Categorized | Mark Timmons

So Sorry To Step On Your Toes…

So Sorry To Step On Your Toes…

It’s not too often, that I have to call out a poster, but in response to the pure  fiction Lawdog wrote yesterday, I have to reply.

In Peter O’Malley’s last years, the Dodgers farm system was 10 times worse than right now.  I can tell that LAWDOG has never been to a game at Camelback Ranch or considered why the Dodgers have such a large cadre of minor league instructors, and are one of the few teams that has a year-round training facility with a full staff of trainers and coaches.  So McCourt can hose the fans? 

IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT, YOUR LOGIC IS JUST SO SKEWED BY YOUR HATRED OF MCCOURT THAT YOU CAN’T SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES! The Dodgers have consistently ranked in the upper 40% of Minor League Rankings and were just named the Topps Organization of the Year (of course you minimize that because it doesn’t fit your fictitious model).  Like it or not, that’s who Topps chose.  The Dodgers were recently ranked 12th in one blog while KC was first.  What is interesting is that KC was ranked 17th LAST year – things can change a lot in a year.  I’m anxious to see what BA says this year.

Some on this blog have minimized the TOPPS award, but Topps has been giving out this award since 1966 and the last time the Dodgers won it was in 1997.  If you care to read about it, you can go to BIG LEAGUE STEW and read what Mark Townsend wrote about the methodology behind the award.  But, this award is based upon fact, not fiction, so I am not sure you can comprehend it, Lawdog,

Dodgers minor league teams finished with a .513 winning percentage, which is 13th in baseball. The Great Lakes Loons in the Midwest League  led the way with 90 wins and .647 winning percentage – the best marks of any Minor League team.  The Ogden Raptors made it to the championship series in the rookie-level Pioneer League, losing to the Helena Brewers.   Jonathan Mayo of wrote this:

It may have been a disappointing year at the big league level, but if the performance of the Dodgers’ farm system in 2010 was any indication, there might be help on the way, even if it takes a little while to get there.

According to Ken Gurnick of Dodgers .com it was also just announced that Dave Hanson returned to the Dodgers as a hitting instructor and is working with the Dodger youngsters.  Hansen is currently one of the instructors working with 16 selected top prospects in the Dodgers’ annual winter-development minicamp at Dodger Stadium (which is also something McCourt doesn’t have to do that costs a lot of money).

Lawdog goes on to say:

I’m not saying our top prospects were genuine 24 karat can’t miss guys. But we gave them all away, and for what? A bunch of overpaid geezers looking to cruise to their last big payday. The prospects we’ve gotten back over these McGoo ears all seem to be 24th round picks with genuine major flaws that we hope we can coach out of them in a few years. But McGoo’s got nutten’ on St. Nick!

Your argument that these guys couldn’t have been much good because they brought us so little in return begs the question and misses the mark. The point is, they brought us so little in return through the incompetence of the front office–and owner.

My response is that you should read Jared’s Post today.  And the Angels’ Farm System is not irrelevant.  You have held Arte Moreno out as a good owner, but they are rated below the Dodgers and have the same kind of turnover of players.  EVERYONE DOES.  You are comparing the Dodgers to the standard you think should be met, but it’s not reality – again, it’s fiction.  Deal with reality!

Hate McCourt all you want – If Joe Torre or Steve Garvey or some other person could put together a group to buy the Dodgers and they had money behind them, then I am in, but to belittle the organization for McCourt’s  decadent  lifestyle is far from the truth.  The organization and minor league part therein is still TOP NOTCH, and TOPPS saw fit to say so.

You chastise the Dodgers for giving up Santana, but another Top Organization gave up Hanley Ramirez!  Santana is no Hanley Ramirez!  The jury is still out on him and Lambo and McDonald.  The value you put on the Dodger prospects is not reality. Do you really think Ned says “I know these guys are worth a lot, but just give me a little?”

Lawdog says that “[McCourt] didn’t want to offer arbitration to those players who would not have accepted same had it been offered, and didn’t want to pay for what the extra first rounders and sandwich rounders would bring. Had he done so, we’d have been back on the road to recovery, down on the farm, very soon.”

