Is That Phil Wood Or Tom Boswell?
I can't tell. Can you?
The newest columnist for DC's newest paper, the Washington Examiner, writes about the off-season for the Nats and gives his outlook for the coming year.
Doing his best Tom Boswell impersonation, Phil Wood lets us know that the Nats can do no wrong.
Left unsaid is the flaws each of them brings to the table. (At least he pretended to be honest in the Guillen comment.) BTW, I can run a little bit too. That doesn't make me a good major leaguer.
Well, yes--if you define some as more than 3. I don't know how anyone can objectively look at this team and expect it to be an offensive dynamo. Unless a few people play out of their minds, the Nats are going to be in the lower half of the league.
He's much more pessimistic about the pitching staff, which most of my fellow Nats-bloggers feel is going to be the strength of the team. Take that as you will.
He does make one fearless prediction:
I'd agree that the team has a chance to finish above .500. I don't think I'd say I was confident of that though. But, ya never know.
I know a columnist, especially a new one in a new outlet, doesn't want to make an overly negative impression, and they certainly want to avoid being relentlessly negative, but is it that hard to look at things as they are without manipulating things? He's almost making the point I made last month about reporting versus being a PR flak.
The newest columnist for DC's newest paper, the Washington Examiner, writes about the off-season for the Nats and gives his outlook for the coming year.
Doing his best Tom Boswell impersonation, Phil Wood lets us know that the Nats can do no wrong.
Whatever happened with the Angels last year, Guillen's track record with Nationals Interim General Manager Jim Bowden is solid, and if Bowden says he'd trust Guillen with his kids, thatès good enough for me....
[Vinny Castilla has] legitimate 25-30 home run power, and aside from a disastrous term with Tampa Bay, has been productive with the bat everywhere he's been...
[Cristian Guzman is] respected defensively and can run a little bit.
Left unsaid is the flaws each of them brings to the table. (At least he pretended to be honest in the Guillen comment.) BTW, I can run a little bit too. That doesn't make me a good major leaguer.
[I]t's clear this club will score some runs.
Well, yes--if you define some as more than 3. I don't know how anyone can objectively look at this team and expect it to be an offensive dynamo. Unless a few people play out of their minds, the Nats are going to be in the lower half of the league.
He's much more pessimistic about the pitching staff, which most of my fellow Nats-bloggers feel is going to be the strength of the team. Take that as you will.
He does make one fearless prediction:
I feel pretty confident in predicting a .500 finish for the '05 Nationals. No matter the record, this club is the best this town has seen in decades.
I'd agree that the team has a chance to finish above .500. I don't think I'd say I was confident of that though. But, ya never know.
I know a columnist, especially a new one in a new outlet, doesn't want to make an overly negative impression, and they certainly want to avoid being relentlessly negative, but is it that hard to look at things as they are without manipulating things? He's almost making the point I made last month about reporting versus being a PR flak.
posted by Chris Needham at
1:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home