Unreal... The Bruce has to set Dusty straight...

by sledridge on Mar 5, 2008 12:04 AM EST Comment 14 comments

The is from the Reds site. I can't believe the lack of communication that seems to be present. Bruce better stay vocal.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080304&content_id=2404336&vkey=spt2008 news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

SARASOTA, Fla. -- Jay Bruce and Dusty Baker are back on the same page about to the outfielder's history of leg injuries -- or the lack thereof.

Bruce hasn't played since Sunday when he suffered a mild strain of his left quadriceps muscle. On Monday, Baker indicated concern because he thought it was a recurring problem for the top prospect.

"One thing makes me a little wary is he's had this a couple of times," Baker said Monday.

By Tuesday, Baker was given a more accurate report from Bruce.

"He was under the impression I had missed a lot of time with it," Bruce said. "He can only go by what he was told. I'm glad he came up to me and talked to me about it, and let me have a chance to clear it up."

Bruce had a minor hamstring issues last season, but hasn't had any problems with his quadriceps.

"I missed three games with it last year, and it wasn't anything major," Bruce said. "I didn't play in the World Cup out of precautionary reasons. This is my first real quad injury ever, and I wouldn't even consider it an injury. It's just a little sore and tight. It's not a big deal at all."

"I'm learning and some people said this and some people said something else," Baker said after Tuesday's game. "I wanted to hear it right from him."

Baker said Tuesday afternoon that Bruce would not play again on Wednesday vs. Boston. The 20-year-old is 6-for-12 (.500) in five games this spring.

Bruce is trying to win the Reds' starting center fielder's job. The task got tougher with free agent Corey Patterson in camp to compete as a non-roster player. Ryan Freel, Norris Hopper and Chris Dickerson are also in the mix.

"It's no different," Bruce said of Patterson's addition. "There's already competition in camp. It'll add to it a little bit. Like I've said before, no matter who's here, I'm trying to make the team, regardless of who is vying for a spot. It's my job, and everybody else's job. It'll play itself out."

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The Open Primary is such a joke...

Seriously Hillary got votes from GOP faithful because they think she can lose to McCain...it shouldn't be that way. I would prefer Blanket Primaries but I'm a right wing nut but in the real world closed primaries should be the only way to get the real results.

I Misremember lots of things

by Zach K on Mar 5, 2008 12:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hmm

Couldn't quite figure out your last sentence there.

But I agree. I'm positive my dad went out and voted for Hillary just to F the Dems.

by Brian B on Mar 5, 2008 12:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Republicans definitely voted for Hillary

Cause that clown Rush told em to!
Why bother voting in the Republican primary? McCain had it locked up long ago, and most state races are pretty minor this year.

A friend of mine at work told me both of his parents, who are hard-core Republicans, went and voted Democrat just so they could vote for Hillary.

And I looked at the voting breakdown in Warren County (includes Springboro and Lebanon) which is heavily Republican.I'm rounding numbers here, but basically before this election, there were about 12,500 registered Democrats in Warren County (and around 40,000 Republicans). But in the primary, there were about 24,000 Democratic ballots cast and only about 26,000 Republican ballots cast. And the county was won by Hillary. I guarantee you Republicans were voting for Hillary.

by cesarhernandez on Mar 5, 2008 2:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And this is why we need to build a fence.

by Fat Vegas Alan on Mar 5, 2008 7:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

with missle launchers

Red Reporter- Because every Reds fan needs a place to overreact.

by jacob brumfield on Mar 7, 2008 11:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

why put party labels on anyone?

seems like you should be able to vote for whomever you want be it in a primary or general election.

Hope Springs Eternal! Go Reds

by Caleb on Mar 9, 2008 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i disagree

only because, in the primary, you can vote for someone you don't like for the sole purpose of undermining the election. i thought it was bullshit when democrats voted for mitt romney in michigan to keep him in the race. it worked. it was no surprise when the republicans did it for hillary in ohio and texas. i dont think it's representative of a democracy that someone is able to go undercover to try to poison the nomination process of another party.

Marty may have a shirt on, but Billy Beane just ripped his off and is squeezing his nipples. - Brendan's ukkah

by boobs on Mar 10, 2008 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My problem is

the "tracking" of my vote. Why should anyone know my party of choice, let alone my candidate of choice, unless I choose to give them that information? Granted, the Michiganders for Mitt and the Rushites who voted for Hilary took advantage of the system but it isn't like it was the first time that stunt had been pulled.

Hope Springs Eternal! Go Reds

by Caleb on Mar 10, 2008 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But you're not voting for President

you are voting for who you can vote for for President. I can understand keeping your vote private, but I think it's more important for members of a party be able to nominate who they think is most representative of their party, at least under the current system. Since a primary voting is only preliminary, it's possible for a dissident to vote for a person they find least likely to win in the opposition party, especially in cases where a positive vote for their candidate is unnecessary. It's a negative democracry.

That being said, our society has evolved past our electoral process, but clinging to tradition will leave us with continued headaches during every national election until some serious reforms come along to modernize it.

Don't talk back to Darth Vader or he'll getcha!

by Slyde on Mar 10, 2008 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying it is correct

I agree the system needs tuned up a bit. But, in the end, what is the difference in some Ohio Republican voting for Hilary and the delagates from Florida and Michigan not being seated.

And what about the Independants who are not afforded the right of voting for a candidate in a primary?

We need a Third Party!

Hope Springs Eternal! Go Reds

by Caleb on Mar 10, 2008 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

mah

there are plenty of third parties, they're just not popular enough to warrant national primaries.

im not sure how voting in the other party's primaries relates to michigan and ohio, though. what do you mean here?

and i agree in principle with what you're saying about being labeled by voting in one primary or the other. but i dont think that label carries any weight. the whole point of open primaries is that registered republicans can vote in the D primary and vice versa. it's not a binding vote in any way.

Marty may have a shirt on, but Billy Beane just ripped his off and is squeezing his nipples. - Brendan's ukkah

by boobs on Mar 10, 2008 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ohio/mich

Allegedly a high number "D"s in Michigan switched and voted for Mitt to keep him in the race and the same with "R's in Ohio with Hilary. Was that done? I do not know, or really care much. It is getting to the point in Ohio where the courts decide the outcome of races anyway

Hope Springs Eternal! Go Reds

by Caleb on Mar 10, 2008 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs