Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Simers: Marcus Thames can’t field, can’t hit righties, won’t talk about it . . are you excited yet?

Consider d-bag button fully engaged.

Maybe it’s because he’s averaged only 44 games a season on defense, prompting an obvious question.

“Are you that horrible on defense that teams don’t think it’s worth playing such a home run threat?’’ I asked by way of introduction.

Maybe somebody else wastes time schmoozing with Tims/Tems, but he’s a one-year rental who has some explaining to do. How bad are you on defense that teams don’t dare risk playing you?

Tims/Tems just smiled.

...When I came back on Tims/Tems, he sat silent. I can see one problem he might have on defense if everyone is relying on him to yell “I got it.”

He said he wasn’t going to talk to me because I hadn’t introduced myself. That would have allowed him to pull out the little card the Dodgers’ PR department provides players advising them how to get a running start on Page 2.

I can’t imagine this is the first time in 10 years that Tims/Tems has been asked why he stinks on defense, thereby limiting his time as a regular player.

Unable to answer, he just stood and walked away.

Repoz Posted: March 22, 2011 at 04:42 PM | 227 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: dodgers, media

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:02 PM (#3775794)
Walking away is about the most gentlemanly response possible to this kind of nonsense.
   2. Randy Jones Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:09 PM (#3775804)
T.J. Simers can't write, isn't funny, won't talk about it...are you excited yet?
   3. Jim (jimmuscomp) Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:10 PM (#3775805)
Simers is a hack and disrespectful to the nth degree. I honestly don't know how he hasn't been the recipient of a massive beat down yet.
   4. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:13 PM (#3775811)
Seriously, I cannot believe Simers' entire schtick gets him printed in a newspaper, let alone anywhere. He's just actively rude to players and then mocks them no matter how they react. How is that even a column?
   5. The elusive Robert Denby Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:14 PM (#3775812)
That is some world-class ass-hattery.
   6. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:20 PM (#3775818)
Thames seems like a great guy who's been through a lot in life and has worked hard to make it in the majors. Simers seems worthless.
   7. SoSH U at work Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:20 PM (#3775820)
I don't dislike Simers nearly as much as most (I find his schtick works well with a willing partner, such as Kent), but I'm with the majority in instances like this. Just d-baggery at its highest form.
   8. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:23 PM (#3775823)
Thames is a useful ballplayer. Yeah, he's not a Gold Glover and yeah he doesn't hit righties, but having a lefty masher on the bench is hardly the worst option in the world. He's basically Francoeur without the attention. Use him right and he helps the team, ask him to start regularly and he probably gets exposed.
   9. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:24 PM (#3775824)
I find his schtick works well with a willing partner, such as Kent
D-bags unite!
   10. Gonfalon B. Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:25 PM (#3775825)
Hmm, "T.J." Simers. I never realized that Stuttering John had been using his middle name.
   11. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:26 PM (#3775826)
Is Timers such a terrible writer that he has to resort to acting like a dick to get readers?
   12. phredbird Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:33 PM (#3775834)
simers was kind of funny when the dodgers were winning west division pennants and juan pierre was pouting about not getting to play.

but he is no fun when the dodgers are stinking up the joint because nobody wants to play with him and he doesn't get it so he writes dumb columns like this one.

he needs to stick to doing hatchet jobs on frank mccourt.
   13. Alex_Lewis Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:34 PM (#3775835)
Head case? I thought Thames was supposed to be a nice guy. No evidence in the column to suggest that this is the wrong impression. In fact, quite the opposite.
   14. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:35 PM (#3775838)
OK, so I read the article thinking/hoping that there was some kind of context for this hatchet job, but there doesn't seem to be. Is Thames a colossal douche in the clubhouse with some horrid reputation, and a grudge against writers? Because otherwise, this is probably the worst hit piece I have ever seen, and Simers should be ashamed of himself for characterizing a ballplayer this way for no particular reason.
   15. 'Spos lost the handle trying to make the transfer Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:35 PM (#3775839)
So is it Sigh-murs or Simmerz?
   16. Swedish Chef Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:36 PM (#3775842)
I don't see what the big deal is, Simers is not snarking any worse than any number of bloggers out there. Why should Simers be extra careful with Thames's feelings when Cameron or Szymborski doesn't have to?
   17. Pingu Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:42 PM (#3775850)
I don't see what the big deal is, Simers is not snarking any worse than any number of bloggers out there. Why should Simers be extra careful with Thames's feelings when Cameron or Szymborski doesn't have to?


Because he's saying it to his face. When you write on the internets you dont need no civility. Aint you heard?
   18. Blubaldo Jimenez (OMJ) Posted: March 22, 2011 at 05:46 PM (#3775859)
There is a big difference between making a few rude comments on the interwebs and walking up to a guy you never met, saying "Hey, I hear you suck, care to comment?" and then when no comment follows (probably the most level headed response he could have to that question) says "man, is that guy a head case or what?"
   19. Randy Jones Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:06 PM (#3775883)
I don't see what the big deal is, Simers is not snarking any worse than any number of bloggers out there. Why should Simers be extra careful with Thames's feelings when Cameron or Szymborski doesn't have to?


If you don't see the difference between someone looking at the numbers and concluding that Thames should probably not play the field much and only be used as a PH against lefties and saying so in a column and someone going up to Thames in person, and without even introducing themselves, beginning to taunt him about his defensive deficiencies and then calling him a bad person when his only response is "no comment", well, then you are a ####### moron. Also, that was a really long run on sentence, oh well.
   20. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:11 PM (#3775891)
The Tims/Tems thing isn't really funny. Hell, even I wouldn't resort to that kind of hackery and I call myself Shooty.
   21. SoSH U at work Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:17 PM (#3775896)
If you don't see the difference between someone looking at the numbers and concluding that Thames should probably not play the field much and only be used as a PH against lefties and saying so in a column


Wow, that's a rather limited description of a Transaction Oracle.
   22. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:24 PM (#3775906)
Wow, that's a rather limited description of a Transaction Oracle.


