Categorized | Mark Timmons

The Thlot Plickens

lindblom-josh-lgBefore Jason Schmidt pitched yesterday, Joe Torre said he was out of the running for the fifth starter’s spot.  However, Jason pitched 2 scoreless innings with 1 hit, 2BB  and 2 strikeouts.  From everyone account I have read, he looked very good – but he  pitched just two (I said two!) innings, and his fastball never got above 89, but his changeup was excellent.

Eric Milton got hammered Sunday, and Jeff Weaver, who relieved Schmidt was pounded yesterday.    Claudio Vargas has been, well… BAD, and Scott Elbert had a severe case of the flu and lost 8 pounds, so he is way behind.  Shawn Estes got beat like a rented mule yesterday (6 hits in 2.2 innings),  which begs the question:  ”who is our #5?” 

Well, the Dodgers wanted James McDonald to pitch out of the pen for the first half of the season, but he may be pressed into service at this juncture, or maybe it could be Eric Stults.  Yes, that Eric!  Give the guy a break – he’s a typically “late-maturing” lefty.  He’s about 30.  He must be ready…

But, the plot thickens, Josh Lindblom came to major league camp and pitched 2 innings  of 1 hit ball.  I’ve been telling you about Josh (Purdue Alum) who could be a nice closer (or setup man).  Watch him.  He’s the real deal.  He came right out of Purdue as a closer, and bypassed rookie ball .  He went straight to Single A Midland, where they decided to begin to turn him into a starter.  I thought he could make it as a reliever as soon as this year, but a starter is another thing, although he does have 4 pitches.  Hopefully, the Dodgers know what they are doing, but this guy is a pitcher.  He hits the mid-90′s  with great movement, a change, slider and great curveball.    He’s been a closer, maybe he really can be a starter. 

It would be a knee-jerk reaction for us to sign a guy like Pedro Martinez who is 37 and just as likely to have arm problems as Jason Schmidt, especially when we have guys like Schmidt, Stults, Elbert, McDonald and Lindblom in our system.   Not only would it be a knee-jeck reaction to sign Pedro, but it would be silly.  Jason Schmidt has been a shell of himself the past 2 years, and so has Pedro!  We don’t need that.   We need somebody we can count on and we probably have them in our system.  Estes, Vargas, Milton, Estes – we don’t  need retreads.  We need a young, power arm!   I haven’t written off Jason Schmidt yet – I think he’ll still be in the rotation, maybe at the start of the season (I don’t care what Joe said), or maybe by the end of April, but what we don’t need is a get rich quick scheme reaction that brings in a broken-down  former Dodger when we would all like to see come home, but who is washed up.  It’s a fairy tale – Bill Plaschke believes in them, but don’t bet your lunch money on one…

About Mark Timmons

When you see the invisible, you can do the impossible!

45 Responses to “The Thlot Plickens”

  1. mario says:

    Wrong again Mark….
    There you go again, putting everything on guys with no mlb experience…

  2. Badger says:

    The roster isn’t done yet.

    We will not start the year with the current pitching staff.

  3. Mark Timmons says:

    Mario, you alsways like to disagree, so cite me some examples, because for everyone you can cite I can cite about 3 where the old retread blew out his arm. Look at some of the young pitchers the Rays and the Phillies had last year. When you disagree, make sure you do what Jim Rome says “Have a take and don’t suck”, beacuse those kind of comments without basis do suck! Feel free to disagree, but provide reasons why…

    Badger,

    Maybe, but in this climate, we can’t trade guys like Pierre – teams want our young arms and there’s a reason.

  4. Badger says:

    Then we must use some of those prospects to get us a ML level starter – or…..

    we use some of McJamie’s money to buy one.

  5. Mark Timmons says:

    Boston won their last World Series with a young RH (Lester) and a Rookie (Dice-K).

    There are dozens of examples of where young pitchers step into the #5 spot and do well. I think Ned has to let this play out, and if by June we don’t have a good #5 option in house, THEN we make a trade. Also, by then, a team may need a Juan Pierre due to injury, but right now, I think we have to let this play out with the pitchers we have.

    We may sign Beimel or Ohman, but a 37-year old with all the innings and injuries he has had recently is just another version of Jason Schmidt – maybe or maybe not!

    We only need a #5 starter four times in April. Let’s see what we’ve got and not trade our future.