So, instead he signs Zach Lee for MORE than those first rounders and sandwich would have gotten combined? You ARE crazy! And you can say that stuff about them not accepting arbitration, but you have no clue.  Wolf would have certainly accepted and tried to negotiate a longer deal, and even though Hudson didn’t like Torre, money talks!  He might have.

You say the Dodgers won’t sign Free Agents?  Should they have paid Werth $130 mil or Crawford $150 mil or Beltre $100 mil, because that’s what it would have taken to sign them?  I personally wouldn’t touch any of those contacts!  I have ZERO problem with that, but oh… I almost forgot, you live in a fictional world with funny money!

Everything is not all roses and the Dodgers (like all organizations) have warts, but it is not nearly what some of you feel it is.  What you feel is fiction.  Face the facts – the Dodgers have issues, but top-to-bottom, they are one pretty good organization!  Watch and learn!

Lawdog, you are not alone!  There are others on this board who are with you in your house of fiction.  I am sure that you don’t want to be confused with the facts, because your mind is already made up, but I tried!

About Mark Timmons

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

69 Responses to “So Sorry To Step On Your Toes…”

  1. Badger says:

    Singling out posters who disagree with you with a diatribe post to prove a point.

    Nice. Could be an all time low for you. Maybe not.

    As you know, I think the Organization of the Year award was ill timed. Yeah, they have their own “formula” to come up with that. Others, like the one you mention above that places the Dodgers middle of the pack, have theirs. You say the minor league win % was 13th? like that is something great? and then you mention teams like the Loons and the Raptors. A league success is good I suppose, beats having crap teams there, but what about all these prospects talked about the last week that have risen, fallen, moved around, succeeded, failed, disappeared or traded for bean bags?

    I think at this point in time the Dodgers are the running cartoon of MLB. Dodger haters everywhere are laughing their asses off at where this team finds itself.

    I would ask that you lay off your invective personal attacks on posters… especially those you have known for years. ldog is entitled to his opinion. We all are.

  2. Mark Timmons says:


    Re-read what Lawdog says. Re-read what you say. “The Dodgers are the running cartoon of MLB?” That’s what you and him (and Slimers) may think, but TOPPS sure didn’t think that, and most people in baseball don’t think that. Do the Dodgers have the best prospects in baseball? No. Do they have the worst? No. They are in the upper 40%.

    When you or him post false or fictitious information to slant the situation to fit your own opinions, I will call you out on it every time.

    My post was full of fact, not opinion. When he or you write things that are totally crap, I will call you out and if you think I am attacking you personally, I am sorry, but I am attacking the erroneous information posted.

    The Topps thing was “ill timed” because it didn’t fit your version of the story, so even though they have a formula for calculating this, they should have changed to fit your perception? I think not!

    The Dodgers sucked last year. Anyone can see that. If they suck next year, you can say I told you so, but I will put the blame more on Colletti than McCourt.

    The Divorce has been ugly, but the Dodgers are not a cartoon regardless of what YOU say.

    You and Lawdog are entitled to your opinions and the attack is not personal, just forthright in stating that the opinions given fly in the face of the facts!

  3. Mark Timmons says:

    How is it a personal attack when I say what Lawdog write was fiction and then “point-by-point” state the facts in opposition to that?

    How is it an attack when I say that he doesn’t want to be confused with the facts?

    I did not call him a DRSOB or any such thing. I just said what he wrote was false – and it is!

    He or you or anyone can post their opinions, but have a take and do not suck, because I will call you out.

    For example, Logan White told me that Santana HAD to be included in the Blake deal – that he was a deal-buster. People can choose to believe or disbelieve that. I have no other facts. You can say it’s a bad deal. In retrospect, it probably is, but all of the facts aren’t in. But, when the Dodgers are named the Topps Organization of the Year (fact) and you come back and say “it ain’t so.” That’s fiction. I’ll call you on that every time. If you think that’s a personal attack, then you think differently than most people I know.

  4. Mark Timmons says:

    I’m not the only one who feels this way…

  5. Badger says:

    The attack IS personal Mark. You singled out ONE poster and railed on him.

    You live in the midwest, I live in the West and have lived in both the L.A. area and Northern California most of my life. I SEE WITH MY OWN EYES AND HEAR WITH MY OWN EARS the laughing and joking that is going on about the Dodgers. What the heck do people in Indianapolis know about what is being said out here? Obviously not much. You blast Simers and Plashcke and anyone else in the L.A. media that doesn’t agree with you but the fact is those writers LIVE OUT HERE! and they hear every single day what people are saying.