True. Sometimes there are hilarious pictures!
   23. cardsfanboy Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:25 PM (#3775908)
OK, so I read the article thinking/hoping that there was some kind of context for this hatchet job, but there doesn't seem to be. Is Thames a colossal douche in the clubhouse with some horrid reputation, and a grudge against writers? Because otherwise, this is probably the worst hit piece I have ever seen, and Simers should be ashamed of himself for characterizing a ballplayer this way for no particular reason.


It's Simers, this is his schtick. He's not smart enough to be an analyst. He's not good enough to be a real sports writer. He's not even competent enough to be a respected beat writer, so he had to come up with another way to generate hits, and that is by being a world class dick. If Howard Stern and Glen Beck were asked about him they would say something like "why is he such a little prick?". Talentless hacks need to come up with some other way to get noticed, Simers is Paris Hilton or Courtney Love but with 1/3rd of their talent.
   24. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:27 PM (#3775909)
Anyone who has hit a walkoff home run off Jonathan Papelbon is, as far as I'm concerned, a genuine American hero.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_T54uG8esQ&feature=related
   25. Nasty Nate Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:27 PM (#3775910)
What is the Tims/Tems thing?
   26. filihok Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:27 PM (#3775912)
Because he's saying it to his face. When you write on the internets you dont need no civility. Aint you heard? Jackass


fixed
   27. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:28 PM (#3775915)
I think Simers is fun sometimes, but the joke here is just falling flat. It comes across as a drunken taunt from some lout in the bleachers.
   28. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:30 PM (#3775916)
If Simers had graduated college in the year 2000 he'd be living in his mother's basement and writing "The 40 Bustiest Raiderettes" slideshows for Bleacher Report. And I want to know how to pronounce his name too. Does it rhyme with "Primers"? Oh, that doesn't help.
   29. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:41 PM (#3775934)
I don't see what the big deal is, Simers is not snarking any worse than any number of bloggers out there. Why should Simers be extra careful with Thames's feelings when Cameron or Szymborski doesn't have to?


If Simers had graduated college in the year 2000 he'd be living in his mother's basement and writing "The 40 Bustiest Raiderettes" slideshows for Bleacher Report.

There's the thing. If Simers is bigger and better than some blogger as befits his Professional Writer/BBWAA membership reputation then all well and good. If cheap jokes for no reason are all he has, and really there is no evidence that Thames deserves to be the butt of jokes, then why should I bother listening to his opinion?

Simers was actually onto a great piece here. Some mild incompetence/confusion by the Dodger PR folks and a disappointing roster could have been made into something funny/interesting. Instead, he took potshots at a guy for no apparent reason. That's being a bully and that's not right.
   30. Swedish Chef Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:43 PM (#3775936)
f you don't see the difference between someone looking at the numbers and concluding that Thames should probably not play the field much and only be used as a PH against lefties and saying so in a column

What if someone just posted a picture of a toast instead of doing any analysis? Or laced the analysis with insults?

and someone going up to Thames in person, and without even introducing themselves, beginning to taunt him about his defensive deficiencies

Fail to see why what is OK to publish on the net is too nasty to say in person. Some athletes know how to turn on a computer and type in "espn.com" or "bbtf.org".

well, then you are a ####### moron.

You're welcome.
   31. Dat Yat Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:44 PM (#3775937)
Was the writer a kid who sucked at Little League? Because the envy here is palatable. Vile hatchet job.
   32. Walt Davis Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:44 PM (#3775939)
What is the Tims/Tems thing?

He's trying to make fun of his last name, the height of discourse. And probably a dig at somebody who corrected Simers' pronunciation of Thames.

"Hey, thames, why do you suck?"
"Excuse me sir?"
"I said thames, why do you suck?"
"It's pronounced Tems."
"Oh, excuse me, Mr. Tibbs."
"I said Tems."
"Tims/Tems, what's the difference you still suck."
"It's been lovely to meet you sir, have a nice day."
   33. flournoy Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:46 PM (#3775943)
Someday T.J. Simers will try to pick a fight with Casey Heynes.
   34. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:47 PM (#3775944)
Fail to see why what is OK to publish on the net is too nasty to say in person. Some athletes know how to turn on a computer and type in "espn.com" or "bbtf.org"

I get what you're saying Chef and it's something we should keep in mind here when we snark on people. On the other hand, Thames could choose not to read the interwebs while he has no choice about having a press pass carrying Simers getting in his face. On the other other hand, welcome to the Dodgers Marcus!
   35. Spahn Insane Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:49 PM (#3775947)
Head case? I thought Thames was supposed to be a nice guy. No evidence in the column to suggest that this is the wrong impression. In fact, quite the opposite.

Pardon me? He blatantly refused to participate in Simers's d-baggy exercise in journo-wankery. What more evidence of grave mental illness and sociopathology do you need?
   36. JJ1986 Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:52 PM (#3775950)
He's trying to make fun of his last name, the height of discourse. And probably a dig at somebody who corrected Simers' pronunciation of Thames.


