jad
-
Posts
4,484 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by jad
-
Public figures do not have the same protections (even legal protections) for libel and slander as ordinary citizens. So if you want to be a public figure, you really need to grow a thicker skin. Whereas us poor slobs here--you know, we feel REALLY BAD when we listen to some whippersnapper give us moral lectures. It's SOOOOOO hurtful.
-
You don't buy the "the hooker lied about her age" defense? (I have a feeling we're going to be hearing versions of that defense a lot in the coming weeks or months.)
-
I admit, I don't think of RI much. In fact, the last time I was there was 35 years ago, when I drove down from Maine in a snowstorm, thinking, of course, I would go straight across the bridge rather than Rte 1. I failed to note that Rte 128 had been renamed '95' until I saw the signs for Providence.
-
Getting back to the list, (which is a lot more amusing to me than grandiose, philosophical and moral speculations about the Decline of the West) the taxpayers of Rhode Island would like to nominate C. Schillung.
-
Agree on Urbina! But couldn't Carl Everett get at least an honorable mention?
-
I think we should argue grammar and spelling conventions instead. I'll start by noting the EGREGIOUS error above of representing the possessive of Gammons as Gammons' rather than Gammons's. (And people wonder why this world is going to hell).
-
Since when is it bad form to post 'old' news? 99% of what posters say and argue here has been said before many many times.
-
I can certainly "relate to" negotiations (owner vs. worker). I just am aware that the financial situation of all these particular participants is way beyond anything I have experience with or ever want to have experience with.
-
Have you seen the Sopranos episode where Paulie and some other dumb-ass gangster (Chrissy?) argue over Nostradamus, Notre Dame, and Quasimodo?
-
I don't really "relate to" any of the uber-rich entertainers I watch, whether on sports fields or movie screens. Why would I?
-
I think it's time for Old Red to join the IGNORE crowd.
-
Can't wait for the moralistic twits to cry out in high dudgeon: "THAT DOES IT. I am NEVER taking my kids to Cooperstown again. Take THAT, MLB!!!!"
-
I love the standards of "proof" invoked against Ortiz (well a report by this guy citing second- or third-hand an unpublished report by these people says that ...) Very much like those proving vaccines don't work, that COvid is a left-wing conspiracy, and that the Cowboys are the best team ever. I don't give a rat's ass whether he 'used'; I actually care more about whether Ty Cobb was a murderer. But neither affects the question of whether these guys should be included among the best players ever.
-
Bonds and CLemens should be in there. Arod too, of course. Rose is a special case, since as I recall, he made a deal with Giamatti to keep the info they gathered on him sealed, a deal he backed out of as soon as Giamatti died. He's a scum-bag, a cheap-shot artist, and a nincompoop, but as long as the results of that investigation are made public (or have they been already?), then sure. Those 4 are among the greatest players ever with the most influence on the sport. Of COURSE they should be in the HOF. Even Schilling, speaking of scum-bags, although it would be nice if this anti-government right-wing a-hole would first pay back the $70 million or so he gladly scammed from those detestable librul taxpayers of RI.
-
You're right. Replacement players (even replacement officials) don't work. Why would I pay $150 to see guys I could see in Portland for $10? And part of it is also the "star" system. I want to see stars (people everyone knows about). I would have paid to see Williams, Mays, Arod even way past their primes when many no-names probably had more talent. That's what spectator sports is about.
-
But someone left him out, putting Yaz in left. (I guess Yaz played first at some point? Don't recall that.)
-
I'm not certain of the rules, which make no sense if Williams is not included.
-
No, we don't, because we miss a season of baseball. There's no making up for that, period.
-
EVERYTHING said on any sports board has been said and explained before (as has this assertion).
-
As I understand it, yes. The RS were on the hook for tax on that salary if he made an MLB roster. So it must have come down to a calculation of what that hit would be in relation to the lux. tax limit, vs. what little they might save by releasing or trading him (no one was going to take on much of his salary).
-
For me, it's all about convenience. Fenway (as I recall! from years ago) is never any fun to get to unless you happen to be living near there. As for many NewEnglanders who live in the sticks, deciding to go will result in a day-long or two-day operation. And Dodger Stadium? There is no way I want to invest in four hours of tedious commuting in order to watch a game where half the crowd only stays 5 innings (not the same 5!). THAT SAID: it appears that 30-50K fans feel differently on game day at both places! Just curious on Florida stadiums: how long does it take to get to the game if you live in the area? And is convenience really a factor? (It doesn't seem to be in the stadiums I know--it's as if the time invested to go and the hideous traffic leaving were part of the experience!)
-
The AFL did pretty well, no?
-
Ah, I get it now. I don't see why 'years of control' should be a major issue. Since the real issue is 'how much money you spend' not 'who gets it.' or do owners think this is the way cheap-ass teams can remain competitive?
-
I don't see it that way. Dewey is right. If the issue is money, you can negotiate and come to an agreement. But if you stick to your principles (e.g., "We players are what fans come to see". vs. "We are owners of the business and without us, there is no league") or if you look at money, not as a material but as a sign of inner worth, nothing will get done.
-
Excellent excellent point!!! (We had a saying in my business: who would you rather deal with? a man of principle? or a scoundrel? The answer is: a scoundrel. A scoundrel will deal, and 'dealing' is what is necessary in any collective organization.). (I, btw, always styled myself as 'principled' and thus was completely ineffective in ever getting anything done. and I don't say this a self-praise. I needed to channel my 'inner-scoundrel' ,who is certainly there and shows up often, in order to deal with other humans.)