    It is true that people choose to believe what they choose to be true. I read that the Dodgers minor league organization is middle of the pack as far as producing major league players. I see with my own eyes that the Dodgers minor league organization changes it’s top prospect list every few months. I choose to believe until a few of these guys actually make it to the big leagues, they are nothing more than minor leaguers. You read some bubble gum card company likes our A league teams so the “Organization of the Year” award gives you an orgasm. It means nothing to me because the Dodgers finished below .500 last year, did very little to actually make this team competitive with the elite teams in the National League, and the top prospect for this year doesn’t have the same names it that it did last year! I would make you another 500 push-up bet on the coming season, but like last year, I know you wouldn’t do them so why bother?

    McCourt is freakin’ joke. So, go glad hand him this season and enjoy the mediocrity his ownership means to the Los Angeles Dodgers.

    • Ray says:

      the media in LA say and write what SELLS….what lines their pockets more? positive praise or negative spin?
      I know people who watch the BBC channel to get US news because the media here is so slanted one way or another…..

  6. Vince says:


  7. GoNzO says:

    You argue your points well Mark; however, comapring the trades between the BoSox and Marlins to LAD and CLE are apples and oranges.
    Yeah the BoSox dealt Ramirez but look who they got in return, a top of the rotaion starter that helped them win TWO world series. Santana hasn’t done much but in the short time he played he showed a glimpse of what he might become. I say he becomes a superstar, the next Victor Martinez. All we got was Blake who is servicable and a complimentary piece to a team that needed someone to put the team on its back along with Manny and now are stuck with him. Which doesn’t suck but its not great either.

    You are right when you say Colleti is at fault for these terrible trades, but I believe that McCourt is a micromanager (again my opinion)and has to sign off on any deal.

    I believe Brooklyn dodger said it best when he wrote that most fans aren’t upset that there are trades going on, but what we’re receiving for our “top prospects”. you say that the TOPPS award is a big deal, I disagree. its nice to have but we aren’t seeing the fruits of it. Just like JMac was the organizations pitcher of the year TWICE, which is a big deal and all we got to show for him is a career minor leaguer that will never make it to the show.

    I also believe that trading Lambo was a mistake. I believe he will develop into a very sevicable player in between the likes of a Paul Oneal and Matt Holladay.

  8. RogerCraig says:

    Not much reality here today…

  9. lawdog says:

    Mark likes to beg the question when he makes one of his “logical arguments.” For example, the Dodgers must have a great farm system because they have a real fancy facility in Arizona they use for for spring training and a farm team during the minor league season.

    Say what? That’s the same type of argument made by the poster to whom I was responding the other day. Namely that our prospects couldn’t be any good or else we would have gotten more for them. Good lord man! You need to take a college level course in Logic. You embarrass yourself with arguments like this.

    So now Mark has decided to go personal and call me out in a thread devoted to maliciously ridiculing what I’ve said on more than one occasion. Funny, when I finish reading his stuff I notice that he resorts to ridicule and sweeping generalizations in a futile attempt to to refute what I’ve pointed out by taking parts out of context, creating a straw man and then attacking same. He keeps railing and screaming at me that I’m crazy but the bottom line is he still hasn’t touched the basic argument.

    Remember Mark, ridicule is the lowest form of argument and only resorted to by a person who’s already lost the debate. When you use ridicule in your argument, only those to dim to see what you are doing will actually be impressed. But if you’re hell bent on using ridicule to single out a poster to be the subject of a thread and your own private witch hunt, let me give you one that never seems to fail to gin up the dim and help you garner support where you have no logical argument:

    “Are you deliberately being a dick or are you genuinely that stupid?” :mrgreen:

    • Ray says:

      this is LOGIC…..

