Arizona Diamondbacks Sign York Revolution Slugger Chris Nowak
If you have power, they will come.
Not quite the famous words uttered in Field of Dreams, but when you club 59 homers in two years with a club-record 34 in one, you’re going to perk the interest of many teams, and the Arizona Diamondbacks were definitely one of them.
The York Daily Record reported that the Diamondbacks, as well as many other teams, were interested in York Revolution utility man, Chris Nowak, but wanted more information—including what he could do defensively.
"Offensively, everyone knew what he could do," said Mark Mason, York Revolution manager. "Defensively...some teams needed more information."
According to the Record, Nowak, primarily a first baseman, finished the season manning third base and playing the corner outfield positions.
Nowak has been in the game for a long time. Since being drafted in the 19th round in the 2004 MLB June Amateur Draft, he has played in nine professional seasons, making it all the way up to Triple-A with the Tampa Bay Rays and Milwaukee Brewers.
At 29, Nowak still has a lot of game left, and sometimes you wonder what it takes to make that final jump to be successful against the best players in the world? Determination and hard work both play a part, but talent and consistent performance, of course, are major factors.
In over 1,000 professional games, Nowak is a career .289 hitter with a OBP anyone would love; .376. With 119 career home runs, including 59 with the Revolution, it appears Nowak has honed his home run stroke and improved his defensive ability, which may have been the final piece on his road back to the big leagues (courtesy of the Baseball Reference).
Nowak joins a list that includes five other Revolution players who have been signed by Major League teams this season.
Devon is a manager at a financial institution in Northern Ontario, Canada, and he can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. You can follow the GM's Perspective on Twitter and Facebook. His full bio can be seen here.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?