But he's the one who can't pronounce it. Does he not realize he's making fun of himself?
   37. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: March 22, 2011 at 06:54 PM (#3775952)
I'm quite impressed by Thames' athletic ability, given that he was able to both just stand there and walk away.
   38. Nasty Nate Posted: March 22, 2011 at 07:05 PM (#3775969)
Swedish Chef, here's the differences I see between Simers-snark and Transaction Oracle Toast-snark: Simers is trying to bait his target into making public comments, trying to goad him into "treating the press bad" and trying to create a mini controversey. Simers is also trying to insert himself into the story. Szymborski isn't trying to goad someone into a reaction, and (as far as I know) doesn't try to make himself part of the story. Also, I think Transaction Oracle insults usually target a player's actions onfield or off, whereas it seems Simers is making fun of someone's last name.
   39. Into the Void Posted: March 22, 2011 at 07:16 PM (#3775979)
So bad it makes me long for the level-headed and objective analysis of Jay Mariotti.
   40. Randy Jones Posted: March 22, 2011 at 07:18 PM (#3775980)
I'm quite impressed by Thames' athletic ability, given that he was able to both just stand there and walk away.


Marcus Thames is the Kwisatz Haderach.
   41. cardsfanboy Posted: March 22, 2011 at 07:21 PM (#3775985)
But he's the one who can't pronounce it. Does he not realize he's making fun of himself?


again he's a sporstwriter which for the record on average means a sub-average intelligence, and he's a really bad one at that so he's the bottom of the barrel, we aren't talking about a brilliant guy who could get a job at McDonalds if he wanted, this is a guy who would have to have friends in the business to get that front counter job.
   42. Paul D(uda) Posted: March 22, 2011 at 07:31 PM (#3775989)
What if someone just posted a picture of a toast instead of doing any analysis? Or laced the analysis with insults?

I cannot comprehend how anyone could think these are remotely equivalent. TO isn't shoved into a player's face in an attempt to get the player to respond.
   43. booond Posted: March 22, 2011 at 08:57 PM (#3776015)
What is the Tims/Tems thing?


Simers showing his 8th grade sense of humor. Next will be the fart jokes.
   44. My guest will be Jermaine Allensworth Posted: March 22, 2011 at 09:10 PM (#3776025)
I cannot comprehend how anyone could think these are remotely equivalent. TO isn't shoved into a player's face in an attempt to get the player to respond.

Yup. Saying to somebody's face is a lot more impressive, in a way.
   45. philistine Posted: March 22, 2011 at 09:26 PM (#3776043)
But he's the one who can't pronounce it. Does he not realize he's making fun of himself?

I suspect Mr Simers is educated enough to know how to pronounce London's river and in any case has taken the trouble to find out by asking Mr Tems how he says his name. Simers is poking fun at the fact that the Dodgers don't want anyone good in left field. He thinks they are not trying. Not only do they choose a guy who can't play in the field or hit righties, the Dodgers don't know even how to say his name correctly.

Then he wants his interviewee to talk to him. But Mr Tems wants Simers to introduce himself first and refuses to talk to him until he shows him that respect. But Simers likes to poke fun at athletes who take themselves too seriously, who are impossibly difficult to interview and probably not worth it anyway. I was going to cite Juan Pierre, but I think Simers eventually got better interviews with him

I cannot comprehend how anyone could think these are remotely equivalent. TO isn't shoved into a player's face in an attempt to get the player to respond.

Exactly. A player has the chance to respond to Simers in person. But the guy writing in the basement is protected by his mom.

I like Simers and I really don't understand why all you guys take offense. Your reaction makes the article all the funnier.
   46. cardsfanboy Posted: March 22, 2011 at 09:34 PM (#3776051)
I like Simers and I really don't understand why all you guys take offense. Your reaction makes the article all the funnier


because he is the lowest common denominator among human decency. He has none. Guys like him, Rome and others are just insufferable jackasses,
   47. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: March 22, 2011 at 09:37 PM (#3776053)
It's Simers, this is his schtick. He's not smart enough to be an analyst. He's not good enough to be a real sports writer. He's not even competent enough to be a respected beat writer, so he had to come up with another way to generate hits, and that is by being a world class dick. If Howard Stern and Glen Beck were asked about him they would say something like "why is he such a little prick?". Talentless hacks need to come up with some other way to get noticed, Simers is Paris Hilton or Courtney Love but with 1/3rd of their talent.


Whoa, whoa.... 1/3 of Courtney Love's talent is still a decent base. It'd be a bit like having 1/3 of the 2008 Oliver Perez's talent.
   48. philistine Posted: March 22, 2011 at 09:37 PM (#3776054)
because he is the lowest common denominator among human decency. He has none. Guys like him, Rome and others are just insufferable jackasses,

I haven't read a sports writer like Simers. He is satirizing the pomposity and arrogance of athletes and the incompetence, ignorance and lack of interest of baseball management. More power to his pen.
   49. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: March 22, 2011 at 09:44 PM (#3776058)
He is satirizing the pomposity and arrogance of athletes and the incompetence, ignorance and lack of interest of baseball management.


How exactly does Simers acting like an arrogant jackass satirize that? At best, he might be satirizing arrogant sports writers. But since all he's doing is (if it's an act) precisely emulating them, it's hard to make that even that case.
   50. cardsfanboy Posted: March 22, 2011 at 09:57 PM (#3776068)
How exactly does Simers acting like an arrogant jackass satirize that? At best, he might be satirizing arrogant sports writers. But since all he's doing is (if it's an act) precisely emulating them, it's hard to make that even that case.


I have no clue, he's going up to decent people and acting like an ass, how is that satirizing pomposity and arrogance of an athlete? if he did that to Bonds or Belle or you know people that are actually like that, I could understand, but going up to people he doesn't know isn't satire, it's ignorance, d-baggery.
   51. philistine Posted: March 22, 2011 at 10:24 PM (#3776085)
Er, which sports writer is he emulating? His style is so different from all of those.

He satirizes the incompetence of baseball management with lines like:
WITH SIX days remaining in the Dodgers' stay here and 10 days before he starts paying players, McCourt has yet to make an appearance at the Camelback complex. If the owner doesn't want to watch the Dodgers, it's hard to make the case that fans should buy tickets to see them play.