      Re: Lambo

      yeah I am sure you have it right and Ned has it wrong. You know more about Lambo, because you had a crush on him, than Ned does. Give me a break.
      He couldn’t make the Top 20 prospect list for one of the worst teams in baseball. What does that tell you???

      ldog-you said this
      “Say what? That’s the same type of argument made by the poster to whom I was responding the other day. Namely that our prospects couldn’t be any good or else we would have gotten more for them. Good lord man! You need to take a college level course in Logic. You embarrass yourself with arguments like this.”

      and THEN, THEN…..go on to talk about ridicule being the lowest form of argument…..guess it takes one to know one.

      • Ray says:

        To me…..Mark sees things clearly…..some of the others here…..not so much.
        LDog-I don’t care what you think, you can’t tell me Lambo is a TOP prospect…..where would he play in LA? Where? If he was so good, he would have been traded to Cleveland for Lee a few years ago. Or to another team for a starting pitcher. He isn;t the 20th best prospect in the Pirates farm system!!!

    • RogerCraig says:

      Mark doesn’t call you names, but you sure call him names when he blows your argument to bits and pieces.

      You are pathetic.

  10. Mark Timmons says:


    You may be right, or not. History will be the Judge. These trades were made to help the Dodgers win, however. Hindsight is 20/20 and I would not have done any of those deals NOW!

    I used to really like Lambo, but I think he might be a knucklehead. J-Mac is a reliever and his biggest problem is heart!

  11. lawdog says:

    ridi·cule (rid′i kyo̵̅o̅l′)
    the act of making someone or something the object of scornful laughter by joking, mocking, etc.; derision
    words or actions intended to produce such laughter
    an absurdity
    Origin: Fr < L ridiculum, a jest, laughable (thing), neut. of ridiculus, laughable, comical < ridere, to laugh Sans vrīda, embarrassment) < base *wer-, to turn
    transitive verb ridiculed -·culed′, ridiculing -·cul′·ing
    to make the object of scornful laughter; make fun of; deride
    Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
    Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    rid·i·cule (rĭdˈĭ-kyo͞olˌ)
    Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous laughter at or feelings toward a person or thing: “I know that ridicule may be a shield, but it is not a weapon” (Dorothy Parker).
    transitive verb ridiculed rid·i·culed, ridiculing rid·i·cul·ing, rid·i·cules
    To expose to ridicule; make fun of.
    Origin: French, from Latin rīdiculum, joke, from neuter of rīdiculus, laughable; see ridiculous .
    Related Forms:
    ridˈi·culˌer noun
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

  12. GoNzO says:

    No doubt that lambo is a knucklehead, has been since high school. But how many knuckleheads are playng in the ML right now. I think my biggest beef with the Dodgers apart from the McCourt saga is that I don’t think they have the right instructors in the minors. There is just something missing IMO.

    Hindsight is always 20/20 but I think that even Fred Claire wouldn’t have made that Blake for Santana deal.

  13. Mark Timmons says:


    No one can win an argument against circular thinking. Read up on it. You are good at it.

    I have not ridiculed you, but you are subject to that by others based upon what YOU have written. Don’t write such stuff and you won’t be subject to the ridicule.

    I have not called you names, but you sure have called me names. Is that how you think you win an argument?

    Your argument is devoid of the very thing you need to win: FACTS!

  14. Mark Timmons says:


    You may be right, but if Santana isn’t all that, then what? I don’t know, but I’m just sayin.’ On Lambo: Knuckleheads typically don’t have a good work ethic and character issues. That’s what bothers me about Lambo. Josh Hamilton was a real knucklehead at one time…

  15. lawdog says:

    If I point out a logical flaw in your argument, the act of so doing is not an act of ridiculing you.

    I don’t believe I’ve called you any names. You are the one who has repeatedly called me “crazy” among other things.

    What do you call singling out one poster for a personal attack on a major thread all to itself just because you can?

    • Dusto says:

      I agree. The first person that disregards actual facts and numbers and resorts to name calling is definitely the “loser” of such arguments.

  16. Ladodgerdave says:

    I still think we should of kept pedro martinez way back when

  17. Ken says:

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, “Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one.” The form of the post hoc fallacy can be expressed as follows:

    A occurred, then B occurred.
    Therefore, A caused B.
    When B is undesirable, this pattern is often extended in reverse: Avoiding A will prevent B.

    Lawdog does not violate this rule as often as is being alleged. Yet many in here violate this rule often.

    Mark – In my opinion your post today is more inappropriate than any politcal discussion on this blog has ever been.

