When you sign a horrible player to back up a known injury risk you are taking a foolish gamble. A lot of us here on this message board knew Perez was very likely to get a whole lot of playing time. Now if he were Cal Ripken's backup that would be different. Which is my central question? Does Perez get the blame or Hendry/Baker for being stupid enough to think that Nomar would be healthy? We all knew Neifi was going to be bad offensively. And I hate the fact that it sounds like I'm defending this scrub, but Neifi is being Neifi, which I'm trying to figure out why there has been lots of threads created about him when we all knew he was horrible. Maybe I'm burned out from posting since March that our outfield had the potential to be horrible, even if Patterson put up his short career numbers. And I could go on and on about how bad Perez was going to be. I guess I spent a lot of time talking about this horrible lineup all season that I'm almost immune to it. Hendry/Baker get the blame. My point was that Neifi wasn't really a true backup IMO. If a guy is backing up an extremely healthy starter(Ripken) he might have only a 5% chance of getting lots of playing time. An average starter, maybe 20%. An injury-prone starter, 40%. An EXTREMELY injury-prone starter(Nomar), 70%. At what point do you say this guy is no longer a backup?