When I ask Don Mattingly about Tims/Tems' horrific problems on defense, the manager says, "I'm not going to say he's [crummy] on defense. He's not a Gold Glove outfielder . . . he's OK. All we've asked Marcus to do is what he's supposed to do." You can see what a motivational speaker Mattingly can be when it's necessary.


Colletti says the team has a hot prospect in Jerry Sands, so he didn't want to "clog up" left field with players who could play, thus the present mishmash.


Perhaps Simers thinks his readers, the Dodger fans, should be treated with more respect since it is their money that is being (mis)used.

As for the athletes, Simers can't bear the precious players who are unable to answer light-hearted questions in a light-hearted way. Besides, if Marcus Tims Tems is an entertainer in the public eye with such obvious shortcomings, why shouldn't Simers ask him what he offers the team? That is his job as baseball writer for the paper. And if Tims Tems is too self-important to answer his questions, and the rest of the team so boring that all they give are sullen tedious answers and haven't taken enough interest to find out how Tims Tems is pronounced, it's only right that Simers reports that.

if he did that to Bonds or Belle or you know people that are actually like that, I could understand, but going up to people he doesn't know isn't satire, it's ignorance, d-baggery.

But they are like that. Manny wasn't. Kent wasn't. But most of the others are. He's painting a picture of life in the Dodgers camp and this is what he sees. You don't see it that way, you see a bad artist. But to me, his picture looks pretty accurate.
   52. cardsfanboy Posted: March 22, 2011 at 10:35 PM (#3776094)
But they are like that. Manny wasn't. Kent wasn't. But most of the others are. He's painting a picture of life in the Dodgers camp and this is what he sees. You don't see it that way, you see a bad artist. But to me, his picture looks pretty accurate.


quick guess, you are under 30 years old, like the jackass series and think that texting and driving if perfectly safe.

I mean no decent human being could respect this guy. He's not an artist he's a hate mongerer, he's bile, he's a complete and utter waste to the human gene pool. His breeding would devolve human nature.
   53. philistine Posted: March 22, 2011 at 10:39 PM (#3776095)
quick guess, you are under 30 years old, like the jackass series and think that texting and driving if perfectly safe.

Please explain

I mean no decent human being could respect this guy. He's not an artist he's a hate mongerer

Please give examples.

he's bile, he's a complete and utter waste to the human gene pool. His breeding would devolve human nature.

Who is the hate mongerer?
   54. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: March 22, 2011 at 10:42 PM (#3776097)
As for the athletes, Simers can't bear the precious players who are unable to answer light-hearted questions in a light-hearted way.

You have no idea how the question was asked. No idea whatsoever.

Besides, if Marcus Tims Tems is an entertainer in the public eye with such obvious shortcomings, why shouldn't Simers ask him what he offers the team?

My turn to speculate: It's not a question in search of an answer; it's a question in search of a reaction.

And if Tims Tems is too self-important to answer his questions

It's not a sign of self-importance to walk away from a trollish provocateur. It's a sign of maturity and restraint.
   55. Into the Void Posted: March 22, 2011 at 10:42 PM (#3776098)
Besides, if Marcus Tims Tems is an entertainer in the public eye with such obvious shortcomings, why shouldn't Simers ask him what he offers the team? That is his job as baseball writer for the paper.


The introductory paragraph shows Simers knows exactly what Thames offers the team. He's being a dick in an attempt to get a few laughs. Hopefully someday when he's pulling this same stunt someone knocks his head off.
   56. cardsfanboy Posted: March 22, 2011 at 10:45 PM (#3776100)
ase explain


kids today grew up with Howard Stern and his attitude, which led to a generation of people who didn't actually get Howard Stern and thought he was this foul mouthed bile breather ########, which created a newer generation of shock jocks who lacked the substance of Howard Stern, and these are what the kids today are taking to be manners. Kids are growing up both coddled and ignorant of basic manners.

Please give examples.

every single article he writes, his goal is to paint a picture of the athlete in a bad light, and the way he does it is to insult them until they get upset, ignore him or get security then he has his article. And the way he gets his article is by being an a-hole to the players.

Who is the hate mongerer?


this is a message board, not a blog, the standards are different, a message board is more conversational in nature. It's also not an article designed to attract hundreds or thousands of readers with a message. If I was blogging, I would expect to live up to at least human decency standards if not professional standards.
   57. My guest will be Jermaine Allensworth Posted: March 22, 2011 at 10:51 PM (#3776108)
What's the difference between what Simers is saying about Thames, and what we say about Jeff Francouer?
   58. philistine Posted: March 22, 2011 at 10:51 PM (#3776111)
What's that got to do with texting and driving? You need to think more clearly.

every single article he writes, his goal is to paint a picture of the athlete in a bad light, and the way he does it is to insult them until they get upset, ignore him or get security then he has his article. And the way he gets his article is by being an a-hole to the players.

You need to be more specific. I asked for examples.

this is a message board, not a blog, the standards are different,

That is an interesting comment in the light of your first paragraph about what the kids today are taking to be manners.
   59. philistine Posted: March 22, 2011 at 10:54 PM (#3776113)
You have no idea how the question was asked. No idea whatsoever.

Simers uses quote marks:

"Are you that horrible on defense that teams don't think it's worth playing such a home run threat?'' I asked by way of introduction.
   60. robinred Posted: March 22, 2011 at 10:54 PM (#3776114)
But Simers likes to poke fun at athletes who take themselves too seriously,


We have had a lot of Simers threads, although Vlad and Shredder seem to be staying off of this one. I can't tell if you are trolling or actually believe what you are saying, but it doesn't matter either way.

Like a lot of BTF manners disputes, this is just an issue of personal sensibilities, in this case in the context of jocks and journalists.

