Brewers Bench

[madtowndrunkard]

I think it's pretty obvious we'll be adding another 1st basemen. No way Melvin goes into this season with Gamel and no plan B. Expect a veteran signing late.... Melvin will target an aging vet who has experience playing first...give him a 1 year deal. You have no choice but to create a competitive situation for our first base spot. Then the loser will be our bench player.

 

There are plenty of guys still in FA who would fit the bill perfectly. Their price goes down by the day come late Jan. I would not be shocked if it were Pena or Johnson. Maybe even noted head case Luke Scott. Really if Scott were not a head case everyone would probably love him as an option. Plays left field and 1st...and has a little pop. Sounds like a perfect fit really....and Wisconsin is now gun friendly w/ plenty of opportunity to kill animals. I would think Scott would love a one year deal to convince others he's not really that bad.

 

I think Casey Kotchman is still out there as well. I think he would be my first choice if I were Melvin. But you'd probably have to give him a longer deal.

[TooLiveBrew]

I think you already have the other first basemen on the team in Green & (occasionally) Ramirez. Maybe there'll be another NRI (a la the Brooks Conrad) offer to a guy who profiles more purely as a 1B/DH type, but I don't think there will be someone like a Pena/Scott/Kotchman signed. Those guys will be too pricey.

[dadofandrew]

Signing a LH hitting 1B seems unlikely.

[monty57]

You have no choice but to create a competitive situation for our first base spot.

 

Why? When did we suddenly believe that prospects cannot succeed and we need to sign aging vets to block all of them? If this becomes the mantra of the franchise, then we are doomed, as we have to have pre-arby players making significant contributions in order to succeed.

 

Maybe even noted head case Luke Scott. Really if Scott were not a head case everyone would probably love him as an option.

 

So if someone is a gun owner and does not like Obama he's a "head case?"

[Teatoe993]

Pretty sure it's just the birther thing.

[endaround]

Well and the in your face racism

[RockCoCougars]

It seems that Scott has a big mouth, but I'd still sign him in a heartbeat to plug in for Braun. That's not going to happen because he is drawing tons of interest on the market. I'm half expecting Melvin to pull out some old/retired guy a la Kapler and Edmonds to fill that role. Any good candidates?

[monty57]

Pretty sure it's just the birther thing.

 

I don't think that should keep a team from signing a player if they feel the player would benefit the team. Scott "speaks his mind" more than most athletes, but athletes are people, and are therefore going to have differing opinions on politics. It's may be smart for those in the entertainment industry to keep quiet about their politics as you could alienate half your fan base, but I don't think athletes (of any political affiliation) should be blacklisted for expressing their opinions.

 

Well and the in your face racism

 

Any links? I knew about the "I've carried a gun for 10 years" quotes, and that he's spoke out against Obama, but your post makes me wonder if I missed something. I searched for a while, and couldn't find anything remotely racist. Basically, I found that he's religious, carries a gun and doesn't like the current President.

 

 

Regardless, I don't know that Luke Scott is the answer for this team, as he's left-handed (we already have a LH dominant bench) and more importantly made $6.4MM last year. I doubt he'll sign an $800k contract or accept an NRI invite.

[Baldkin]

Here is an excerpt from one article:

 

"Felix is my friend," he says. "I give him a hard time. The reason why I

give him a hard time is because there are certain people you deal with

and you go up and talk to them, and it doesn't work. They don't

understand.

 

"I tell him about some of the ways he's acted: 'Look, you're acting like an animal, you're acting like a savage.'"

 

Scott turns to his locker and pulls out a bag of plantain chips.

 

"So I throw bananas in his helmet. Here are my banana chips to remind

him that whenever he acts like an animal, 'Hey, that's what other people

are thinking. They're just not telling you, but that's what they're

thinking about. And I'm telling you so that you're aware of that so you

can make a cognitive decision to not behave like that.' I would want

someone to tell me that instead of letting you making a jerk of

yourself."

He's either racist or the type of guy who has no clue about history, our country, or the extreme bigotry that people went through and still go through today.

[CheezWizHed]

That same article talks about how he and Pie use slurs back and forth between each other and are very good friends. It also contains quotes from another player (blanking on the name right now edit - Adam Jones) who is not Caucasian saying Scott is NOT racist:

Adam Jones,

who is black, says it doesn't bother him because he knows Scott is a

good person and the words do not come from a bad place. If it bothered

Pie, who is a dark-skinned Dominican, it might be a different situation.

 

"He's not a redneck racist; his beliefs are his

beliefs," Jones says. "Their relationship is uncanny, and Pie ribs him

just as much. I don't think Luke means any racist thing by it. Trust me,

if I see racism, I'll say some s---. Quickly.

More of the article talks about his ties with the Hispanic community.

