I was reading the lead story, written by Dick Kaegel of MLB.com, on the Royals' official website this morning. And, just a few paragraphs into it, there was some wording used in reference to Jose Guillen that caught my attention.Kaegel wrote: "One guy who is expected to hit home runs, though, is Jose Guillen who signed at considerable expense (three years for $36 million) to put juice into what has been a run-parched attack. He's averaged 26-plus homers and almost 94 RBIs in his past four full seasons."
Did you catch it? He said that Guillen would "put juice" into the attack. Now, in all probability, Kaegel didn't even realize that using the word juice to describe what Guillen will add to the Royals lineup was questionable. But isn't that a poor choice of words to employ when describing someone who's facing a possible suspension for allegedly purchasing PEDs? You almost have to wonder whether that was an intentionally subliminal jab taken at Guillen by an old-school writer like Kaegel.
Personally, I enjoy reading Kaegel's stories about the Royals. I think he does a fine job with his writing, and he's probably been crafting stories for as long as I've been alive -- I'm 38 years old, by the way. I think it would be challenging covering a baseball team over the course of a 162-game season, and trying to avoid having your storylines become stale or redundant.
But this description of Guillen was something that I felt needed to be brought to the attention of Royals fans in the blogosphere, to see whether I'm the only one who seemed to have noticed Kaegel's interesting choice of words. Did others feel it's as obvious and direct as it seems to me?
I'd love to have some feedback from readers to see if you agree. Was this simply a slip up, or do you think Kaegel knew full well what he was doing, and snickered, or sat back with a smirk on his face after typing that little statement? Writers who have lasted as long in the business as Kaegel has are clever, and by even wondering if it was intentional, I'm giving him the credit he deserves for being an intelligent and witty wordsmith.
But did this cross the line?
Jose Guillen Photo Credit: Getty Images
4 comments:
Hard for me to say, since I went into reading Kaegel's description looking for something...naturally, using the term "juice" jumped out, but I can't say I would have come to the same conclusion without being led to it first.
However, just because I may have missed it doesn't mean Kaegel didn't intentionally mean it like that, and I think its pretty likely he knew using the work "juice" in connection with Guillen would be likely to generate that kind of response.
To be honest, the more I think about it, the less I believe he did it on purpose. But it sure is an odd coincidence, don't you agree?
Thanks for writing...
I do not believe he crossed the line. At least there is some evidence that Guillen did something wrong. Look at what Canseco is doing to A-Rod without supplying any evidence besides his own big mouth.
Yeah, brendan, but if this was intentional (and, like I said, I am really thinking it wasn't, but it's fun to debate), then it was a cheap shot...
Thanks for your comments..
Post a Comment