Find Lots of Great Coverage Here


Friday, June 12, 2009

Why not Willie?

My Son the Braves Fan is getting the Nationals shoved down his throat since he moved back home. The price one has to pay for living in my house! I offered to buy that MLB package for him since I'm such a nice guy. He declined, figuring he was costing me enough money by eating me out of house and home.

Anyway, he's a pretty bright young 'un thanks to his mother and he's learned a lot about the Nationals. I think he'll admit to even pulling for them when the Braves aren't on the other side.

Last night, when the trip to Tampa was being discussed on television, the boy asked a pretty good question. Mention was made of Dunn as the DH (makes sense) and Willingham, Dukes, Kearns across the outfield.

"Why not Willie?" he asked.

He's a little biased. Harris is a former Brave and therefore one of his favorite Nats. But it is a good point. Why not Willingham, Harris, Dukes across the outfield?

Does anyone, and I mean anyone, feel any sense of confidence when Austin Kearns is at the plate? Why do they keep trotting him out there? I'm sure someone in the know about all those funky OPS, BAC, LLC, DYA numbers can point out that Kearns' career has been a lot more productive. Uh-huh. I'm sure. But let's get real and talk feel - I feel a lot more confident when Willie Harris is batting than I do when Austin Kearns is batting. Anyone disagree?

So why not Willie? UPDATE - They listened, sez lineups posted in Nationals Journal. It is Willie playing instead of Kearns. Good.

I'm also still waiting to hear if anyone got one of those "holde" season-ticket-holder gifts discussed yesterday. Did the Post somehow get its hands on a picture of the one ball where a mistake was made? Is the picture legit or doctored?


Bryan said...

At Tuesday night's game I was sitting in the front row in section 140 (right behind where the right fielder stands if they're playing someone straight up). During the late innings, some Reds fans started shouting to Bruce (the Reds' right fielder) about how he "replaced" Kearns and how they believed Kearns was "a bum." While Bruce didn't verbally respond, you could see him chuckling a little bit.

Of course part of this is just the opposing fans expressing their opinion, but I think it goes to show that he wasn't extremely well respected while in Cincinnati.

That being said, I think Kearns has the potential to be a decent everyday player. Problem is, the current slump that he's in isn't helping him win over the Nats coaches or fans ... which also means he won't have the at bats that could help him work out of the slump.

Gus said...

AK is a hack. The fact that Acta is giving him "a chance" is just plain stupid. Sure, his glove is good, but he is an auto out at the plate. He certainly isn't the future, he is the Bowden past.

Anonymous said...

Harris's bat is better any way you cut it. I suspect his defense is significantly so. The reason they keep starting Kearns is because he's making a really nice chunk of change. If he puts together a hot month or so, they're hoping they can convince another team to take him and his salary off their hands. At least, that's my guess.

If I recall, Kearns was claimed off waivers last August, so if Bowden would've let whichever fool team claimed him, he would've saved the Nats over 10 million bucks.