him there twissssting. If I were a GM who hadn't placed any calls yet I might find it illuminating (and somewhat damaging to Hamilton) but it sounds like something that everyone would probably admit to feeling. It's not a slam or even an outright criticism. Bad headline.

"I'm not sure if it's in the best interest of the Texas Rangers or not"

What else is he supposed to say? If he says "Re-signing Josh is in the best interest of the Rangers" it gets spun as "teammates demand Hamilton return" or some such. He could have done it a bit better as in "We'd love to have Josh back but it's a business so that's out of my control" or the no-commentish "That's the GM's job, I think I'll let him do it."

Is anybody asking Brett Gardner whether the Yanks should re-sign Rafael Soriano?

What else is he supposed to say?

Really? That was his only option? If he says, "I sure hope he is resigned, he's a great player," it doesn't get spun at all because that's what we would expect ballplayers to say about their MVP candidate (or 1 of 2, in the Rangers' case).

The only crazy-ass spin being done is to pretend this statement is ordinary. It's undeniably unusual for a ballplayer to wonder whether signing an all-star player is in the club's best interests, and I'd suspect you'd have a really hard time finding another example.

Is the prognosis on his thoracic outlet surgery poor?

That sounds like a euphemism for hemorrhoid surgery.

The only crazy-ass spin being done is to pretend this statement is ordinary. It's undeniably unusual for a ballplayer to wonder whether signing an all-star player is in the club's best interests, and I'd suspect you'd have a really hard time finding another example.

Unusual or not, what is the criticism from Adams if there is one? Saying someone is "hard to figure out" isn't really criticism.

I'm surprised anyone needs to know this, but there is never, ever a time to say your team should not re-sign one of its players. Hamilton is Adams' colleague. The only proper response to the outside world to being asked about him coming back is to say you have enjoyed playing with him and hope to continue, that he is a great player and teammate and you look forward to a long career playing together.

In case any of you confused on this point, if a reporter asks about any of your current colleagues, that is also the only proper answer.


Fight all you want inhouse. If you're a minor cog in a team, you don't honestly answer any personnel questions from reporters.

Unusual or not, what is the criticism from Adams if there is one? Saying someone is "hard to figure out" isn't really criticism.

I wouldn't (and didn't) call it critcism, and I think the writer was wrong to do so.

But I think some folks going way too far the other way. By far, the most reasonable interpretation of Adams' comments is that he has some kind of issue with Hamilton. Otherwise, he simply doesn't say "I'm not sure it's in the best interests of the Texas Rangers or not?" Ballplayers don't do that, for good reason.

The fact is, if he simply says something benign like "I hope we sign him," then it doesn't get spun at all because he's Mike ####### Adams, and no one gives a damn what he says unless it's something out of the ordinary, which this one was.

In case any of you confused on this point, if a reporter asks about any of your current colleagues, that is also the only proper answer.

What if Adams is not a current member of the Rangers and thus not a colleague?

Sometimes Josh is hard to figure out

Compared to your typical bible thumping former heroin addict?

By far, the most reasonable interpretation of Adams' comments is that he has some kind of issue with Hamilton.

No, by far the most reasonable interpretation of Adams' comments is that he meant nothing by them and he's not media savvy. It is a quite unreasonable interpretation to think that Adams was consciously trying to run down Hamilton. The hidden meaning is most likely entirely in the minds of media and fans.

By far, the most reasonable interpretation of Adams' comments is that he has some kind of issue with Hamilton.

No, by far the most reasonable interpretation of Adams' comments is that he meant nothing by them and he's not media savvy. It is a quite unreasonable interpretation to think that Adams was consciously trying to run down Hamilton. The hidden meaning is most likely entirely in the minds of media and fans.

I disagree with you both (i think that's what I am supposed to do on the internet). The most reasonable interpretation of Adams' comments is that there is/was some kind of issue between Hamilton and the Rangers (i.e. not between Adams and Hamilton).

#16 Ask Mike Vanderjagt about the dangers of being candid about a more important player.

Not that he said anything truly controversial, but he did annoy Peyton Manning and that effectively ended his career.

By far, the most reasonable interpretation of Adams' comments is that he has some kind of issue with Hamilton

It probably has to do with declaring war on France.

Not that he said anything truly controversial, but he did annoy Peyton Manning and that effectively ended his career.

The idiot kicker spent three more years in Indianapolis after his remarks about Peyton. Badly blowing a makeable kick in the '05 playoff loss to Pittsburgh helped end his career in Indy, and kicking badly in Dallas in his one season there ended his NFL career.

And, to follow up, I think Nate's 20 is certainly reasonable, but I see it as an extension of what I was saying, rather than a counterpoint. I just don't think it's logical to conclude that Adams' remarks were meaningless.

Hamilton is most likely a bad contract waiting to happen. He could beat that, since he was supposed to be the next A-Roid, but when a crackhead asks for $175 mil for any reasons, the chances are it's not going to go well. That's one expensive BJ :)

</darkasm>

The idiot kicker

He wasn't an idiot. He was Canadian.