AngelsSurfer

Part of me wonders if that "comeback plan" is just a way for the Angels to save face. If they released him right now, there are some who would think they were heartless jerks...oh noes, they're dropping the struggling drug addict who just lost his marriage and had an injury, I think they'd be fully within their rights to release him, but seeing as the front office has already been heavily criticized, I could imagine that might be a problem. Sending him to AZ, etc instead? As mentioned, it will buy them more time to work with their lawyers. At the end of it, if Hamilton isn't doing well, they can shrug and say "well, we really tried working with him. He's not delivering/he's not motivated/etc." and release him without looking like demons.

Yeah, but those numbers are calculated with a grand total of two hits, four games and five ABs, so I wouldn't say it means much.

Perez should have been on the opening day roster instead of Butera IMHO. Yeah, I know why he wasn't (options, et al) but he's far better than Butera.

This. Time to follow new people. And Instagram is really the social media that is infested with food photos, anyway, not Twitter.

Keep Cowgill; get rid of Joyce; call up Green to be bench OF cover along with Navarro. For DH, demote Cron and...oh hell, I don't even know .There has to be someone in the farm system who can actually hit the ball and be a competent utility player. Somewhere. Give Krauss another try, perhaps?

I don't think one is relevant to the other. Hamilton has been having issues with his performance for two seasons, and as per his friend's interview, has been having motivation problems since last summer. And it isn't as though he's pure as driven snow, what with all the stripper photos/etc. Are the Angels supposed to keep a player who isn't producing and seems to have clashed with the front office simply because he's getting a divorce? They have a long record of supporting their players overall, and hopefully most would understand that the Hamilton case is an anomaly.

Imho that wouldn't even be enforceable. That's basically saying that the wife can't get remarried or have a relationship after this divorce, which isn't fair or reasonable. And saying *nobody* can stay over would rule out even grandparents or family.

Any chance they will bring up Perez, since Butera is doing so poorly?

Those kids are in the middle of an absolute circus. I feel very sorry for them.

Dude is having a rough year. I don't like him as a player, but as said above, this is worrisome because it does not look as though it will end well for him at all.

Yup. Broke his nose and a finger on a bunt and was out for a while.

I wouldn't doubt that at all. Anything the players say about the management situation could be contentious, especially in terms of personal opinions - if they agree with Arte and Dipoto they risk alienating Hamilton and pissing off the MLBPA; if they agree with Hamilton and criticize the front office, that won't end well either for them. It's probably safest and most prudent to keep their mouths shut on that issue. There does seem to be a lot about the Hamilton case that nobody knows and/or nobody is willing to share, and yeah, it does seem to be between him and management . And I want you to know I appreciate all the insights you've given on how you approach your job with the team. Thank you for sharing all of that with us!

From my conversations with Fletcher here, he seems to be an upstanding guy who is willing to talk things out. He's never once gone on the defensive or become hostile in this thread, for instance, and that's important. Not every reporter is at all willing to burn bridges, and some reporters have ethics. Absolutely. I'd be willing to wager that most of them do. I think the thing is, though, there have also been plenty of reporters who have seemed "nice" and "friendly" and have had a good rapport with their subjects - only to sell them out completely later on. As a subject, it wouldn't be at all foolhardy to presume that you have to be cautious with the press by default, because it's not always possible to tell who the snakes in the grass are. Especially when you're a young player and you haven't yet had much experience dealing with the media.

And lest anyone thinks I'm tin foil hat with this, here's the Yankees' in-house list of rules they give players in the workshops they hold about being media savvy: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/yankees/story/2012-04-12/Yankees-player-media-training/54238364/1 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704433904576212810376772214 And here's another article on how sports teams are taking steps to moderate both media access and content in order to maintain the image they want. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/in_internet_age_sports_teams_are_increasingly_in_the_news_business/2011/02/28/ABPkAtV_story.html?nav=emailpage

If someone's currently working with a team, of course they'll be aware of that. They want to be invited back and they want the players to trust them, as you say. However, most dirt comes out after the reporters in question aren't worried about working/interviewing the subjects again. Cases in point, "Seasons in Hell," "Thin Ice," "Little Girls in Pretty Boxes," all the gossip about Mike Piazza, etc. Just because something that happens "off the record" isn't disclosed now doesn't mean it will still be kept confidential in five or ten years. Once again, the fact that words can and do frequently come back to haunt people is a good reason for a player/celebrity/politician to watch what they say and do around members of the media, even those they're friendly with. Many managers and agents will work with their clients to make them media-savvy so they remember this, and there's a reason for that.

There's a name for someone who implicitly trusts a member of the press who is reporting on them: Fool. Journalists have gotten scoops by appearing "friendly" and building a rapport as long as journalists have been around, and one can never forget that their presence has an ulterior motive, even if they're likeable and good buddies to drink with. Of course the players want to have a good relationship with their beat reporters; that doesn't mean they should trust said reporters as far as they can spit or forget why they're there. And that's not a comment on Fletcher as a person or his ethics; it's just common sense when dealing with any member of the press. They're there to get a story, and they're taking note of everything that happens in front of them.

I'm glad you take that step. And I would agree, management has a talent for spinning things. I would also agree with below, though: a wise subject will realize that there's no such thing as "off the record," and that anything they say or do in front of a member of the media might be repeated one way or the other.

I have to agree with what's being said here. If you're in the seating area, fine, stop for the anthem. If you're by the escalators, the concession stands et al, you can barely hear it anyway, and stopping causes bottlenecks, so there's no reason not to keep moving. And it's a good point that most workers probably stop out of peer pressure, not because they care. That's probably true for a lot of patrons, too.

Nobody's discrediting him; just pointing out that he is a member of the press and may therefore not be privvy to the players' complete thoughts on this issue. And perhaps it's possible that some of us commenting have worked in the same field, just maybe. I can't see how anyone who works in journalism would NOT acknowledge that their subjects are aware that their words are going to be broadcast to a large audience - and, therefore, may moderate what they say or refrain from being particularly candid or inflammatory. That doesn't mean they're making shit up; it means they're watching what they say. It would be very foolish to do otherwise. That reporter might be your buddy, but he's also a buddy who's reporting what you say to the world.

Yep. Nobody's saying they're making stuff up. But you can't possibly think that the players aren't mindful of what they say to members of the press, either on or off the record, or that they're not aware that the comments they make to reporters can bite them later on. Especially in this day and age when they know that the reporters they talk to are also commenting on message boards, twitter and other social media. It's in their best interests to be diplomatic and perhaps not be as candid as they would be among friends who aren't press. I'm sure they do like Hamilton; that doesn't mean they support everything he's done or aren't weary of the drama around him right now.

Yep. CJ has spoken up, but right now every single one of their agents is probably telling them to say nice things about Hamilton AND avoid criticizing the front office or anything that has been said by Dipoto or Moreno. They're not going to say anything that could blow up the way the front office's comments did.

I agree. I don't think it's that bad at all. It's certainly not a hellhole like that other stadium in LA. Overhauling the food would probably do a world of good to enhance the experience without making any other changes at all. And getting some new staff, maybe, because some of the ushers who work at Angels Stadium seem to have horrific attitude problems.

This. None of them are going to talk smack about a current teammate in the press, even one that is on the outs with management. There was another article that mentioned, to paraphrase, that while the players love Hamilton as a person, at least some of them are weary of him as a ballplayer and all the drama that brings.

I'd like more shaded seating areas and better food options. Other than that, I really don't mind the way the Big A is at all.

Defense wise, he has proven to be a hell of a lot better than Joyce. On that alone I would play him.