  18. dumbdodgerdude says:

    hey guys. would love some advice if you have any.

    I got arrested for a noise violation in the state of virginia on christmas night. my girlfriend and I were enjoying some wine(i had one to many,glasses) and music around 1am when the police knock on the door (top floor apartment) and said they received a complaint and turn the music down. I did, went back inside and out of frustration I yelled some not good things (not directed at anyone, just “i cant beleive someone called the police,etc……”, immediately, police are banging on the door, put me in cuffs,i spend,the night in,jail..i was very cooperative and polite

    should I just plead guilty and pay the,fine and forget about it? I know I was wrong for the music but I did turn it down once they asked, I never have had an issue with noise ever

  19. lawdog says:

    My question for dodgerdude would be: Were you cited for an infraction or a misdemeanor? An infraction can only result in a fine and is not that serious in terms of your record down the road. A misdemeanor potentially carries some jail time and/or a term of probation and is more serious on your record than an infraction. An infraction is more like a speeding ticket. The misdemeanor more like driving on a suspended license.

    No one can really advise you as to your best course of action without reviewing the police report. But if it was written as an infraction I’d be less inclined to fight it than if you were cited for a misdemeanor.

  20. dumbdodgerdude says:


    I was cited for a misdemeanor.

    what a way to start the new year.

  21. dtwdodger says:

    I’d dump your friend 3d…obviously a powerful influence and a trouble maker.

  22. lawdog says:

    How close are you to Virginia? How bad were the curses aimed at no one in particular? Does your ticket indicate you can forfeit bail to bring the matter to a conclusion (like is done for mere speeding tickets and the like?)

    I don’t know Virginia law, but I know if you got into the misdemeanor public defender loop the prosecutor and your attorney would work real hard to find something you could plead to which would result in just a fine and wouldn’t damage your permanent record.

    Years ago I was a public defender handling a municipal court calendar in a college town. We used to get dozens of misdemeanor citations every year for “indecent exposure” for students who got too drunk at a bar, couldn’t wait for the toilet inside and went outside and peed on the back wall in the dark parking lot where the cops were waiting to pounce upon them.. I talked the Prosecutor I worked with every day into letting these kids plead “no contest” to” littering” as an infraction for which they’d pay a small fine and keep a clean record. Why screw a kids future by having him carry the burden of an “indecent exposure” conviction just because there may have been a technical violation of that law–when the real crime is the kids lack of experience in dealing with being intoxicated?

    The Virginia prosecutor might well offer you the same kind of deal to avoid putting on the cop before a jury which would be nothing more than a big waste of everybody’s time. From what you’ve said, you’ve done so little that can actually be considered “criminal” they may even put you on a form of informal probation where the charges are dismissed if you go 12 months without getting into anymore trouble.

  23. GoNzO says:

    Maybe he was partying with Lambo.

  24. Ken says:

    One idea is to put your obscenities in writing. It seems to work here. LOL

  25. lawdog says:

    “So sorry to step on your toes”…

    Then why did you bother?

    It’s like when someone responds by saying: “With all due respect….” when what they really mean to say is that you aren’t entitled to any respect at all.

  26. lawdog says:

    Once again, multiple open threads with crossing material made me unsure if I should have posted the following on Jared’s thread or here. Since Mark called me out and said Jared’s analysis of our trades of prospects for players would prove me mistaken I checked out the thread. And will ceases never wonder??? It turns out that Jared’s piece supports my argument so I’m posting it both places. (Does this mean I can expect to get slammed again in another major thread by Timmons devoted just to attacking me tomorrow?)

    Here it is:

    ow, let’s look at Colletti’s track record:

    Prospects Traded

    RHP James McDonald
    OF Andrew Lambo
    RHP Elisaul Pimentel
    RHP Kyle Smit
    RHP Brett Wallach
    C Lucas May
    SS Chin Lung Hu
    OF Delwyn Young
    RHP Steve Johnson
    3B Josh Bell
    2B Tony Abreu
    RHP Jon Meloan
    C Carlos Santana
    RHP Bryan Morris
    3B Andy LaRoche
    2B Travis Denker
    RHP Edwin Jackson
    LHP Chuck Tiffany
    RHP Blake Johnson
    RHP Julio Pimentel
    IF Willy Aybar
    OF Sergio Pedroza
    OF Joel Guzman
    OF Cody Ross