 

I can't say its an interaction I'd use with my friends, but it doesn't mean he is racist. Look past the newspaper quotes (if you care) or just assume you know him based on a quote or two...

 

edit -found article.

[nate82]

He's either racist or the type of guy who has no clue about history, our country, or the extreme bigotry that people went through and still go through today.

 

 

Or here is another probably more plausible explanation they are friends and joking around. I haven't seen anything that points to him being a racist which I could care less about in a baseball player. Everyone has their own opinion and I could care less about a baseball players opinion on politics, race, religion, economics, or anything else that doesn't pertain to what that player is doing on the field.

[gregmag]

No. I'm sorry, but you don't call a dark-skinned Latino "an animal" and "a savage" and throw plantain chips at him. I know some people think racism doesn't exist any more, but IMHO it does, and that's a pretty blatant example. I don't care if Scott has black teammates who speak well of him; they're entitled to their judgment, and I'm entitled to mine. Do I "know him based on a quote or two"? Of course not; maybe he's a very kind racist who loves children and small animals. Who knows? But like Baldkin said, he's either a racist, or he's so unforgivably clueless about the history he claims to understand so well that he's forfeited the benefit of the doubt.

 

Another thing, as long as we're on this: the whole birther thing is itself racist, and Scott's embrace of it just confirms what his other comments make painfully obvious. Of course he doesn't have to like Obama. Most people seem not to. You can hate the President's character, despise his policies, wish fervently for his imminent demise, whatever, and I'm not going to say you're racist just because the man happens to be black. But to question Obama's very American-ness, based on rank paranoia and a grand total of zero pieces of salient evidence, comes back to the fact that his skin is darker than yours and his name sounds alien. It's a lunatic, nativist fantasy that no white person would ever have to deal with. (BTW, my use of the second person here isn't directed at any poster; I don't see anyone here defending the birther smear, and I respect Cheez and monty's point that people are allowed to say what they want to say. They are indeed, and I'm just saying that when Luke Scott or anybody else says the things we're talking about, to me that's racism 101.)

 

The interesting question here is what do you do if your team picks up a player whose ideas you find deeply appalling. I'm a big believer that we shouldn't expect baseball players to be role models; I think, on balance, I would probably like major league ballplayers as a group a lot less than I like the people I know. Whatever Luke Scott may be, he's probably a better human being than Ty Cobb, Cap Anson, and lots of other jerks who were also great ballplayers. So in principle, if the Brewers thought they could win more games with Luke Scott on the roster, picking him up would be the right thing to do. But that's principle; I'd certainly enjoy rooting for the team less.

[DHonks]

wow, I read those quotes from Scott and picked up on no racism. I think this is some oversensitivity on peoples' parts. It reminds me of when I was in college. I was approaching my dorm, and someone was meeting my friend there (but didn't know him yet). They saw me entering the building, and asked if I knew where he could find JR. I said, "why yes I do. If you head this way and keep your eyes out for the skinny short black guy that is dressed like a professor...that's him. He walks that path right about now." The person looked at me awkwardly and said that it seemed racially insensitive. I pointed out that on our college campus, nearly all African-Americans males were on the basketball team, and that the description I gave was because JR was 5'5", African American, and likely wearing khakies and a sweatervest.

 

If also reminds me of one time when I was teaching students about some Jewish history, and a student innocently asked why the word "Jew" was a bad word. I told him that it wasn't a bad word, but rather a descriptive term about members of either a particular religious or ethnic group. Some people that distrust them might use it as if it is a bad word, but for most of us it is simply a descriptive word.

 

What if Luke Scott had been eating an apple? Would throwing an apple core have been racist (I'm assuming the banana chips play into the conspiracy)? My point is that if Luke Scott means nothing by it and it's not interpreted by teammates in a negative fashion, then I can't find fault in his behavior.

[Baldkin]

wow, I read those quotes from Scott and picked up on no racism. I think this is some oversensitivity on peoples' parts. It reminds me of when I was in college. I was approaching my dorm, and someone was meeting my friend there (but didn't know him yet). They saw me entering the building, and asked if I knew where he could find JR. I said, "why yes I do. If you head this way and keep your eyes out for the skinny short black guy that is dressed like a professor...that's him. He walks that path right about now." The person looked at me awkwardly and said that it seemed racially insensitive. I pointed out that on our college campus, nearly all African-Americans males were on the basketball team, and that the description I gave was because JR was 5'5", African American, and likely wearing khakies and a sweatervest.

 

If also reminds me of one time when I was teaching students about some Jewish history, and a student innocently asked why the word "Jew" was a bad word. I told him that it wasn't a bad word, but rather a descriptive term about members of either a particular religious or ethnic group. Some people that distrust them might use it as if it is a bad word, but for most of us it is simply a descriptive word.

