A recent article claiming the Dodgers have an unhappy clubhouse has come to my attention. That same article also claims that Cantonese is one of the numerous languages spoken in that unhappy clubhouse. Since I'm the only Cantonese speaker in that unhappy clubhouse, I wonder if I've said something to myself out loud that would lead someone to believe that the clubhouse would be unhappy. Probably not because I don't believe it to be true. Then again, what do I know? I'm a writer who actually walks through that unhappy clubhouse and talks to the players nearly every day.
I hear Spanish-speaking players unhappily joking around with English-speaking players. Some of them even speak both languages! I see Mandarin-speaking Taiwanese players unhappily playing cards and speaking English with Dominican players and American players. I've seen a Japanese closer communicate through the universal language of showing off a sword. I've seen Spanish-speaking players try their hand at the Japanese puzzle Sudoku.
And on getaway day in Chicago two weeks ago, I made the unfortunate mistake of stealing a glance at Matt Kemp in a fat suit after he had put the thing on and sufficiently shaken his groove thing.
"What are you looking at, man?" Kemp said. "Don't look over here!"
The unhappy clubhouse erupted in laughter.
Comments (3)
Yeah, what's the deal with the Cantonese comment. I thought the same thing. I could see Mandarin and even Taiwanese languages being spoken, but who among the Dodgers is from southern mainland China? Leads me to believe this article harping on the lack of chemistry was poorly written and missing facts. Enjoy your blog.
vr, Xei
Posted by Xeifrank | September 17, 2007 8:21 AM
Posted on September 17, 2007 08:21
I believe i saw an article a few weeks ago, with little specifics mentioning an un happy clubhouse, but using Luis Gonzales loss of playing time as the basis of that story.
I haven't seen this story, where was it? Regardless your stories and blog and answers to questions have been refreshing this year. You seem to have a good balanced pulse on the team.
On the other hand most of the stories this year by national outlets on the Dodgers are cliched at best and often times lacking for real facts. Whatever the results at the end of September, I will be looking forward to your analysis.
Louis
Posted by Louis Rasky | September 17, 2007 10:32 PM
Posted on September 17, 2007 22:32
Diamond, I just found the facile and poorly reported article on the Dodgers and team chemistry. As a one time free lancer for KFWB, I know that some columints often come in for one blow by and then try and write a big picture story.
I think it is possible that this guy from the SB Sun did that. I like many believe the real issue/problem of the Dodgers this year was the inability for management to be more pro-active once it was clear that there were so many holes in the starting pitching staff. The question that I think will be on the minds of many Dodger fans besides the Loney issue, was why the Dodgers did not give some of thier young pitchers: Hull, Stultz and Houlton more of chance and continued to go with Tomko, when it was clear that he was having problems! Not like Ned had not seen that before-see SF 2004 -2005, and even his work with previous teams-500 pitcher at best with a high ERA.
That for me is the essential question of the Dodgers in 2007..what do you think
Posted by Louis Rasky | September 17, 2007 11:17 PM
Posted on September 17, 2007 23:17