We’ve taken many a shot at T.J. Simers over the years. And for good reason, as he’s taken many a shot — often extremely cheap shots — at ballplayers. It’s his shtick and he often does it with a wink, but it wears way, way worse when he’s using that shtick to attack undeserving targets like Marcus Thames than when he’s speaking Truth to Power or whatever it is he’s often credited with doing by his fans.
But whether you love Simers or love to hate him, you may not have him to kick around anymore. He’s been absent from the pages of the L.A. Times for pushing three months now and Mark Heisler writes today that Simers is likely on his way out.
The reason on the surface, the column notes, could be an ethical issue in which he based a column on his daughter and Dwight Howard having a free-throw contest days before it was announced that a TV comedy revolving around Simers and his daughter was in the works. The column goes on to suspect, however, that there may be deeper issues at play here in that Simers has a history of butting heads with the increasingly annoying L.A. Times hierarchy.
Heisler — who worked with Simers at the Times for years and provides all kinds of delicious backstory for those of you who like newspaper politics — uses the Simers story to launch into some thoughts about Simers’ role and the role of newspapers in today’s new media age. For all the interesting backstory, I think Heisler’s views about what Simers specifically and newspapers in general mean in the grand scheme of things are a bit anachronistic. Maybe newspapers are now being run by shortsighted, bottom-line-obsessed micromanagers and maybe that is a shame (I think it probably is). But to suggest that Simers’ departure is illustrative of the evolution of media is wrong. Great newspapermen from the past would’ve been just as wise to kick him to the curb as the empty suits are today.
To put it another way: maybe Simers is being pushed out for the wrong reasons, but it certainly is the right thing.
The Reds will roll with manager Bryan Price for at least one more season. Per MLB.com’s Mark Sheldon, Price has been extended through the 2017 season with a club option for 2018. He won’t be the only familiar face leading the team, as the Reds have reportedly asked the entire coaching staff to return as well.
This is Price’s second consecutive season with 90+ losses since Cincinnati signed him to a three-year contract back in 2014. While he hasn’t been able to replicate the same kind of success that former skipper Dusty Baker found in 2012 and 2013, he’s been saddled with a team that’s still in the throes of rebuilding, not one that looks on the cusp of playoff contention. It is, after all, the same team that has not seen a healthy season from Homer Bailey since Price’s arrival, one that unloaded Jay Bruce for a pair of prospects earlier this year and one whose pitching staff set a single-season record for most home runs given up by a major league team.
Justifying Price’s extension requires a different kind of yardstick, one that measures player development and individual success over the cumulative win-loss record. Here, Price has overseen solid performances from contributors like Adam Duvall, who is batting .244/.297/.506 with 2.9 fWAR in his first full major-league season, as well as young arms like Anthony DeSclafani, Brandon Finnegan, and Michael Lorenzen, among others.
From comments made by Reds’ CFO Bob Castellini, Price’s success within a rough rebuilding process appears to have cemented his place within the club, at least for the time being.
I like the young, aggressive team Walt and Dick have put together with players from within our system and from recent trades. […] Bryan has been here seven seasons now. He’s comfortable with the direction we are heading with our young players, and we are comfortable with him leading us in that direction.
When the Nationals fired Matt Williams a year ago, it might’ve been a safe assumption that they were going to go with that new breed of young, handsome recently-retired player-turned-manager who, despite a lack of experience, allegedly knows how to deal with modern players better and knows how to handle a clubhouse. Those assumptions have proved largely off with these guys — Williams was a disaster, Matheny wins despite himself and Ausmus looks like he’s perpetually on the verge of a breakdown — but that’s the all the rage these days anyway.
Instead, the Nats hired Dusty Baker. Though Baker had tremendous success as a manager everywhere he went, he was maligned by some for some pitcher handling stuff in Chicago (which said pitchers have long denied was an issue, but let’s let that lie). He was also, more generally, thought of as a “retread.” Which is what people who prefer younger folks for jobs tend to call older people, even if the older people know what they’re doing.
And yes, I will cop to thinking about managers that way a lot over the years, so I’m not absolving myself at all here, even if I was pretty OK with the Dusty Baker hiring. I’ve evolved on this point. In no small part because of how Dusty Baker has done in Washington. Flash forward a year, the Nats are division champions and Baker may be a top candidate for Manager of the Year. That, in and of itself, should show you how wrong the haters were.
But if it doesn’t, this sure should:
I have no earthly idea what that means and Castillo gives no further context. All I know is that it sounds cool as hell and of any current manager, only Dusty Baker could say that and pull it off.
Because he’s Dusty Baker and has nothing to prove to you. And if you don’t like it, shoot, he’ll just go back home to his winery or whatever and live out the rest of his days being cooler than you.