Basically, if someone wants to play, like Jeff Kent did, and Phil Jackson now seems to, fine. If someone doesn't, like Thames, they shouldn't be either glorified or castigated for it. But it isn't Simers' call, or yours, to make that Athlete X is "taking himself too seriously." It is just as easy to say Simers is taking his faux-populist wiseass schtick "too seriously" and should try a different angle, which is why I very rarely read him.
   61. The District Attorney Posted: March 22, 2011 at 10:54 PM (#3776115)
LOL, it's "more power to his pen" guy.
   62. philistine Posted: March 22, 2011 at 10:57 PM (#3776118)
But it isn't Simers' call, or yours, to make that Athlete X is "taking himself too seriously." It is just as easy to say Simers is taking his faux-populist wiseass schtick "too seriously" and should try a different angle, which is why I very rarely read him.

Er, it's his job to write a column about the LA baseball teams. And I'd like to hear the argument (as opposed to a rant) that Simers is taking anything too seriously.
   63. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: March 22, 2011 at 10:57 PM (#3776120)
Simers uses quote marks:

Quote marks prove that the question was asked "in a light-hearted way"?
   64. robinred Posted: March 22, 2011 at 10:57 PM (#3776121)
What's the difference between what Simers is saying about Thames, and what we say about Jeff Francouer?



We are are not in the Royals' locker room asking Francoeur why he sucks and mocking his baseball skills/personality/Delta "blog". There would be no point to doing that, really, other than trying to bag on Francoeur and piss him off, in order to get page hits, which is basically what Simers is doing. This act Simers has come up with has kept him in business in the internet era--as this thread proves.
   65. phredbird Posted: March 22, 2011 at 10:58 PM (#3776123)
Does it rhyme with "Primers"?


er, yes.

philistine makes some good points. at least simers is a d-bag to people's face. he's not hiding on the internets.

as i mentioned earlier, i enjoyed simers more when he was tweaking juan pierre and doing some give and take with jeff kent. what's going on now though is the team is in trouble, and simers is getting a little sour. at least that's what it looks like to me. i'm always interested in what he has to say about the dodgers cuz its clear he writes from a position of having a lot of access.

btw, simers is well aware of the general consensus about him. when he hosted that talk with sandy koufax and joe torre at the nokia theater a while back, he was roundly booed by the crowd and mocked by both sandy and joe. he didn't even blink. the guy has a thick skin.
   66. phredbird Posted: March 22, 2011 at 11:00 PM (#3776124)
again he's a sporstwriter which for the record on average means a sub-average intelligence, and he's a really bad one at that so he's the bottom of the barrel


having worked at daily newspapers before i'll agree with your general point, but simers is by no means the worst sportswriter i've been around. not by a long shot.
   67. philistine Posted: March 22, 2011 at 11:02 PM (#3776125)
Quote marks prove that the question was asked "in a light-hearted way"?

Oh I see, I misunderstood. I thought you meant the actual wording not the light-hearted bit.
   68. robinred Posted: March 22, 2011 at 11:04 PM (#3776127)
Er, it's his job to write a column about the LA baseball teams


See #64. This is how Simers has stayed in business. You think it's funny; a lot of people think it is stupid and offensive.

Simers is taking anything too seriously.


You don't get it. There is no "argument" here, except the one in your head you think you are winning. No one is going to "prove" anything in a discussion like this.

Simers has a gag, an angle. By playing it up and playing it over and over, he is focusing on himself, rather than on sports. So, in his own way, he is far, far more "self-important" than the jocks he mocks. But that is not an "argument" per se; it is just an opinion--like your opinion that Juan Pierre and Marcus Thames "take themselves too seriously."
   69. cardsfanboy Posted: March 22, 2011 at 11:09 PM (#3776134)
What's the difference between what Simers is saying about Thames, and what we say about Jeff Francouer?


1. we are a message board not a professional blog.

What's that got to do with texting and driving? You need to think more clearly.



it's a sign of immaturity and massive stupidity, which is something that is expected from a person who would like Simers.

That is an interesting comment in the light of your first paragraph about what the kids today are taking to be manners


oh you are one of those. nevermind. I'll let you get back under your bridge.
   70. phredbird Posted: March 22, 2011 at 11:09 PM (#3776135)
i'll also add that as a regular reader of the LA Times there is no sportswriter on earth worse than bill plaschke. THERE is a self-important moron.
   71. phredbird Posted: March 22, 2011 at 11:12 PM (#3776137)
cfb, are you okay? between this thread and the bobby cox thread, i'm thinking something's got your blood boiling. chill, brother. we've got albert for another year, colby might just break out and maybe mo will yahtzee at the trade deadline and we'll be in the hunt.

i'm in a pretty good mood myself. the season is coming up and i'm gonna get some tickets from my boss again this year. life is good.
   72. My guest will be Jermaine Allensworth Posted: March 22, 2011 at 11:13 PM (#3776138)
We are are not in the Royals' locker room asking Francoeur why he sucks and mocking his baseball skills/personality/Delta "blog". There would be no point to doing that, really, other than trying to bag on Francoeur and piss him off, in order to get page hits, which is basically what Simers is doing. This act Simers has come up with has kept him in business in the internet era--as this thread proves


Sorry, I should've quoted this, which fleshes out my line of thinking a little more:

The introductory paragraph shows Simers knows exactly what Thames offers the team. He's being a dick in an attempt to get a few laughs.

Francouer is merely an overconfident AAAA type, and has been for years, but plenty of people -- not just Primates, but Primer-approved analysts -- still enjoy getting an extra kick or two in every time he surfaces. But when Simers does it, it always gets strong negative reactions (understating that, in cfb's case). And he's not even saying it behind their backs.