    The Haul

    OF Scott Podsednik
    LHP Ted Lilly
    IF Ryan Theriot
    RHP Octavio Dotel
    LHP Matt Antonini
    RHP Eric Krebs
    RHP Harvey Garcia
    LHP George Sherrill
    RHP Jon Garland
    3B Casey Blake
    OF Manny Ramirez
    1B Mark Sweeney
    RHP Lance Carter
    RHP Danys Baez
    LHP Ben Kozlowski
    RHP Elmer Dessens
    IF Wilson Betemit
    SS Julio Lugo

    Obviously, I don’t see this track record as being better than average. Whatever formula you are using doesn’t seem to take into account how many of the players were just 60 day rentals, players who are no longer with the club after a short period with the Dogs, or only continued to be more than 60 rentals because they signed FA contracts with the Dogs after the 60 days were up.

    Examples? The following fall into one of the three categories I mentioned above and therefore shouldn’t even be considered long term acquisitions by the club:

    Podsednick–one year and long gone.

    Lilly– 60 day rental who signed as an FA. All we got for our prospects was the 60 day rental. We could have signed him for 2011 no matter who he played for at the end of last season.
    Theriot–one year and bye-bye!

    Dotel–thrown away before the 60 day rental period had expired.

    Antonioni- who knows what he’ll do. One of the 24th rounders we get back in exchange for our players and prospects in trades. Good control fellow who has no fastball and had an era over 5.00 in the very limited work he had last season.

    Sherrill–a complete disaster after the 60 day period at the end of 2009.

    Garland–released after 60 rental. Was later resigned as a FA. Doesn’t count as anything more than the 60 rental just like Lilly.

    Casey Blake–60 day rental who later resigned a ridiculous contract which way over pays him for what he brings with hsi old geezer bat. But as for the trade, it was just for that 60 rental period. Anyone could have signed him no matter where he played after his contract expired at the end of that first season.

    Manny–was just a 60 day rental. We could have signed him after the 2008 season no matter who he’d been playing for.

    Sweeny–one year and gone. He blew chunks in that one year for us and must have been 87 years old when we “traded” for him.

    Dessens–was still a minor leaguer when we gave him away and is now the closer for another franchise. Great piece of work by the FO managing this guy. Almost as great as letting Jason Werth walk away for nothing.

    Betemit–given away after the end of the first season we had him.

    Who does that leave us with in exchange for all the prospects we gave away? Not much. A bunch of no names. Scrubs who will probably never get out of AAA baseball.

    I’d say Ned’s record supports the argument I’ve made concerning his total incompetence no matter how uncomfortable that seems to make Mark feel.

  27. lawdog says:

    To put it in a nutshell, we gave away all those prospects, and this is what we ended up with in return:

    LHP Matt Antonini
    RHP Eric Krebs
    RHP Harvey Garcia
    RHP Lance Carter
    RHP Danys Baez
    LHP Ben Kozlowski
    SS Julio Lugo

    Great job Jed!

  28. Mark Timmons says:

    In Lawdog’s mind, EVERYTHING supports his arguments. He’s never lost.

    But, Ned’s record and Frank McCourt are two distinct and different issues.

    Keep writing if that makes you feel better.

    If you don’t want to get called out, don’t write stuff without supporting facts.

    BTW, the tale on Ned will be told this year. If the Dodgers struggle again, he’s toast!

  29. lawdog says:

    Since we later traded Bradley for Ethier, in all fairness I’d have to add Ethier’s name to the “haul list.” That makes it just slightly less outrageous!

  30. lawdog says:

    More ridicule, eh Mark? You are a piece of work.

  31. lawdog says:

    Did you even bother to read my analysis of the “haul” we’ve obtained by giving away the guts of our farm system Mark?

    I’ll bet you didn’t.

    If you did, why don’t you try to attack me on the merits of what I said instead of ridiculing me some more and ignoring the argument itself–which seems to be your MO when dealing with material that rubs you the wrong way.

  32. Mark Timmons says:


    I will always call out posts I think are totally erroneous. If that’s inappropriate, well, so be it!

