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.
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.
Because he's saying it to his face. When you write on the internets you dont need no civility. Aint you heard?
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.
Wow, that's a rather limited description of a Transaction Oracle.
True. Sometimes there are hilarious pictures!
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_T54uG8esQ&feature=related
fixed
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.
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.
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."
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!
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?
But he's the one who can't pronounce it. Does he not realize he's making fun of himself?
Marcus Thames is the Kwisatz Haderach.
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.
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.
Simers showing his 8th grade sense of humor. Next will be the fart jokes.
Yup. Saying to somebody's face is a lot more impressive, in a way.
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.
because he is the lowest common denominator among human decency. He has none. Guys like him, Rome and others are just insufferable jackasses,
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.
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.
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.
He satirizes the incompetence of baseball management with lines like:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote marks prove that the question was asked "in a light-hearted way"?
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.
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.
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.
Oh I see, I misunderstood. I thought you meant the actual wording not the light-hearted bit.
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.
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."
1. we are a message board not a professional blog.
it's a sign of immaturity and massive stupidity, which is something that is expected from a person who would like Simers.
oh you are one of those. nevermind. I'll let you get back under your bridge.
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.
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.
I tend to agree with this. But I appreciate the style more when I see typical Primate reactions.
We're a bunch of cowards and he stands up for his firmly held beliefs, like you said earlier.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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."
Simers should know that Thames is a good role player. He hit for the Yankees, and he'll hit for the Dodgers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This does remind me that I'm overdue in canceling my Sunday LA Times subscription, though.
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.
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.
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.
Seriously: What the #### are you talking about?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main