Simers is an underachiever to me. I do think his style is fascinating ... when it works. When he gets a true foil (Kent and Pierre, as many have mentioned) it can actually lead to insightful conversation. But it falls flat too often for me to want to read more of what he writes.

I don't understand why people get the vapors over it, at any rate. I ignored Mariotti for 10 years, and he's way worse of a plague on the profession.
   73. philistine Posted: March 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM (#3776144)
Simers is an underachiever to me. I do think his style is fascinating ... when it works. When he gets a true foil (Kent and Pierre, as many have mentioned) it can actually lead to insightful conversation. But it falls flat too often for me to want to read more of what he writes.

I tend to agree with this. But I appreciate the style more when I see typical Primate reactions.
   74. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: March 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM (#3776146)
What's the difference between what Simers is saying about Thames, and what we say about Jeff Francouer?


We're a bunch of cowards and he stands up for his firmly held beliefs, like you said earlier.
   75. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: March 22, 2011 at 11:24 PM (#3776152)
Besides, if Marcus Tims Tems is an entertainer in the public eye with such obvious shortcomings, why shouldn't Simers ask him what he offers the team?


Except, of course, Simers *didn't* ask Thames about what offers the Dodgers; by way of introduction, he asked him about what he doesn't offer the team. That is, he walked up to a player that he'd never met or interacted with before and essentially asked, "Hi, can we talk about why you suck?"

That's not a question or an approach designed to elicit a considered, thoughtful and forthcoming response, it's not an invitation to an actual conversation, it's a deliberate attempt to provoke through insult.

Being a dick to people and then going, "Hey, I was only kidding, can't you take a joke?" when they get irritated, isn't being a comedian, it's being a dick.
   76. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: March 22, 2011 at 11:32 PM (#3776164)
Er, which sports writer is he emulating? His style is so different from all of those.

He satirizes the incompetence of baseball management with lines like:


Ah, I think I was taking you too literally. If he were satirizing someone, he'd be emulating them but exaggerating their worst traits in order to ridicule them. That's what satire means.
   77. cardsfanboy Posted: March 22, 2011 at 11:34 PM (#3776167)
cfb, are you okay? between this thread and the bobby cox thread, i'm thinking something's got your blood boiling. chill, brother. we've got albert for another year, colby might just break out and maybe mo will yahtzee at the trade deadline and we'll be in the hunt.

i'm in a pretty good mood myself. the season is coming up and i'm gonna get some tickets from my boss again this year. life is good.


On this thread it's simers who is what I consider to be scum of the earth type of person, he's not really the worse type on the planet like a Loria, but he's still an exploiter that goes for the cheap shot. He's just not a good person and I think it's silly to pretend that he's doing some massive performance art piece, when all he is doing is perfectly encapsulated by post 64. He's appealing the the reality tv show crowd, the lowest common denominator, the two and half men fans, basicly he's one of the reasons that I think the movie Idiocity will come about.

(The Cox thread was something different, it's just silly how Cox has consistently been an ass for several decades and he's revered for it, while I can't think of anything that TLR has done to make him an ass, action wise, versus everyone trying to read his mind and intention, that he is perceived to be.)
   78. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 22, 2011 at 11:35 PM (#3776170)
He is satirizing the pomposity and arrogance of athletes and the incompetence, ignorance and lack of interest of baseball management.


The fact that something is intended as satire doesn't necessarily imply that it's funny or insightful. Simers's columns are a satire in the same sense that "The Love Guru" was.

He wants to be a provocateur like Andy Kaufman or Sacha Baron Cohen, but he isn't smart enough to pull it off.
   79. Baseballs Most Beloved Figure Posted: March 23, 2011 at 12:21 AM (#3776191)
If Simers had graduated college in the year 2000 he'd be living in his mother's basement and writing "The 40 Bustiest Raiderettes" slideshows for Bleacher Report.
Link please.
   80. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 23, 2011 at 12:33 AM (#3776200)
When he gets a true foil (Kent and Pierre, as many have mentioned) it can actually lead to insightful conversation.

Well, OK, but his job as a sportswriter is to tailor his approach to each individual interview subject, so that he can write insightful columns all the time instead of just on those rare occasions when he finds the right foil. Walking up to a new Dodgers player that he's never met before and taking a pot-shot just to see if he might have stumbled onto another Kent or Pierre is a pretty low-percentage play, and therefore a disservice to his readers.
   81. lonestarball Posted: March 23, 2011 at 01:31 AM (#3776228)
I'm confused about how approaching a career journeyman and asking him, essentially, if he just sucks, or if he really, really sucks, constitutes "satirizing the pomposity and arrogance of athletes."
   82. Lars6788 Posted: March 23, 2011 at 01:56 AM (#3776237)
I think Simers sees himself as someone speaking for the fans, someone who has a beat on what fans are thinking about the Dodgers.

So maybe his schtick is to come up to a player like the dumb fan who maybe right, but has no tact is saying what he thinks.

Since he's been around for a while as part of the media, most players probably know how to tune him off.
   83. robinred Posted: March 23, 2011 at 02:13 AM (#3776246)
But when Simers does it, it always gets strong negative reactions (understating that, in cfb's case). And he's not even saying it behind their backs.


You and I have a very different view of "talking behind someone's back." To me, that means:

1. You actually know the individual.
2. You say one thing about them to their faces and another specifically damaging thing about them to others, and you have an agenda in so doing.

By your apparent definition, anyone talking negatively about any public figure in any context other than speaking directly to them is "talking behind their backs." IOW, in every single BTF thread, we are all talking behind the backs of managers, players etc.