    There’s only 3 or 4 people on this blog who say the same old phony stuff day after day. I get tired of the same ole’ same ole’. It’s too predictable and devoid of facts. Out of the 800+ who read this blog, the same 3 or 4 dominate the posts with negativity and have done so from the get go.

    I’m tired of the stupid stuff and if they think this is stupid stuff, then they should go elsewhere.

    Go back and read some of the posts – they think that if they say it enough, it will be true.

  33. lawdog says:

    I get tired of you extolling the virtues of our beloved owner Mark–but I don’t go after your throat for expressing your opinion. What I’ve said makes sense if you read it with an open mind. Some of it–like my feelings that Mcgoo didn’t offer arbitration to our elite FAs to avoid having to pay premium prices for 2 more top picks and 2 more sandwich picks can’t be proven one way or the other. I’ve presented the facts that support my position. You violently disagree and ridicule me for being basically a crazed idiot.

    That’s not cool.

    And whether you realize it or not, it makes you look bad. Because, believe it or not, you really are not addressing the arguments I’ve made. You simply state a differing opinion, rely on the fact that you’ve rubbed elbows with the FO and the owners, and somehow that makes me crazy for not accepting your crap as gospel in the first place.

    • Dusto says:

      I have to agree here Law. Mark rarely comes with a legitimate argument and just restates his opinion regardless of the subject matter. I agree that he probably doesn’t other peoples arguments if they are more than one or two sentences or resemble anything other than his “gospel”.

  34. Vince says:



  35. Ely's Coming, Better Hide your Heart says:

    I love reading you two guys go at it. You guys are both opinionated and passionate about what you think. Both of you are also wrong. It’s not as end of the world, bad as lawdog makes it and it’s not as rosy, sunshine, lollipops and rainbows as Mark makes it. It’s somewhere in the middle…. just like our team was last year.

    Don’t know what the future of this team is, but I’m really looking forward to finding out….whatever happens

  36. Ray says:

    let the negative nellies reign Mark….just like shortsellers in the stock market, their story sounds better, so it must be better.

    Please. The Padres went from worst to first….for most of the season last year, ended up in 2nd. BUT, there is NO WAY, NO WAY that LAD can go from 4th to 1st on 2011….NO WAY. Because their owner is a thief and Ned can’t make trades or sign FAs in the negative nellies minds.NO WAY Kemp or Ethier or Loney bounce back from a horrific 2nd half. NO WAY our starting rotation can compete with the Giants rotation. NO WAY Broxton bounces back from his terrible 2nd half. NO WAY Mattingley succeeds in his first year as a manager.

    NO WAY.

    Oh well…..kiss the season good-bye before it starts. Mark, you may as well shut the blog down…..Tell Frank and Ned to start giving away tickets because this team just sucks. It does. If you listen to several posters here.

  37. lawdog says:

    Ely, you make good points here, but I ask you, are you really ready to settle for an 81-81 team like last year’s effort?

    I’m sorry but I’m too old to wait for something “down the line” that will make me happy if they stick to their plan.

    • Ely's Coming, Better Hide your Heart says:

      I love the Dodgers and I want them to succeed. They are my team over any other. I bleed Dodger blue. I also bleed family blue, and friends blue and job blue and mortgage blue. This is entertainment. I live in Vegas. I go to about one or two games a year. I follow them on radio and television and on the numerous Dodger blogs I read

      Their success or failure is irrelevant to how much I love and support them. I’d rather be a fan of a Dodger team that’s 0-162 than a fan of the Montreal Expos or the Seattle Supersonics or the Winnipeg Jets or the Quebec Nordiques

      My only requirement of the Dodgers and the only thing I feel they owe me is their presence. Winning is just whipped cream on the pie. Cause to me, if you take away the whipped cream. there’s still pie.

      One of my greatest attributes I think is to be able to brush aside winning and losing five minutes after the game is over. There’s always a next game and a next season…where everyone starts 0-0 and everyone has a shot to win

  38. lawdog says:

    “Negative Nellies?” Lyndon Johnson called those of us who were against the Viet Nam war but still in favor of his domestic policies “Nervous Nellies.”

    At least get it right if you want to quote the term, eh?

  39. Mark Timmons says:

    For the record, I don’t think it’s all rainbows, lollipops and sunshine. I realize our farm system is stuck in the middle (12th or 13th), but we were 24th last year, so it’s looking up.

