Lawsuit alleges that Tim Lincecum trashed his San Francisco apartment

15 Comments

How very rock and roll: Tim Lincecum is being sued by his San Francisco landlord, who claims that Lincecum “broke, stained, defaced, tore, injured or destroyed” some $200,000 worth of furniture, fixtures and appliances in his Mission District apartment.

According to the Mercury News, landlord Mindy Freile’s complains that all manner of items were damaged or stolen, including “bedding, doors, carpet, pillows, kitchenware, linens, furniture, household appliances, art work, decorations, patio furniture, lights, lamps, and mirrors, among other things.”  Freile’s attorney said “My belief is there was some kind of party that left it in really bad condition. Maybe there’s a perfectly good explanation on his side, but we haven’t heard it yet.”

The suit, which seeks $350,000 in total damages, also says that Lincecum basically squatted in the place after his lease expired on February 28th, and that he didn’t leave until May 13th.  Which is interesting, because Lincecum would have been in Scottsdale at spring training for half that time.  Which suggests that he got most of the trashing out of the way in the second half of that period or else he had a couple of friends, you know, watching the place.

For his part, Lincecum’s agent says that the suit is totally baseless and that he won’t dignify it with a response. His lawyer probably should, though.

For my part I would be shocked — shocked! — to learn that Lincecum parties hard in his apartment.

Oh, wait

Oh good, it’s “Yasiel Puig is a showboat” season

Getty Images
3 Comments

With the Los Angeles Dodgers punching their ticket to the World Series, Yasiel Puig is now going to be the subject of commentary by people who tend not to care about Yasiel Puig until it’s useful for them to write outraged columns or go on talk radio rants about baseball deportment.

We got a brief teaser of this last night when, after scoring the Dodgers’ ninth run on a Logan Forsythe double, TBS analyst Ron Darling criticized Puig for his “shenanigans” and “rubbing it in.” Never mind that his third base coach was waving him home and that, if he didn’t run hard, he was just as likely to be criticized for dogging it. In other news, baseball teams don’t stop trying in the fourth inning of baseball games, nor should they.

That was just an appetizer, though. The first real course of the “Puig is a problem” feast we’re likely to be served over the next week and a half comes from Phil Mushnick of the New York Post, who wrote it even before the Dodgers won Game 5 last night:

If you were raised to love baseball and to recognize the smart, winning kind from everything less, the Dodgers’ Yasiel Puig is insufferable. As the sport is diminished by professionals who disregard the basic act of running to first base as a matter of style, Puig, an incurable home-plate poser, often makes turning doubles and triples into singles appear effortless . . . In the postseason, Puig continues to behave as if he’s in the Home Run Derby. He even seems to relish his high-risk flamboyant foolishness despite frequent backfires.

This may as well be a fill in the blanks column from 2013 or 2014, when “Puig is a flashy showboater who costs his team more than he gives it” columns were all the rage. It ignores the fact that Puig, commonly dinged for being lazy, worked his butt off in 2017, particularly on defense, to the point where he has a strong case for a Gold Glove this year. It also ignores his .455/.538/.727 line in the NLDS sweep of the Diamondbacks and his .389/.500/.611 line against the Cubs in the NLCS. In the regular season he set career highs for games, homers, RBI, stolen bases and almost set a career high for walks despite having seventy fewer plate appearances than he did back in 2013 when he walked 67 times. He’s not the MVP candidate some thought he might be, but he’s a fantastic player who has been a key part of the Dodgers winning their first pennant in 29 years.

But the dings on Puig from the likes of Mushnick have rarely been about production. They’ve simply been about style and the manner in which he’s carried himself. To the extent those issues were legitimate points of criticism — particularly his tardiness, his relationships with his teammates and his at times questionable dedication — they have primarily been in-house concerns for the Dodgers, not the casual fan like Mushnick. On that score the Dodgers have dealt with Puig and, by all accounts, Puig has responded pretty well. An occasional lapse to be sure, but nothing which makes him a greater burden than a benefit. I mean, if he was, would be be batting cleanup in a pennant-clinching game?

So if the beef with Puig is not really about baseball, what could Phil Mushnick’s issue with him possible be?

I, for one, have no idea whatsoever.