It is different WRT media, in the sense that I think a guy like Thames is aware on some level that he will take criticism for poor or careless play, in the same way that he gets paid a lot of money and people cheer when he does well. And I think there is a separation, or should be, between "is this guy a dick" and "is he a good player" and part of that separation is what you write about the guy's play ("he sucks", if he does) and treating him with basic human respect in face/face interaction. What Simers does is sort of blur that line--"I think you suck, and I get to write that, and if you don't own and laugh off the fact that I think you suck, you are a dick and you take yourself too seriously and I will mock you for it."

Another point: Kent and Ramirez were big stars, and Pierre was/is well-thought of in some circles and is very highly-paid. Simers also regularly tweaks Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson (Jackson seems to be playing along now) and those guys are in a position to tell Simers to fukc off and/or to laugh him off. That is a little different than targeting a guy like Marcus Thames. Seems to me if Simers is so ballsy he'd go after Jonathan Broxton or Matt Kemp (and perhaps he has).

So, if a writer walked up to Francoeur and said, "How can a guy that sucks as bad as you keep getting contracts? You must kiss a lot of asses" I would think said writer was just cynically going for page hits as well.

Basically, I agree with Vlad, except I think on his own terms, Simers IS smart and he is "pulling it off."
   84. AJMcCringleberry Posted: March 23, 2011 at 02:14 AM (#3776248)
If someone beat the crap out of Simers I would not be sad.
   85. Bruce Markusen Posted: March 23, 2011 at 02:49 AM (#3776256)
I often defend writers when it comes to interviews with players, but when Simers acts like he does here, he deserves no defense. Approaching a player (or any interview subject) in such a way is not merely unprofessional; it's rude and obnoxious to an extreme.

Simers should know that Thames is a good role player. He hit for the Yankees, and he'll hit for the Dodgers.
   86. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 23, 2011 at 02:51 AM (#3776257)
I'm confused about how approaching a career journeyman and asking him, essentially, if he just sucks, or if he really, really sucks, constitutes "satirizing the pomposity and arrogance of athletes."


Further, Thames isn't one of the more egregious examples of arrogant athletes, at least not to my knowledge. The Yankee writers all seemed to think he was a good egg and I don't recall Marcus ever griping about his playing time or anything else for that matter.
   87. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: March 23, 2011 at 03:07 AM (#3776267)
There were any number of ways that Simers could have asked Thames a legitimate question about his defensive ability that would have been professional. To walk up to someone and say basically "have you always sucked at what you do?" is not professional, it is childish.

I mentioned it upthread that this was just Simers being a bully. Simers' issue isn't with Thames, it is with the Dodgers and if he wants to go after Coletti that is fine.
   88. A triple short of the cycle Posted: March 23, 2011 at 03:31 AM (#3776276)
I would guess that Philistine is arguing in good faith in this thread, and even if not, is still presenting well reasoned arguments. That's not trolling as far as I'm concerned.
I have to imagine the Dodgers have a Simers meeting in spring training every year before anyone has to interact with him. It's easy to imagine the team advising to smile and walk away when provoked.
Really it's on the LA Times - they know their employee is rude and disrespectful in doing his job. Apparently the negative feelings are worth it.
   89. A triple short of the cycle Posted: March 23, 2011 at 03:48 AM (#3776284)
Having thought further - I really can't expect the player not to react emotionally to such provocation. So really, Simers' behavior isn't acceptable. The player shouldn't have to be put in that situation. His employer should be pressured to fire him.
   90. CrosbyBird Posted: March 23, 2011 at 04:04 AM (#3776297)
What's the difference between what Simers is saying about Thames, and what we say about Jeff Francouer?

Most of the time, when people are talking about Francoeur, it's in response to some poorly-written article about how good he is. Francoeur also shows a remarkable lack of self-awareness and some self-entitlement that make him more deserving of mockery. I've never heard of Thames demanding to play every day or be traded, or say something like "if defense is so important, why don't they put it on the scoreboard?"

As much as I think Francouer is a terrible player with a bad attitude about how terrible he is, I'd never come up to him on a baseball field and insult him the way Simers does to Thames. If my job was to report on Francoeur, I might well ask him questions and let him embarrass himself, and comment on those answers in an article, though.
   91. Petunia inquires about ponies Posted: March 23, 2011 at 04:14 AM (#3776300)
[65] philistine makes some good points.

This is sad for you to say since he is so clearly ####### with us on this thread.

[76] If he were satirizing someone, he'd be emulating them but exaggerating their worst traits in order to ridicule them. That's what satire means.

QED.
   92. My guest will be Jermaine Allensworth Posted: March 23, 2011 at 04:36 AM (#3776304)
You and I have a very different view of "talking behind someone's back." To me, that means:

1. You actually know the individual.
2. You say one thing about them to their faces and another specifically damaging thing about them to others, and you have an agenda in so doing.

By your apparent definition, anyone talking negatively about any public figure in any context other than speaking directly to them is "talking behind their backs." IOW, in every single BTF thread, we are all talking behind the backs of managers, players etc.

Part of it's a lack of nuance on my part, since I was rushing to get out of work. I was trying to encapsulate all the ways to not say it to somebody's face, whether incidentally (because how many times do we see Francouer?) or on purpose. Maybe I should've said "talking around" instead of "talking behind..." etc.

Simers is probably a jerk. This was a pointless column (if anything, it only made Simers look like a jerk). But I don't see how his digs are much different from long-range potshots by other paid writers, who are applauded for their insults if they're clever and correct enough. At least Simers expresses them within punching range.