    I remember about 25 years ago when this young lefty named Fernando came out of nowhere and became our Ace. We again have some excellent arms and we don’t need an Ace…

  6. ken says:

    Mark

    Torre chould start the year with Schimdt/Stults as the #5 starter tandom. They should be able to go 7 innings between them. Maybe Schimdt can go 3 innings and Stultz can go 4. With only 4 games in April that gives Schimdt enough days to recover. Maybe Schimdt should start concentrating on pitching on 5 days rest, in lieu of concentrating on the number of pitches he throws, for the rest of the spring.

    All of the other potential #5s could be sent to the minor leagues to build up thier pitching endurance for a potential call up in May if/when the above plan does not work out. For me that means McDonald, Castillo, Lindblum, Milton, Troncoso, and Elbert in no particular order. This would require keeping Weaver and Vargas on the 25 man for long relief. Milton could sign a minor league contract with 30 day out clauses. The Dodgers have shown that the are fair regarding players who have signed these types of contracts in prior years.

    I have been saying for months?, weeks?, well at least many days that the Dodgers need 12 pitchers, including 3 long relievers, and now I absolutely stand by that thought regardless of what happens during the remainder of spring training.

    McDonald is a #3 candidate in 2010, Lindblum a #4 lock in 2010, Elbert a #5 lock in 2010, and Troncoso and Castillo are #5 candidates in 2010. I agree with you that the Dodgers have good arms that are coveted by other teams. That is why we need Manny locked up for two years.

    Please add the edit function so that future math word problems will be properly structured or at least interpreted against the writer.

  7. ken says:

    chould means could or should

    Edit function?

  8. Mark Timmons says:

    EDIT FUNCTION

    Should happen in the not too distant future.

    It seems simple, but it’s harder than you think and it takes time.

  9. Badger says:

    I think you are right, Torre will let this thing play out.

    Then after it has played out, we will add a veteran starter.

    These kids need more time in the minors.

  10. ken says:

    Mark

    I fully understand as the former Director of a large IT department in the early 90s.

    I also understand that on a not-for-profit website that time and effort, no expectation that you spend any money, are important as opposed to cost on a for profit web site.

    It is just that as I grow older my fingers do not obey my brain. And then there are the sports injury reminders that I use to type with.

  11. Bill Russell says:

    Badger,
    If Andy the Roach doesn’t get 200 at bats it’s no bet?????? Yesterday you were saying that Andy’s stats would be superior to Blake’s in 2009. Now today your saying well it’s no bet if Andy gets hurt?

    Yes it’s a bet if Andy or Casey doesn’t get in the minimum number at bats. A bet is a bet. I think we will need to produce a middle man who can determine who the winner will be. Not Mark because his view of this will be twisted. He’s still crying himself to sleep every night wanting Andy to come back.

    How about Ken or DRomo or Lawdog or Mario? I would trust any of them. Better yet how about this.

    Avg
    Hits
    RBI’s
    Home Runs
    Errors

    Whoever wins the most catagories is the winner. Must have a minimum of 200 at bats or you lose.

    Sign up or give me a better system.

  12. Bill Russell says:

    Ken, was that IT department in Placentia? And was it Aero Space?

  13. Badger says:

    Wait a minute there Pecos Bill – what I said originally was, if LaRoche has anywhere near the at bats that Blake does, he will out hit him.

    Then, there was this:

    “Badger, I’m on for 200 up’s and down’s if you are signing up to 200 minimum at bats.” (Bill)

    Now technically, I could have gone with anywhere near the at bats IN SPRING TRAINING – pulled a Mark on you – but we went with the minimum at bats thing. So, if they both get at least 200 at bats the bet is on.

    And no matter what, Mark owes us 4,000 push-ups. Or, another option that would be ok with me, he could take $4,000 off a few water sytems, set up the whole board with RO filters. I kind of like the looks of that GE Merlin 700 GDP LC-1. Does that free system include shipping?

  14. DRomo says:

    Damn it lets put a moratorium on Precious Andy “Sir bunts alot” LaRoache talk. I am upset Tracy Woodson didn’t work out too guys but should I still talk about that?

    I want to know when you guys are going to actually square of in your “feats of strength challenges?” I am so there! I’ll be the one drinking beer and laughing. Peace guys.

  15. Mark Timmons says:

    Tracy Woodson, now he was a stud!

