Dukes Gone (Or Not)
From Marc Lancaster:
It appears the Rays finally have given up on Elijah Dukes. The troubled outfielder is off the roster, though it is not yet clear if he has been designated for assignment or placed on the restricted list.
Dustan Mohr has been brought up from Durham to take Dukes' place.
Dukes' locker in the clubhouse has been cleaned out. We have been told the clubhouse will close at 4:00 for a team meeting.
Apparently Dukes had asked to be traded although we're not sure if that's the case just yet...
Marc Topkin:
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Re: Dukes Gone
Why not Chris Richard? .280-11-33 with no fielding errors.
Re: Dukes Gone
Mohr can play all three outfield spots and is filler until BJ and or Rocco return.
by R.J. Anderson on Jun 22, 2007 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Durham
Per Lancatser.
Re: Dukes Gone (Or Not)
by tampadenis on Jun 22, 2007 5:34 PM EDT reply actions
Re: Dukes Gone (Or Not)
by R.J. Anderson on Jun 22, 2007 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Dukes Gone (Or Not)
On a more serious note, I really think the Rays should strongly consider trading Baldelli. I can see the handwriting on the wall. His legs will always be an issue, and his value can go nowhere but down from this point. His contract is manageable for most teams. Do it now!
by tampadenis on Jun 22, 2007 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Dukes Gone (Or Not)
Likely
Re: Dukes Gone (Or Not)
by tampadenis on Jun 22, 2007 5:49 PM EDT reply actions
Re: Dukes Gone (Or Not)
by R.J. Anderson on Jun 22, 2007 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh I don't know about that
But I don't know if I'd say Delmon Young isn't a moron.
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Jun 23, 2007 4:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Oh I don't know about that
by Top Gun Numba 1 on Jun 23, 2007 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Oh I don't know about that
by R.J. Anderson on Jun 23, 2007 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
That was smoothed on?
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Jun 24, 2007 5:09 AM EDT up reply actions
I didn't say he was a moron
But to say that Delmon Young isn't a moron is equally as ignorant. He has a penchant for doing stupid things and running his mouth at inopportune times, and whether that is immaturity or stupidity I don't know. Now, there is a track record of media statements, the bat toss, and I think one run-in with an umpire in Montgomery that resulted in like a three game suspension, that would indicate that he is one of those two things. Which one, I don't know. But I'm not going to rule either out.
Regardless, it is pretty irrelevant. Unless he possesses the intelligence level of a jellyfish, the matter isn't really pertinent to his play as a baseball player.
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Jun 24, 2007 5:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Dukes Gone (Or Not)
by tampadenis on Jun 23, 2007 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Amazing
Re: Dukes Gone (Or Not)
Difference:
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Jun 23, 2007 4:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Difference:
Dukes was suspended once, and the end of last year.
Hamilton is 26, and has 4 years more of fucking up before he's showed any sign of "rectifying his behavior". Dukes is 22 and he's never done anything to help himself right? HE'S 22. To compare him with Hamilton, you gotta give him 4 more years and 3 more chances.
by Top Gun Numba 1 on Jun 23, 2007 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay
The problem with your post is that it leaves the assumption that Hamilton's issues began at the start of his career and continued for a seven year period. That is not the case. Dukes actually has been a trainwreck since the start of his career. Whereas Hamilton's issues were tied to one thing, Dukes' issues are wide-ranging and encompass every possible field of transgression.
Your choice is either a player with one major issue, or another player with multiple issues that go unabated. I choose neither. During their periods of issues (which for Dukes is still continuing), they were both blights on society. I'll give Hamilton credit for having stayed clean for at least a year or so. But Hamilton is no longer with the organization and I have no problem with that. Just as I will have no problem when Dukes eventually kisses the dust.
Essentially, the mistake you make is using age as a vehicle to make your point. The drug issues Hamilton encountered could have occurred at any point in his career, including the beginning. That isn't a function of age.
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Jun 24, 2007 5:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Dukes Gone (Or Not)
by R.J. Anderson on Jun 23, 2007 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions
He's gone and I'm glad he's gone
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Jun 24, 2007 5:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Re: Dukes Gone (Or Not)
by Jhattenburg on Jun 23, 2007 8:31 PM EDT reply actions
Difference:
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Jun 24, 2007 5:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Anyone catch this doozy from Stu Sternberg?
"It's possible. Is it likely? No,"
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Jun 24, 2007 5:51 AM EDT reply actions
Re: Anyone catch this doozy from Stu Sternberg?
by R.J. Anderson on Jun 24, 2007 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't know about that
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Jun 24, 2007 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: I don't know about that
Stu tells it like it is regarding Dukes.
by R.J. Anderson on Jun 24, 2007 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Re: Dukes Gone (Or Not)
Kudos to sternberg.
by Jhattenburg on Jun 24, 2007 6:28 PM EDT reply actions
I agree
by Patrick L. Kennedy on Jun 24, 2007 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow this is weird
by Top Gun Numba 1 on Jun 25, 2007 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions

by 



