Then again, like I hinted before, I'm a Mariotti survivor. I'm used to seeing these bombs thrown from the comfort of a couch, so the fact that Simers actually gets in front of athletes makes him tolerable, even if he's not likable.
   93. Gotham Dave Posted: March 23, 2011 at 04:40 AM (#3776305)
GUYS! GUYS! Stop fighting! Can't you see it's just what he wants us to do??
   94. Matt Welch Posted: March 23, 2011 at 05:44 AM (#3776314)
I wonder how much more money T.J. Simers has made than Jason Phillips these past five years?
   95. BWV 1129 Posted: March 23, 2011 at 07:41 AM (#3776322)
Every now and then, Simers does an article where he talks to someone without insulting them and then basically just reports on the conversation. I've seen him do this with John Elway (they went to the same high school) and John Wooden (Wooden was accommodating with everyone). Well, Wooden's gone and Elway is busy in Denver, so I wouldn't hold my breath on there being another reasonable column from Simers any time in the next decade.

This does remind me that I'm overdue in canceling my Sunday LA Times subscription, though.
   96. phredbird Posted: March 23, 2011 at 06:07 PM (#3776583)
[65] philistine makes some good points.

This is sad for you to say since he is so clearly ####### with us on this thread.


i'd like to hear why you think that instead of just making a declaration. i didn't wholly endorse philistine's POV, i just said he made some good points. if you read my whole post, you'll see i'm also not feeling that wild about simers work lately. he hasn't adjusted his style to the players on the team, though i think he's been spot on about management in recent columns. ymmv.
   97. philistine Posted: March 23, 2011 at 06:47 PM (#3776619)
I think it's great that there is a writer who for whatever reason does not worry about what the teams that he covers think of him. Normally, you can't be too critical of a team or an owner because you know that you have to go back the following week to get another story. And just imagine the typical blogger's interview with Francoeur. It would probably be fawning despite his obvious dissatisfaction with the fact that Frenchy's got the job in RF for a team that he pays good money to see.

As for TJ's treatment of Thames, I guess it starts with the sell from the team: "look we got this guy who's 27th best ever in hitting HRs", and they don't even know how to pronounce his name. So he asks Thames why he's a nobody and probably goads him with the name thing. Now, Thames can react in what Simers would consider an adult way by defending himself, pointing out the shortcomings of baseball management or making a joke back at him. (He gives examples in the article.) But no, he goes the typical sportsperson way and appears surly and doesn't say anything.

To me, Simers creates the image of himself as this guy who had more talent and has underachieved, but he got this job on a paper which is kinda ok for what it is. But now he has to go out and interview these players, most of whom, nowadays, are stiffs. And he has to squeeze out a number of articles a month from people who are unable to have a conversation about anything, short of churning out the same old sports cliches. He isn't trying to provoke a fight to get internet hits. He's trying to get some playful banter to make writing his column easier.

I guess his schtick does kinda wear thin after a while, but also there are some very clever things in here. And yes it is satire. Highlighting the folly of others in humorous way.
   98. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: March 23, 2011 at 06:55 PM (#3776625)
Man, philistine, you are either Simers or you are projecting a lot here. Simers can be fun, but he whiffed on this piece and nothing Thames did was "surly". You and Simers are making that up whole cloth. Also, professional athletes have ALWAYS been stiffs. Some are smart and talkative but smart and talkative isn't a prerequisite for the job so you get a lot of stiffs.
   99. Howie Menckel Posted: March 23, 2011 at 06:55 PM (#3776626)
"again he's a sporstwriter which for the record on average means a sub-average intelligence"

Seems appropriate for someone called "fanboy" to make inaccurate generalizations, I suppose. Sorry your resume got tossed in the trash, pal.

I know more than 100 sportswriters pretty well and another 100+ less well. They are a very intelligent bunch overall. Many of them have flaws - some serious - but lack of intelligence is not generally one of them. Lack of math skills - absolutely.

Oh, and next time, consider buying a comma when you type a sentence about intelligence. The typo of "sporstwriter" didn't aid your cause, either.

Carry on.
   100. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: March 23, 2011 at 07:03 PM (#3776634)
Now, Thames can react in what Simers would consider an adult way by defending himself, pointing out the shortcomings of baseball management or making a joke back at him.

Seriously: What the #### are you talking about?
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
TedBerg
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogLa Russa: Asterisk for tainted stars
(14 - 1:20pm, Jul 25)
Last: winnipegwhip

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(920 - 1:18pm, Jul 25)
Last: Der-K thinks the Essex Green were a good band.

Newsblog5 for Friday: Leo Mazzone, pitching coach to the HOFers
(13 - 1:17pm, Jul 25)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogNoble: Tom Seaver expects Derek Jeter to become first unanimous Hall of Fame inductee
(76 - 1:14pm, Jul 25)
Last: AROM

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3112 - 1:09pm, Jul 25)
Last: JL

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(100 - 1:05pm, Jul 25)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(398 - 12:47pm, Jul 25)
Last: Greasy Neale Heaton (Dan Lee)

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(92 - 12:37pm, Jul 25)
Last: Fred Garvin is dead to Mug

NewsblogGoldman: Eliminating the shift a bandage for a phantom wound
(38 - 12:23pm, Jul 25)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogThe Inventor of the High Five
(25 - 12:20pm, Jul 25)
Last: Batman

NewsblogBuck Showalter, Tommy Hunter bemoan shrinking strike zone in Orioles loss
(12 - 11:34am, Jul 25)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogTwitter / Ken_Rosenthal: Mariners announce acquisition of Kendrys Morales for RHP Stephen Pryor.
(18 - 11:14am, Jul 25)
Last: Davo Dozier

NewsblogRick Cerone: “Robinson Cano . . . what a fool!”
(257 - 11:12am, Jul 25)
Last: Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc

NewsblogSurprising Sports Stars – Guided by Voices’ Robert Pollard
(13 - 11:06am, Jul 25)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-25-2014
(5 - 10:57am, Jul 25)
Last: Batman

Page rendered in 0.9649 seconds
52 querie(s) executed