  16. lawdog says:

    Damn! You guys really do need a lawyer to draft your contracts for you. Your language is too loosey- goosey and ambiguous. You’ll need a judge just to figure out what the terms you recite are supposed to mean. Chances are good a judge might well determine that your language is too ambiguous to say for sure that there was a meeting of the minds between the parties and declare the agreement void on it’s face.

    Let’s start with the number of push ups. Correcting the obvious typo “everyone” to “every one” you still have an ambiguity in that the promise is to do twenty for every “one” of “yours”.

    By yours, do you mean individually or collectively? If you’d said twenty for every one the both of you do individually then 8000 push ups would be due if each of the parties of the second part do 200 each. On the other hand, if the agreement was for 20 pushups for every one both of the parties of the second part managed to do and they each did 200, then the total push ups due would be 4000.

    The ambiguity would be analyzed in terms of any evidence any of the parties want to put on to clarify the mutual intention–but unless you’ve had past agreements involving twenty pushups for one from two second parties, I doubt any such evidence exists. Evidence of what each party intended without reference to whether or not the other party has the same understanding is irrelevant and inadmissable–unless offered to establish there was never a meeting of the minds and therefore no contract from the beginning.

    If the case is to be decided on the evidence before us at present, the terms of the writing would be construed against the drafting party (or in this case, the party making the utterance which was typed out and then relied upon by the other. This would mean the number of pushups both parties of the second part manage between them will be totaled and then multiplied by 20 to determine the number of pushups due from the party of the first part.

    The party of the first part could argue that his obligation to perform twenty push ups for each push up achieved individually by both parties of the second part is a conditional and only enforceable if the two parties of the second part manage a minimum of 200 push ups between them. However, despite the original language indicating 200 push ups was part of the stake, the party of the first part clearly modified that portion of the agreement when he offered to do 20 push ups for every one of the

    As far as the 200 bat minimum, again the contract is ambiguous, but this time the intention of the parties can be inferred. There would be no point in the party making the offer to mention a 200 bat minimum at all if he didn’t intend to predicate the agreement upon the players reaching said minimum. Therefore, both players reaching 200 at bats will be viewed as a condition precedent to the enforceability of this agreement and no push ups will be due from any of the geezers who are the parties to this contract unless both players achieve that status for the baseball season of 2009.

    Now any party who wishes to cancel this agreement and make it both null and void as between all parties may petition the court for such relief. A judicial cancellation of the agreement will only be available to a party who can demonstrate the other has not made any significant change in his position in anticipation of the agreement being found valid and enforceable. Actions like practicing push ups or joining a gym would constitute significant change of position and require this court deny such a position for rescission of this contract.

    It is so ordered unless reversed on appeal to the other attorney, Ken, who is much younger and graduated from law school a shorter period of time ago than yours truly who is 34 years removed from said hell-based experiences.

  17. lawdog says:

    Oops! The last word to paragraph 6 in the opinion stated above somehow got lost. It was “others.”

    The opinion also was meant to be held open 30 days to let parties present evidence of “changed position” or further evidence of insufficient meeting of the minds from the outset as to have an agreement enforceable between and and/or all the parties thereto. :shock:

    Damn! After all these years I can still speak legaleeze without a law dictionary! :cool:

  18. DRomo says:

    Mark ,
    I remember going to see the Dodgers play the Astros (20-something years ago)and all day long I was excited to see Nolan Ryan pitch. I got there and Woodson took him deeeep, like Willie Stargell deep. Ryan was done in the 2nd & Woodson was 3-4 or something. I left the stadium that night thinking “I gotta keep an eye on this Woodson guy”.

    Anytime I think of Nolan Ryan I can’t help but think of Woodson & the Dodgers owning him on 1 night in the 80s. How sad is that?

  19. Voldomer says:

    Lawdog, since you are putting your legal expertise on display here, could you address my earlier question (on another thread, which you may not have seen) about whether an employer (McCourt) can demand a charitable contribution as standard terms for an employment contract, as he has stated will now be his procedure post-Manny? I suspect the player could simply write 0 on the blank, but still does this not reek of undue pressure on the player, even if the contribution is for a very good cause?

  20. DRomo says:

    I beleive he (McCourt) said this would be standard on all free agent aquisitions, right? Couldn’t the F.A. just say no, or choose another team? How is it pressuring someone, if they have options?

  21. lawdog says:

    That’s a very good question Voldomer. I don’t know ow I missed it earlier.

