ORS

This looks like Texas is leveraging Lowell's latest injury to increase the $$ coming with him or to make it a lesser player than Ramirez coming to Boston. Be interesting to see how this plays out.

No worries, it's good you are bringing it up early. This year has been a bit better than most. That doesn't mean there haven't been a couple of instances where people have played people who are hurt or out that week, which in football is more impactful than baseball because of the number of games. But, overall it's been good.

Oops, for some reason I thought he and I were tied going into today.

I need 13 points from Tynes. Doesn't really matter though, both the 1 and 2 get byes. DonkeyCock.com needs like 50 points from the NY D to get past the current 1 and 2.

Why not look at it from a park neutral point of view. By OPS+ it's: Gonzalez - 151 Holliday - 144 Bay - 134 I think Gonzalez is about average in the field, so Holliday gets up toward his overall run contribution when you consider both sides of the ball. So, I agree, and I've been an advocate of them signing Holliday all along. That said, if they can get him for Clay + Kelly/Westmoreland, then they should....along with signing Holliday. That's a dynamite lineup, and they can take a shot at replacing Buchholz with an injury flyer on Sheets.

Yeah, they've been the strength of my team all season. Them and Aaron Rodgers.

I kind of like my receiving corps today.

Thanks, but I'm comfortable with my approach. When it comes to articulation, I need coaching from you like an HDTV needs steak sauce. And, you did overreact.

The actual cost per any given year may matter to accountants, but in a discussion of baseball salaries, AAV is the figure that matters, as it is the number used for the judgment of luxury tax threshold violations.

To the whole post: Stating the realities in play does not constitute crying. They are stating fact, that it's an inequitable system. To the part in bold: And they haven't, but when/if the Yankees target the correct players, yes it is. They lose to the Yankees because the Yankees have better players. Better players cost more money. The Yankees have more money. This is a pretty simple concept.

That's a very convenient position to take. When the rules are what allow for an inequity to exist, the only place you can go to discuss right and wrong is outside the rules.

Let's see, in the last 10 years they've made the second most amount of money and they've spent....wait for it....the second most amount of money. Point: This fact renders your entire rant a load of BS. Carry on.

That has to be one of the biggest cop outs I've ever seen. Here's an accurate translation of what you said: I have no debate for the philosophical merit of your position, so I'll call it OK because they didn't break the current rules that I acknowledge are flawed. Nice.

If you were able to emotionally detach yourself from this topic, then you'd have no problem accepting the fact that this championship (and the Sox 2004 and 2007 championships) are delegitimized. A legitimate champion is the true champion, and to me, when you are talking about sporting competition, that means an equal playing field, which is not only the field of play but the ability to acquire the players that take the field. Therefore, when teams that benefit from an easier route to player acquisition win, they did so on a uneven playing field, and they are not the true champion. The legitimacy of their win has been reduced, because they accomplished it through means unavailable to all of their competitors. For some reason you are mistaking my use of delegitimization with illegitimate. I'm not saying it is completely devoid of legitimacy. I realize there is some accomplishment in winning despite the advantage. I'm saying the legitimacy is not 100%. The dictionary defines delegitimization as the act of removing all legitimacy, but that's because there is no half truth, something is not partially genuine. It's all or nothing, so I took some liberty with the word since in many cases the prefix de- means a reduction of.

No, you are assuming he is because he challenged your methodology. I don't think rsr has supported signing Beltre on this forum.

No, I prefer to have my eyes open to the realities of the day. It's time you opened yours.

No, I reserve the one-liners for responses to posts that need no further comment. I expand my responses depending on the merits of the offending post.

700, CVS sells Midol. Just sayin'. Seems like a heavy flow day for you.

Which is a symptom of poor endurance.

JFC are you reaching. He's not crying, he's name calling. For instance, when I call you a window licker, I'm not complaining. I'm saying you are stupid, and, apparently, I'm right.

I wasn't aware that stating the factual reality, that Boston can't spend money dollar for dollar with the Yankees, constituted crying. Furthermore, I wasn't aware any of those other teams are asked for their reaction to what the other teams in their division did. If they were, I suspect you'd hear the same statement of the financial realities of the game, and it wouldn't be crying. If you want to continue to classify their responses incorrectly to satisfy your petty desire to feel superior, so be it, but don't expect me think anything you say on the subject is of any value.