 

What if Luke Scott had been eating an apple? Would throwing an apple core have been racist (I'm assuming the banana chips play into the conspiracy)? My point is that if Luke Scott means nothing by it and it's not interpreted by teammates in a negative fashion, then I can't find fault in his behavior.

Describing someone as black isn't racist. Calling a black person an animal, a savage, or implying they are a monkey by throwing bananas at them is either racist or completely ignorant. Either way, I cannot imagine Nyjer Morgan putting up with that sort of thing and he's definitely not someone I would want to associate with on a day to day basis for 9 months a year.

[DHonks]

I never read it as implying that he was a monkey. That was your interpretation. I read it as he teased Pie for acting like an animal, and threw the food he snacks on while at his locker. I was called an animal countless times in Middle School, high school, and in college for my uncanny ability to find rebounds in basketball games, despite being 5'11"...I never viewed that as somebody trying to ridicule me. I viewed it as somebody complimenting me for being amazingly involved given my lack of ability. I don't know anything about Pie, but perhaps he sometimes acts on impulse. Maybe I'm being naive, but I'm not reading the article's quotes as you are.

[MNBrew]

It's the 2nd generation of PC, DHonks. Everyone's supposed to be offended by everything, and there's no acceptable point of view except to be offended. . . . Thinking critically has been replaced by thinking the way we're trained to think. . . . We're only supposed to read anything at face value, nothing can ever be just figurative, and Heaven forbid we EVER see the forest for the trees! Oh, the next 20 years of overreacting is upon us!

 

But that's completely fraught with flaws and double-standards. To wit: To comment that someone's black, not African-American, is almost consistently seen as insensitive or offensive.However, it's always okay just to call me white. Really? Shouldn't I really be offended because I'm not referred to as a Norwegian-American, which is my heritage? Come on!!! To note the color of skin is simply fact, not judgement. Of course, it's also a slightly incorrect generalization because "black" actually represents shades of brown, not literally black, and "white" is, well, I'm not sure what it is except that it's not actually any form of white at all -- maybe more the color of Silly Putty.

 

About 15 years ago, when the Cleveland Indians' logo was a hot topic and the A.I.M. (American Indian Movement) was getting lots of "airtime" for its role in that discussion, and the North Dakota "Fighting Sioux" nickname was becoming a comparable target in these parts, the genuinely nice guy driving my bus of band students to a parade one June Saturday brought some of this up in a way I thought very wise and noble. This fellow, who himself was Native American (which I only knew because he said so), mentioned a couple of the names of main guys in that organization who'd spent major time in prison and, this guy felt, didn't represent his race very well at all and seemed to be into this sports team-name debate as much or more for the notoriety than for the cause. I'll never forget when this guy stated his own opinion: "Those guys don't speak for all of us. We have another name for them, for the A.I.M.: _ _ _holes In Moccasins." . . . . His point was that for all the media hype surrounding this issue, only one of MYRIAD views of the Native American peoples was being considered by the media in the discussion (and THAT's what offended him!). But the way the thing was being largely & self-righteously portrayed by the media was that ALL Native Americans were offended by these team-name issues, and anyone else with any sense should be, too. . . . .

 

My point is that there are layers, always layers. To assume everything regarding an issue is always just one way is anywhere from overgeneralizing to downright blind. Somewhere we've lost the idea that there can be & usually is a gray area, a middle ground. (Quoth Obi-Wan, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" or something about like that.)

 

Callous & malicious insensitivity is wrong. Racism is wrong. But somewhere this side of those things, somewhere along the way, it's both sad and ridiculous just how much common sense has gone out the window! Ignoring the seemingly obvious facts that Luke Scott & Felix Pie are good friends just goofing around and having safely-accepted fun at each others' expense and that that was made possible by a clear foundation of friendship & trust is just the way of the world these days -- judge the situation by reading into it your own judgements rather than by looking at the big picture and gaining an accurate understanding what's behind it.

 

I don't want Luke Scott on the Brewers, but it has nothing to do with his politics because I don't care about his politics, whatever they may be. It's entirely based on my belief that Mat Gamel deserves his chance to play everyday in the bigs after 4 generally strong years in AAA before the Brewers miss any further on the golden opportunity to capitalize on his talent -- and that other young guys like the Schafers and Gindls in the system are nearing the point of deserving a similar chance. (And the only reason I can think of that I'd look at it differently would be in the unlikely event that Prince Fielder would call up Doug Melvin & Mark A. to suggest terms of a do-able 1- or 2-year deal.)

