jad

Isn't this something that was completely predictable and foreseen during the CBA negotiations? Obviously, they left that open. If it was seen by both sides as a problem (you call it a sham), they would have agreed to language preventing it. I really can't see who the aggrieved party would be with these kinds of deals.

I believe that is a myth, popularized in part by such romantic depictions as Gone with the Wind, that has been largely discredited by historians. (But maybe you were being ironic.)

Glad to see Nunez back (pending a physical? which might not be a mere formality, correct?)

Ha! Blessedly, I don't think any professional athlete gives a crap what I think! So I can consider him a p.o.s. as a person, and still hope he gets his location back.

I see Price came out today admitting (supposedly) he didn't handle things well last year. He is now waiting for Eck to reach out to him to clear the air. (Doesn't sound to me like much has changed). Apparently Eck needs to apologize for getting on the plane and subjecting himself to abuse from this a-hole, and Price is generously willing to at least discuss it.

I agree with much of this, but I'm not sure "Boston" is entirely to blame. The Celtics had plenty of black players in the 50s and an entire line-up of black players in the early 60s. Also (although this is just before my time as a fan), the Boston Braves had a black player as early as 1950 (they left Boston ... in 1952? maybe someone else can tell me whether they had other black players on the team before that). I see also (to my shock!) even the Bruins integrated before the RS. Let's just say Yawkey gave in to the prevailing (or perceived?) racism of his fans. But other teams in exactly the same position did not.

Never heard of a quota, but this charge came up again in the 70s, where there were far fewer black players than one would expect (I believe Reggie Smith may have commented about this,but it was long long ago!). By 66 and 67, you're right, things had certainly changed from what they had been in the late 50s and earlier. Once Earl Wilson got there (I believe he was the second black player? signed right after Pumpsie Green? maybe 1959 or 1960?), it would have been hard to argue for an all-white team (not sure there were any segregated pro teams in the US by that point: well, maybe in the NHL, but that's a different case!)

With all due respect, this is not correct. The last team to integrate in the NFL was the despicably racist (and still racist) Washington team (I think this was 1963 or maybe 1964). (Even the RS integrated before Washington). And such scumbags they were, that they immediately traded away the guy they were forced to pick (Ernie Davis, who sadly died of cancer before ever getting a chance to play). I believe they traded him for Bobby Mitchell. (in a totally class-less move,worthy of a 10-year-old: "OK we have to draft that black guy, but screw you, we'll trade him for a different black guy"). There was nothing 'seamless' about NFL integration. And nothing 'seamless' about integration in the NCAA, which took even longer. Also, Terry Bradshaw in several unguarded moments once talked quite freely about his own racist past in football (he wasn't trying to defend it, of course--just because you were once a racist s*** doesn't mean you will always be one)-- I believe this was in regard to being replaced by a black QB? (can't recall the details).

There will always be an excuse to be the last racist standing, and there will be no lack of those around willing to voice it.

Can't judge historical figures by our standards? OK. I'll concede that has some validity. Then judge them by the standards of the day: Yawkey presided over the team that was the last major league team to integrate. Yes, you can forgive anyone for not being the first to step up on an important social issue like this (who of us would 'scape the hanging?);but you do not have to forgive someone for being the last.

Well, why would one live in Culver City to begin with? But if it came to that, and also came to wanting to go to Dodger Stadium, I'd take the train and the express shuttle from Union Station. Driving to Dodger Stadium and trying to get out of the absurdly designed parking lots pretty much destroys any pleasure one could get from watching the game.

Red Sox fans do not have to convince each other than Hanley is VERY VERY valuable to other teams, who thus obviously should trade for him. THey have to convince other teams that he is that valuable--a quite different matter.

Now just a second here! My recollection is that transistor radios came on the market in the mid-fifties: the Pearsall, Jenson, Sammy White, Don Buddin era. I believe they weren't even invented until the late 40s, and not sold commercially until much later.

Yeah and you'd think he might try to show some good-will to the fans by attending a Celtics or Bruins game! But Nooooooo. He goes to a damn Yankees game instead!

HEY!!! ARE YOU TRYING TO PICK A FIGHT?? HOW DARE YOU AC- ... [all caps.; bold; ital.]

He hasn't won a game. He won't give a news conference. He hasn't named a starter for the next game. And he doesn't even travel with the damn team!

Just curious: when did MLB start removing from play any ball that has touched the dirt? It would seem to me that a brand new ball would carry further than one that has been hit a few times, even though when new, they are identical.

It could also be that when a hitter swings at the first pitch, it's because it's a really good one to hit. Balls outside the zone, even borderline strikes--probably he'll let go. This is not, I would think, necessarily the case with pitches for any other count, particularly a two strike count.

Looked to me on the replay I saw that he was being waved in the whole time. (Of course, if Sanchez made the play, he would have been out by 10 feet). RS overly-agressive baserunning, on the other hand, cost them the division and any chance of post-season play.

But Altuve made that mistake so many RS baserunners have been reviled for this season--being overly aggressive. Particularly in the 9th inning! Inexcusable. Waive him.

Well, since the RS so rarely HAD deciding games before 2004 (trying to think-- 1967? 76 was it? then 86? and maybe there was the Yastrzemski pop-up in ... 1978?, then Pesky holds the ball before I was born ...). Looks like about once every decade or so. After the Mets debacle, didn't they get swept three series in a row? (The deciding games of those might have been depressing at best!)

Agree. They lose their supposed leader in Papi, and now have, we are told, no leadership whatsoever. And the results are identical. That's sports. So getting rid of Farrell, and bringing in a player who has some hope of preventing public embarrassments (most of them caused by Price) seems to have nothing to do with wins/losses. I'm fine with that, but I guess I'd like to see management say that directly (they of course will not), perhaps putting DP and others on notice that ordinary standards of work-place behavior apply to them as well as to most of their fans.

I still don't understand the RS "needs." Leadership?? They won two division championships: this year without their presumed essential leader Papi. Apparently, in terms of season record, 'leadership' is meaningless. They lost the series because they had four consecutive crappy starting pitching performances. Despite that, they won one game, and would have won two had another ace pitcher, Kimbrel, not totally screwed up. Why does this prove that the FO needs to go after more hitting? And how does any of this get pinned on the manager? Getting rid of Farrell or shaking up the team has nothing to do with the team's actual performance (unless you are arguing that getting another proverbial 'big bat' is going to magically make your starting pitchers perform better in the post-season). Then why do it? To appease fans? or sportswriters? or those who want to go back to the good old days which those of us who have been watching the RS for decades know weren't really good days at all? If it's simply to sell more tickets by giving the team a new look etc., isn't that the kind of thinking that brought in the "future fan favorite" Panda?

OK. But the only way to tell if they screw up is to see how closely their strike zone resembles the robo-zone? Then if that's the goal, it's silly not just to go with the robo-zone. (It would be hard to institute the kind of system the NFL has for judging officials, since, other than the guy at the plate, most umps only get a few calls a game and of those, the vast majority are obvious to anyone).

How could you possibly do that? Fine them for bad calls? i.e., calls that are not what a Robo-call would be? If you want them to resemble robots, shouldn't you just use robots? I don't see how punishment/reward would work with umpires, besides making their jobs even more stressful than they are already. It's not like the reason for bad calls is because umpires are indifferent to getting them right nor 'not trying' hard enough.