    For sure, he can’t make someone contribute to a political cause or candidate. In fact, that’s a felony in California. I had a boss just ask me if I wouldn’t make a $25 contribution to a political campaign for a candidate who was a friend to the office which I did voluntarily. Apparently my boss had already contributed the max allowed to this guy which I didn’t know. It ended up costing him a $10,000 fine for trying to circumvent the law dealing with maximum political contributions.

    If Frank required Manny to donate $1 million to a charity from his $25 million salary, who is really making the contribution? It’s not really Manny. It’s Frank. Frank might try to double dip and write it off as salary paid and a donation which would get him in IRS trouble.

    I’m pretty sure Frank could pay Manny $25 million and add a charitable contribution in Manny’s name of $1 m il if he wanted to do so. This is often done for celebrities in golf tournaments and the like so they don’t have any reportable income for the event plus they get the charitable write off for their efforts.

    But to require a new employee to donate money to some cause as a condition of employment seems like a very questionable practice. In effect, it’s like extra money in the form of a deduction from one’s income tax and if the donation violates no laws–it could be deemed extra compensation. If he wanted Manny to take $25 million and his old organ and it’s agreeable to take the old organ at a fixed valuation for Manny I think that would be legal. How would donating to a charity be different except that Manny gets a write off with the donation and a tax burden of $10 bucks with the old organ?

    It might be against public policy to have that kind of requirement in an employment contract. My gut says there probably is law saying you can’t do this but it doesn’t come to my mind. It might be completely legal–or not. I’ve argued myself into the position that it should be legal if both parties agree. But my gut says I’m wrong. Boras sure wouldn’t let it happen with one of his clients as he’d want the value of the donation to go into the pot with the rest of the money in determining his 10%.

    I left my law library in California. Never thought I’d need it again. I can look around on Google and see what I find for you–or we can ask Ken who’s obviously a younger lawyer fresher from law school than yours truly. He probably has an answer off the top of his head.

  22. lawdog says:

    The agent factor will cause nothing but headaches for Frank even if this is a legal procedure. The player doesn’t want to pay 10% surcharge on the donation, and may not want to make the donation itself–so unless the donation plus 10% surcharge for the agent is in addition to what the player wanted he’ll walk away. If it is in addition to what he wanted–it’s just extra compensation that happens to be deductable so it winds up a push in terms of the employees’ pocketbook. I’m no tax expert, but I’ll bet the IRS would deem the donation to be Frank’s and the player would be taxed on his real income–not some silly ruse.

  23. Blue Haze says:

    It is hard waiting for the season to start, isn’t it Lawdog? A thorough summation on the issues at hand in this charitable donation clause in FA contracts.

    How much does Manny cost Frank per day, per hamstring?

    Inevitable that the late arriving FA, tries to catch up in fast forward mode, gets injured, has a crappy season due to nagging injury (like a hamstring). Let’s hope the Dodgers are just being overly cautious and Manny makes a fully successful recovery.

  24. Badger says:

    I knew if we brought a lawyer’s perspective to bear I wouldn’t have a clue – and I don’t.

    Romey, instead of laughing, man up and get in the game. Who you got for 200?

    200 is only 5 sets. I can do that in a couple of days easy. Now Mark’s 4,000, that could take a while.

  25. lawdog says:

    At this point I ope we get some feedback on this from the other lawyer–whether it be Ken or whoever. I’m curious myself. I’m now leaning away from it’s being enforcable. An Employer should only have so much power over an employee in exchange for a job and cash. If he wanted Manny to take out his sisty ugler as part of the compensation–that would be unacceptable. If he wanted Manny to donate to the Mormon Church Baptisms of Dead People–that would be wrong. Even if it’s to any charity Manny wanted–the principle is the same. The amount, too, is irrelevant. It’s the principle and the power.

    I can see what Frank wants to do. In tough cases like Manny’s where 1 million out of $45 million might be holding up a deal he could make part of the deal that the disputed $1 million go to charithy of Frank’s and Manny gets to write it off which is worth $350,000 right now at the Federal level + state deduction. Boras gets stiffed for $100,000. I can see why he’d like that.

  26. lawdog says:

    Since Mover “drafted” that part of the agreement where it was agreed he’d do 20 for every one of yours, I would construe the agreement against him and require 8000 push ups in exchange for 200 from each of you betting against LaRoche. But, as Mover sayeth–he probably can do them in his sleep.