[CheezWizHed]

Another thing, as long as we're on this: the whole birther thing is itself racist

 

If Obama's father had been a blonde, blue-eyed Swede and the rest of his history was the same, the Republican party would have questioned his qualifications just the same. It wasn't his race, it was a question of where he was born and thus if he was qualified for the office of President. If he was born outside the US and one parent is NOT a US citizen, it comes down to some very technical details to make him qualified for President.

 

Politically, I'm a conservative and I thought that whole thing was a joke and overblown. But it had far more to do with being a Democrat, than racism.

[dadofandrew]

Off topic, but...

 

They questioned McCain's eligibility because he was born on a military base in a remote part of the world. Politics, especially today, lead to minute details being studied. The claims of racism made every time someone has a legit criticism are not only thin-skinned, but diminishes actual racism, which still exists, though is getting less and less over time because of the races marrying and becoming far more "mixed" than any time of history. Looking 10-20 generations down the road, very few "purebreds" of European descent will exist, and the color issue will be even less than today.

 

There will still be ignorant folks (the whole light skinned blacks versus dark skinned blacks comes to mind), but it will be less and less. 10 years ago, we still had people talking about black QB's, and other than Mike Hunt, who is so out of it the JS should be embarrassed to print his drivel, we now have QB's winning the Heisman and transferring in to Madison to play their final year and many have no idea what race they are, nor do we care. I personally did not even know Wilson was black until Hunt wrote about it, forgetting they had Otis Flowers and Tony Lowery as QB's two decades earlier.

[endaround]

If Scott said what he said about a coworker in anything outside of professional sports he'd be fired. Not sure how that isn't obvious to anyone.

[Crew2323]

If Scott said what he said about a coworker in anything outside of professional sports he'd be fired. Not sure how that isn't obvious to anyone.

Perhaps it's not obvious because his teammates didn't find it offensive, mean spirited, or serious, but instead that's how they chose to interact with each other? Is Felix Pie a racist for returning the barbs back to Scott? Why hasn't anyone suggested that?

[TooLiveBrew]

Oh, good. A nice discussion of the Brewers' bench has turned into the Luke Scott is a Racist trial.

[gregmag]

Another thing, as long as we're on this: the whole birther thing is itself racist

 

If Obama's father had been a blonde, blue-eyed Swede and the rest of his history was the same, the Republican party would have questioned his qualifications just the same. It wasn't his race, it was a question of where he was born and thus if he was qualified for the office of President. If he was born outside the US and one parent is NOT a US citizen, it comes down to some very technical details to make him qualified for President.

The problem with your analysis is that there's no basis for the birthers' claim. Many conservatives despised Bill Clinton to his very core, but nobody ever questioned whether Clinton was actually American. The two situations are identical, as far as the relevant facts are concerned. No one has ever presented a single, credible shred of evidence to suggest that either man was born outside the United States. But a certain number of people are willing to buy and/or exploit the specious claim about Obama because he, in their perception, does not fit the American norm. I suspect that you, like a lot of people, are just too rational and fair-minded to understand that twisted thought process, but I don't see any other explanation for the birther lunacy.

 

Al's comparison to the McCain situation is, of course, entirely specious. No one disagrees about where McCain was born -- in the Panama Canal Zone. A question came up about the legal significance of where he was born -- not an unreasonable question, given that the issue hadn't come up before in a presidential election, but an easy enough question to answer. Constitutional law experts (I have to put in a plug for my profession here) took about five minutes to explain that being born in a U.S. territory to U.S. citizens constituted natural born citizenship. We moved on, and the issue was barely mentioned again. How that has anything to do with the birther movement I cannot imagine.

 

Also, Al, "[t]he claims of racism made every time someone has a legit criticism"? What claims are we talking about? What "legit criticisms" are we talking about? That's a sloppy, lazy generalization even by your notoriously lax standards. Please show me where this phenomenon happens, outside your fantasy bubble.

[dadofandrew]

Greg, if you want to discuss this further, take it to private. That said, anyone who lived through the Obama administration that can claim they have not witnessed actual criticisms blindly brushed aside, don't talk to me about living in a fantasy world.

[DHonks]

don't forget...it was Democrats that started the birther thing. It was Republicans like my parents that perpetuated it. I took the simple approach that while an intriguing argument, I can't imagine a major political party would possibly nominate someone that is ineligible for office because they forgot to do their homework.

 

back to the Brewers' bench..I'd consider Scott just as I'd consider Aoki--primarily for 50 games in LF, 5 more when Braun has a hamstring strain or oblique issue, 10-15 games in RF, 3-6 games at DH, and then perhaps a few starts at 1b (Aoki would be CF, not 1b).

 

I don't mind an overly lefthanded bench since we'll have Izturis, Gomez, and possibly one more right-handed batting utility infielder on the bench.

[Kelbysdaddy]

man, i really prefer to talk about BASEBALL on BASEBALL forums. please take it to the off topic forum guys.