Quick note

Dave · November 6, 2004 at 9:45 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

There’s a note in the latest Peter Gammons column that I want to clarify:

In Wally Backman, we’ve had the first embarrassment for the new Arizona ownership. Next, Richie Sexson is expected to move to Seattle.

No mention of who expects Sexson to move to Seattle, but I’ll tell you that it isn’t the M’s front office. He’s not even their top choice at first base, and they’re very unlikely to guarantee him all three years of the contract he’s seeking. Things could fall into place that would lead to Sexson being a Mariner next spring, but to say that it should be “expected” is a vast overstatement.


15 Responses to “Quick note”

  1. Shawns on November 6th, 2004 10:12 pm

    How did gammons become a baseball writer? By his looks I can’t imagine him ever having been a player or coach. I find him annoying and his speculation and rumors hold little or no credit in my eyes.

  2. Dash on November 6th, 2004 10:21 pm

    I’ve always found it fun to see just how far offbase Gammon’s rumours can be.
    Would I mind Richie ‘Big’ Sex’y’son in Seattle. No. Would I rather see Ibanez at first, Winn traded and a better 3rd outfielder (Reed in center) yes.

  3. Joshua Buergel on November 6th, 2004 10:55 pm

    At least this one passes the giggle test. It sure sounds plausible, after all. M’s need a first basement (maybe), money to spend, he’s from Brush Prairie. He’s had worse rumors. If he does, by some chain of events, end up in Seattle, you can look forward to hearing “Brush Prairie, Washington” roughly 500 times next year during M’s broadcasts.

  4. isaac on November 7th, 2004 12:44 am

    id rethink those numbers, joshua.

    thats only about three a game.

  5. Metz on November 7th, 2004 9:25 am

    Gammons used to be a pretty decent writer back in his days working exclusively for the Boston Globe. Once he went national he decided to become a spaghetti jounalist. By that I mean he throws strands of pasta (trade rumors) at the wall and then points at the one that sticks as proof of his “in the know”.

    He’s degenerated into a hack journalist that loves to hear himself talk. He’s the role model for our own pocket lint, Bob Finnigan.

  6. Matt Williams on November 7th, 2004 11:51 am

    And the sad thing is, he’s still in the top 50% of the writers and commentators ESPN exploys.

  7. Matt Williams on November 7th, 2004 11:52 am

    Employs. I wonder if being exployed would mean being fired?

  8. The Ancient Mariner on November 7th, 2004 12:09 pm

    Gammons :: Bud Selig as Finnigan :: Howard Lincoln

  9. Tyler on November 7th, 2004 12:36 pm

    I’ve got a feeling that Richie Sexson is simply moving to Seattle. He’ll be playing for another team, but in the off-season, he has to live somewhere.

  10. Grant on November 7th, 2004 1:21 pm

    Geez, you guys are going pretty hard on Gammons. I think he knows a lot about baseball, and gets the scoop on trades sometimes, and he is way less annoying than say Harold Reynolds who is always praising the Yankees. And c’mon he’s no Finnegan

  11. The Ancient Mariner on November 7th, 2004 1:25 pm

    Gammons is an idiot, in certain respects. He knows more about baseball than some beat writers, and he hears just about everything, which is why he’s useful; but he’s not very good at separating out fact from fiction from trial balloon, and he doesn’t seem to know when he’s being used (which combined with the size of his audience is why, when Selig et al. need someone to use the way the M’s use Finnigan, they use Gammons).

  12. kenshin on November 7th, 2004 9:09 pm

    I have never fully understood the hatred of Gammons in the sabermatic community. He has repeatedly shown a willingness to embrace novel statistics that fly in the face of covention. Given the size of his audience and his traditionalist background, he should be lauded and not condemned for his imperfections.

  13. The Ancient Mariner on November 7th, 2004 10:55 pm

    1) I wouldn’t say he has “repeatedly shown a willingness to embrace novel statistics that fly in the face of covention,” though he has shown more openness than some.

    2) Hatred? More like disdain, and not for the issues you seem to think are the issues. From what I’ve seen the disdain has more to do with the number of columns he seems to write on autopilot, his credulity, the fact that he doesn’t seem to challenge, analyze, or sift much of the vast amount of information, innuendo and hearsay that flows through his notes, and the resulting frequency with which people in baseball simply use him as a mouthpiece and/or floater of trial balloons. I respect the success he has had at building a huge network of contacts throughout baseball, I respect the fact that he gets pretty much everybody to talk with him, but I don’t see any particular reason to respect him for what he does with what he hears.

  14. JPWood on November 8th, 2004 3:55 am

    For comparison, unfair of course, does Gammons stand up to the standards for research, reflection, analysis and regularity set by Leonard Koppett?

  15. DMBank on November 8th, 2004 1:28 pm

    Gammons, because he fashions himself a good sports writer, seems to believe that he only has to hit .300 – .350 in order to be considered good. It seems that he’s wrong about two-thirds of the time…