    This waiting for the season to start is beginning to make life intolerable Bluaze. But for needing time for Manny’s hammy to heal, I’m not sure I could bear it. :shock:

  27. Voldomer says:

    Thanks Lawdog. I hadn’t thought of the impact it would have on agent fees and taxes. I was thinking chiefly of what it would mean for younger players in terms of intimidation, i.e., does a DeWitt or a Hu feel obligated to make a big donation to please the boss and compete financially with other players making similar money at similar positions?

    As Mark noted earlier, clearly Manny agreed to it, so it was legal this time. McCourt’s statement that it will now be a standard line on the contract is different. I think McCourt’s idea is well-intentioned and for a good cause that at least is somewhat related to baseball (building parks for kids). I suspect that is illegal, though, and could be manipulated (as you also suggest) for political or religious donations. Imagine, for example, if an employer tried this for or against Prop 8 last year!

  28. Voldomer says:

    Something else to consider that doesn’t cost Boras $100K:

    From Tony Jackson’s blog:

    Torre: “I’m not saying [James McDonald] will be our number-five starter, but first off, the kid has to make the club,” Torre said. “Am I questioning his ability? No. But the thing I have to answer is, will he get enough work here to have it make sense? We think really highly of him, and he did show us in the postseason he can handle the heat.”

    I’d like to have heard this and/or read more context. Does Torre mean McDonald is assured a roster spot with precise duties to be determined, or does he mean that he has to make the roster first before one can even consider him as a starter? I suspect he meant the former.

  29. DRomo says:

    Badger, I am in. I am down for 200! I am a bit younger than you guys so how about double or nothing for me? 400 is do-able.

    But I have to be honest I don’t really know the bet? Refresh my memory. I am alway good for a challenge! :)

    Voldomer, I think McDonald is going to be a stud starter for this team. I would just think we have too many question marks in the rotation now.
    1.Is Bills ready to be a #1?
    2.How will Kershaw do in a full season?
    3.Can Schmidt/Wolf/Kuroda stay healthy?
    I wouldn’t want to add:
    4. Is McD ready?

    If I had a say in the matter, I would start McD in AAA or Jacksonville and give him the Kershaw treatment. Bring him into the mix around July as a starter. Then would sign Pedro as the 5th starter coming out of Spring Training. I have to believe we will need more pitching as the season progresses. Add the arms now. Look at Boston they added Smoltz and Bad Penny just in case. If they are able to provide a lift later that is great. If not, at least we thought ahead.

  30. lawdog says:

    If Frank wanted to be present when a player signed a big contract and then right after the signing put on a little hat and say: “Now that you’ve hit the royal Dodger jackpot, how about donating $200,000 to our charity to build parks for children?” And have in his hand a pledge form made out in that amount directing the Dogs to take the money out of the bonus to be paid–I’ll bet that would be okay. That kind of bs undoubtedly happens all the time.

    I’d like to hope McDonald is ready. He sure looked like aces last year but he’s looked more like crap this spring. If he’s ready, plug him in at #5.

    If he’s not, sign Pedro. He’s old, but a #5 starter doesn’t pitch every 5th day because there are so many travel days. He’s looking at 15-20 starts and right now with the Dominican team he looks like he’s got at least a year left. Unlike Schmidt, he’s throwing 93 mph with great movement and total command of all his pitches. I’d feel real comfortable going into the season with Pedro at #5. Kind of like the first time we signed Maddox and he kept pitching blanks every start for the first 5 innings.

    If we take what we’ve got into the season expect mucho 9-8 and 11-9 games.

  31. Badger says:

    You know what Romey, I don’t even know what we are betting on anymore, but I already started paying. Did 40 just a while ago.

    If memory serves, and after reading ldog’s post I am not counting on it, the bet is this:

    if both Casey Blake and Andy LaRoche have at least 200 at bats, who will have the better year? We didn’t really establish the guidelines for better. Better what? I say LaRoche will have a better avg. and a better OBP and probably a better OPS too. But, two out of three should be good enough. Or do we want to add anything else?

    Or do we want to forget the whole thing? I would be willing to do that, but I still think Mark should do his 4,000. Are we all in agreement about that?

    ldog, we will play 162 games and if we have 5 starters, that’s 32.4 games each. I can see Bills having 32, Kuroda 30, Kershaw 30, Wolf 30 but let’s say all of them get lucky and give us 32 starts – that’s 128 games. Who is going to start the other 34?