    This is also a year that will make or break some prospects. The Dodger organization is solid. What happens to the farm system remains to be seen, but you have to let it play out.

    I am not predicting a world series or anything like that (although stranger things have happened -2010 Giants).

  40. Ely's Coming, Better Hide your Heart says:

    c’mon Mark…. doesn’t it make you feel good

  41. lawdog says:

    So Mark. When are you going to critique my analysis of Jared’s latest thread? I’ll bet you don’t have the guts to address the points I made.

    • Mark Timmons says:

      I’ll let Jared speak for himself. What points did you make that were relevant to what I said? I didn’t see any.

      Here, try this: Dessens is not a closer and never has been – revise that. Betemit was let go because he had nothing and hasn’t done crap since. How’s that?

  42. Roger Dodger says:

    Posted the stuff below on the earlier thread, then realized I was not on the current one . . .

    With all of these comings and goings, with all of these names — and all –

    just where did the Dodgers finish in 2010???

    That is the Report Card for Ned’s work.

    How long has it been since the Dodgers even played in a World Series???

    That is the Report Card on three ownerships with this team.

    Post season appearances in the Divisional races – 1995-2010:

    15 Yankees
    12 Braves
    9 Red Sox
    8 Cardinals
    7 Indians
    6 Twins
    6 Astros
    6 Angels
    6 Dodgers
    5 Giants
    5 A’s
    4 Mariners
    4 Rangers
    4 Phillies
    4 Cubs
    4 Padres
    4 D-Backs
    3 Rockies
    3 White Sox
    3 Mets
    2 Reds
    2 Marlins
    2 Orioles
    2 Rays
    1 Tigers
    1 Brewers
    0 Blue Jays
    0 Royals
    0 Nationals
    0 Pirates

    Surprising, no !! Dodgers tied for 6th place. But look at all the teams below. Like the Tigers and I believe they spend a lot of money, no !!

  43. Roger Dodger says:

    Badger, as you live in Arizona — I saw on the web that gun stores there are running out of that glock gun that the Arizona shooter used. So if you want one . . . best get cracking to the gun shop.

    Guess there are a bunch of folks there with power, in-security issues.

    I understand that more folks died in that shooting than died at the OK Corral years ago.

    On Dodger news — do all of you do what I do — and when you sign on to this page — look in the upper right corner for the latest baseball moves and trades ??

  44. Mark Timmons says:

    Since McCourt bought the team, the Dodgers have been in the playoffs 4 times in 6 years. Before McCourt, it was 2 times in 9 years. Even to the mathematically challenged, that’s much better! Don’t blame McCourt for the 15 years before he bought the team.

  45. Mark Timmons says:


    Dessens and Betemit were organizational depth. Both still are.

    Dessens a closer? Where? He has 5 saves in his career.

  46. Mark Timmons says:

    Negative Nellie is a generic expression for a woman with a negative attitude.

  47. chucky says:

    Give it a break guys. Lets talk about the Dodgers and not who is too negative and who never uses facts and who is too positive.

    gee guys stop it.

  48. Ken says:

    Quick draws shooting blanks.

  49. lawdog says:

    I was watching a game in the recent past on MLB Extra Innings and we were playing a weak eastern team. (The DC team or the Pirates? I’m not sure which.) Anyway, the feed was done by the homers for the eastern team and when Dessens was brought in the guys in the booth said he was being groomed for the closer role and they couldn’t figure out why the Dogs let him go because he had great stuff…

    I still have a campaign button which says: “Another nervous nellie against the war” which came out after LBJ’s speech where he called those who opposed the Viet Nam war as “Nervous Nellies.”

    I never heard of Mark’s “negative Nellie” crap.

  50. lawdog says:

    When are you going to respond to my post analyzing Jared’s list from a different perspective Mark? It’s so like you to attack without actually reading the material. I really thought you were better than that. Obviously, I was wrong.

  51. RogerCraig says:


    You have lost and are so pathetic, you don’t know it.

  52. Jae says:


    Maybe Mark doesn’t want to get into a battle of wits with someone who is so obviously unarmed.


Leave a Reply

Mandatory Daily Dodger Reading