I have never been to Fenway Park. I want to go, desperately. I want to sit in the Monster seats, actually, because those look pretty fantastic. Also: because everyone I know who has been to Fenway tells me that the rest of the park — while historic and beautiful and all of that — is something of a pain.
The say that the seats are small and the legroom is poor. Many seats don’t face the infield. The tunnels and concourses, for lack of a better term, are dark and crowded. It’s totally expected in a park that age, but it certainly makes for a big disconnect between comfort and coolness. The latter is in great abundance and can overcome a lot of problems, but the former is in short supply, I’m told. So I guess I’m looking forward to going someday, but I’m kind of thankful that I don’t have an 81-game package. Because I fear that, once the novelty wore off, I’d find it a bit miserable.
I know a lot of you have weighed in on this in recent threads, particularly that Luke Scott “Fenway is a dump” post. But what I really want to know is how regular Fenway goers feel about the place. In all honesty, as a baseball-going destination, not as a historical thing. We know it’s cool and great and a gem from that certain perspective — I love seeing it on TV too — but what is it like to go there a lot?
Are the complaints I listed above overblown? Is it one of those things where it’s great if you don’t know any better but if you’ve spent time in more modern parks it’s hard to go back? How do you make it work? I ask because while history and novelty would cover it all for me if I went there a few times, I’m guessing it doesn’t outweigh the inconveniences if you go there a dozen times a year.
Have at it.
A few weeks back the Washington Nationals designated reliever Shawn Kelley for assignment the morning after he threw his glove into the ground and glared at the Nats dugout in frustration after giving up a homer in a blowout win against the Mets. He was later traded to the Athletics. Nats GM Mike Rizzo said at that time that he thought Kelley was trying to show up his manager and that there was no room for that sort of thing on the team, offering an “either you’re with us or you’re working against us” sentiment in the process.
Today the Washington Post talks about all of the Nationals’ bullpen woes of late, and touches on the departure of Kelley as being part of the problem. In so doing, we learn that, on the night of Kelley’s mound tantrum, he and Rizzo almost got into a physical confrontation:
Rizzo headed down to the clubhouse and confronted Kelley, according to people familiar with the situation. The argument became heated, including raised voices, and eventually it almost became physical, according to people familiar with the exchange. Adam Eaton got between the two of them and separated them before things could advance further . . .
Might I point out that, the fact of this emerging now helps to vindicate Brandon Kintzler who, the day before, was traded away, some say, for being the source for negative reports from inside the Nats’ clubhouse?
That aside, the article does not make anyone look good, really. Rizzo had the backing of his team with the Kelley incident, but the overall story — how did the Nats’ bullpen, which was once a strength — get so bad? — does no favors for Rizzo. Mostly because he seems to have thought that they had so much extra bullpen depth that they could afford to deal away Kintzler, which he says was a financial move, not a punitive trade for being a media source.
Question: when was the last time you heard a baseball man say he had too much relief pitching? Especially today, in which the bullpen has assumed such a prominent role? Seems rather unreasonable to cut relievers when you’re trying mightily to come back from a sizable deficit in the standings, yes?