  32. lawdog says:

    I saw McDonald pitch just a few minutes ago on a free MLB/Live broadcast available at Dodger homepage.

    He looks like he still has his good stuff. His build and long fingers remind me of Ramon Martinez. He’ll pitch well for 5-6 pitches and then hang a curve or throw the fastball down broadway. He’s very close to being ready to be the #5 starter, imho.

  33. lawdog says:

    The 5th starter has his start skipped many times during the year because a day off for travel gives the team that luxury. You don’t expect more than 15-20 starts from a #5 starter. That’s just the way it works out.

  34. lawdog says:

    Maybe I should say 18-22 starts. 15 is a little on the low side.

    Don’t expect much from Trancoso. He stunk a few minutes ago and is being lifted after less than 1 inning.

  35. lawdog says:

    Elbert’s the one!!! At least today–his stuff was outstanding! If you aren’t going to pay Ram on, Elbert is our best bet to pitch in the #5 slot of the rotation.

  36. ken says:

    Badger – Is an agreement always a contract?

    Bill – I have never worked at a fixed location in Orange County

  37. Bill Russell says:

    It appears that there’s no meeting of the minds with this Andy the Roach thing. It’s offically off. I will just do my own push ups and know that Andy will never get a full season in anyway. The true bet should be (Can Andy get 200 at bats in 2009?). IF yes then we will consider a bet next year. The catagories would be Most thumb injuries, Most back injuries, most bunt attemps with bases loaded, least amount of days on the DL. Peace

  38. lawdog says:

    There must be consideration passing from each to the other for an agreement to be contractual.. Consideration does not have to be something positive. In this case, having the loser do push ups should be sufficient to constitute consideration.

    Ken, you must be a few short years out of law school to keep asking these law school exam questions. There are holes in my analysis of the “agreement”. I was hoping to draw you out–but you stay with stuff that is red herring.

    Isn’t there a strong case that the contract itself is illusory? No meeting of the minds at the outset?

  39. Roger says:

    There . . . I just did 4,002 push-ups, that should be enought for all of you macho fans.

    Just returned home and saw that the Dodgers continue on their path to never-never land.

    Wolf and McDonald must have made the Cubs feel like champs.

    So, 6 guys sent down today.

    Think we need a trade for at least one pitcher sometime between now and July 31. Right now, I do not think that the Dodgers match up in pitching with the Giants or the D-Backs, game for game.

    I am becoming concerned about possible injured and day-to-day players on this team. Manny for one. Schmidt for two. Hudson for three. Kuo for four. Furcal for five. And then there is Repko just-a-waitin’-for a body to crash into.

    Day off tomorrow. We all need the rest.

  40. BlueChip says:

    I remember watching the game the night that Ryan no-hit the Dodgers for the Houston Lastros

  41. BlueChip says:

    oops, I didn’t refresh, I thought I was on topic.

  42. Badger says:

    ken, an agreement between men of character needs no contract.

    Bill, I got 200 push-ups that says Andy will have 200 at bats and another 200 that says with those 200 at bats he will hit better than Blake. That’s 400 total for you or me, and 8,000 for Mark. Show some onions and take the bet.

    Roger, I know you – 4,002? – boosh*t.

    ldog, your #5 logic is flawed. With a considerable amount of luck, our 4 starters will get 32 each. Check the stats from last year. Bills got 32, Kuroda 30 and Wolf 33. We are betting that all three of those guys will get 32, and Kershaw will get his 32(cross your fingers on that one). That still leaves 34 games (not 15-22)that somebody other than those guys has to start.

    Bluechip – I recall that game too. Ryan, he was pretty good.

    I am going back to the Ranch this coming Sunday with my son. Got box seats right in front of the Dodger on deck circle. I wonder who will be in it?

  43. Mark Timmons says:

    Badger,

    How about e-mailing me a full report of the game and I’ll put it on the blog Monday?

  44. ken says:

    Badger

    I agree a man’s word should be his bond, unless of course he is only joking.

    Do you think Roger ate 4,000 of the Nestle Ice Cream pushups, Sherbet pushups or the Frozen Slushy kind.

  45. Badger says:

    I think Roger read 4,002 books, then wrote 4,002 4,002 page book reports, on which he got 4,001 A’s.

    Hey, nobody’s perfect.

    Can do Mark. I’ll have my son with me, he’s a smart kid who knows sports, we both will take copious notes.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

Mandatory Daily Dodger Reading