Feb 19, 2013, 9:53 PM EST
Lance Berkman usually says whatever he’s feeling and he’s one of the most interesting interview subjects in professional sports because of it.
But he probably crossed some sort of line in Rangers camp Tuesday. Drew Davison of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram has the story from Surprise, Arizona:
Berkman, who signed a one-year, $11 million deal with the Rangers in the off-season, didn’t miss an opportunity to fire the first shot about the 2011 season.
During the team’s annual meeting before the first full squad workout of spring training, manager Ron Washington spoke about the players in the clubhouse who had been through the “war” of a baseball season.
“He forgot about me and then he was like, ‘Berkman has been through the war too,’” Berkman said. “And I was like, ‘Yeah, we won that war.’”
Berkman’s Cardinals beat the Rangers in a wild seven-game series that featured one of the craziest postseason baseball games in the sport’s history. And the “Big Puma” played a huge part in capturing that championship for St. Louis. But he is with Texas now, and all the Rangers fans I’ve met despise rehashing the 2011 Fall Classic like they’ll probably despise Berkman’s use of “we” when referring to his former team.
- 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 (96)
- 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)