Mar 22, 2011, 12:00 PM EST
Apparently Luis Castillo’s failure to report to the Phillies this morning was a misunderstanding. He thought he had all day today to report rather than to report in time to play in today’s game. Buster Olney says that he had some personal matters to attend to as well. It’s not like he blew the Phillies off.
Be that as it may, Charlie Manuel — while saying that he’s not upset — seems somewhat ticked about it. Todd Zolecki transcribed Manuel’s comments to the media about it earlier this morning — read it here — and says that Manuel “sounded agitated.” The blurb that has been tweeted around was Manuel saying that if it was him in Castillo’s shoes that he “would have been here two days ago.” The more telling thing to me is this:
I was told he’d be here today and I put him in the lineup. And the reason I put him in the lineup is because I wanted to see him play. Maybe I should wait and put my lineup in right at game time. That seems to work better.
It’s not a personal thing or a swipe at Castillo’s work ethic. Manuel seems content to leave that to others. Rather, it’s about a manager who has a hole to fill at second base and limited time in which to do it. If I was Manuel I’d be annoyed too.
- Merry Christmas from HBT! 43
- THE YEAR IN REVIEW: HBT’s most commented-upon stories of the year 84
- The Yankees are treating Alex Rodriguez differently than they treated Derek Jeter. So what? 36
- Braves sign setup man Jason Grilli to two-year contract 13
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot 120
- Phil Hughes signs a three-year extension with the Twins 27
- The Padres have talked to the Phillies about Cole Hamels 23
- Why is John Smoltz a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame? 63
- Bud Selig will get a $6 million a year pension. Which is obscene. (145)
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot (120)
- Today’s specious anti-Mike Piazza-for-the-Hall-Fame argument (94)
- St. Petersburg City Council votes down deal to allow Rays to look for new stadium site (90)
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” (85)