Cocaine was ridiculously popular in the 70s and 80s. They were already taking greenies and partying. Maybe he tried it once. So?

Are hemorrhoids a side effect of coke?

Rather passive/aggressive writing in each example. My GF spotted me doing that a mile away, so I stopped. I think folks who read baseball writing in general aren't quite as perceptive as women, in general. ;-)

The problem with George Brett is not that he did coke, even if he did coke.

The problem with George Brett is that he's a cheating crybaby.

"I'm not going to suggest that he did cocaine...."

"Funny thing, though, he never got in trouble...."

Not funny, really, unless you're suggesting he did cocaine.

I blame Willie Stargell.

Well, Neyer came into my bookshop about ten years ago on a Friday, talked a lot, spent like a drunken sailor, and then rushed out the door just before noon. I wonder what that was all about....

How about this: I hope George Brett had a good time and occasionally used coke. A couple times a year won't kill you. Big deal. Also, I just assume Puckett did steroids. Dude got big fast and I remember seing him on Roy Firestone when I was a kid when he was adamant that he was short, but he was big because he was heavy into weight lifting. It just didn't occur to me then to become morally outraged by it. I thought Kirby was great. He was like a bowling ball moving around out there like a super ball. Loved Kirby. Loved him!

Isn't this the same type of logic that kevin used to link some guys to steroids?

Isn't this the same type of logic that kevin used to loink some guys to steroids?

It may be the same logic employed by Kevin and me. Am I wrong to think there's a distinction b/w what Kevin and I did and what Rob as a professional baseball writer does? If not, god bless Rob, his family, and his flannel shirt.

Rob Neyer comes off like an idiot here.

Someone should cut and paste the actual Neyer article, since in order to read more than two paragraphs you have to be a subscriber to ESPN Insider. In fact that should be a general rule here for any links to restricted sites.

Someone should cut and paste the actual Neyer article, since in order to read more than two paragraphs you have to be a subscriber to ESPN Insider. In fact that should be a general rule here for any links to restricted sites.

Is that even legal?

This guy still doesn't seem to get that James was being intentionally ridiculous with the Twins comment, so I'm finding it hard to trust his interpretation of this one.

This certainly doesn't sound like responsible journalism by any means, but as Andy suggests, it would certainly be better to see the Neyer piece in full (and James, for that matter) before making any decisions.

The same applies to Neyer and James, of course.

Isn't this the same type of logic that kevin used to link some guys to steroids?

If Brett walked around with white powder stuck to his nose hairs, it probably would be.

This guy still doesn't seem to get that James was being intentionally ridiculous with the Twins comment, so I'm finding it hard to trust his interpretation of this one.

Well, in the guy's defense, it IS difficult to separate out the times when James is being intentionally ridiculous from the times when he's being unintentionally ridiculous.

The excerpt is part of a blog entry in which Neyer discusses how Brett was always in control of his emotions and actions and never let things get out of hand, always staying within societal boundaries.

Neyer opines that, although Brett leaped out of the dugout like a maniac during the infamous Pine Tar game incident, Brett "restrained himself" before others had to do so. He says that while early in his career Brett punched out water coolers, etc., when angry, he never risked injury by punching a wall. Neyer also notes that Brett avoided cheating on his wife by not having one, not getting married until late in his career (and that he and his wife are still married).

The "cocaine paragraph" is probably meant to be read in that context, i.e. Brett was a huge partier but he was careful not to do anything that could really hurt him, like regularly use cocaine.

I have to say, though, that Neyer's intent could have been more clearly expressed, unless he really was trying to imply Brett used cocaine.

Someone should cut and paste the actual Neyer article, since in order to read more than two paragraphs you have to be a subscriber to ESPN Insider. In fact that should be a general rule here for any links to restricted sites.

What should be a general rule? Copyright infringement?

Someone should cut and paste the actual Neyer article, since in order to read more than two paragraphs you have to be a subscriber to ESPN Insider. In fact that should be a general rule here for any links to restricted sites.

What should be a general rule? Copyright infringement?

In a word: Yes. Because (a) it's such a trivial use, and ESPN isn't going to gain any new subscribers by complaining about it; and (b) what's the bloody point of linking to an article that you have to pay to read, and that you have to read in order to form a coherent opinion on?

And yes, I know about "precedent," but since I'm not a lawyer my perspective is simple: BTF shouldn't be linking to articles that you can't fully access, since it defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. My suggestion was simply a way of getting around that.

Hal McRae snorted, but it was in disgust.

I'm loathe to defend ESPN, but if they want to keep Rob and others beyond a paying wall, then I don't think we ought to be copying and pasting and sending out that material for free.

This certainly doesn't sound like responsible journalism by any means,

Why not? Neyer isn't accusing Brett of anything, and doesn't claim to have knowledge of anything. At most Neyer reports that Brett was "considered one of the hardest partiers in the Midwest." Big whoop.

Funny, it doesn't seem to give many people pause when the mainstream media accuses, say, Sammy Sosa of using steroids based on no evidence.

but as Andy suggests, it would certainly be better to see the Neyer piece in full (and James, for that matter) before making any decisions.

Then pay for access.

This guy still doesn't seem to get that James was being intentionally ridiculous with the Twins comment, so I'm finding it hard to trust his interpretation of this one.

That was my take on the James piece also.

Oh goody here comes the high and mighty noblemen of copyright law. I think half the people argue for copyright on the internet simply because they like arguing. They are like hall monitors who have no real reason to tell you what to do other then to tell you what to do.

Neyer certainly has the right to restrict access, but by exercising that right he also has no cause to complain if his views are distorted by those who can't access them. That's a fair enough tradeoff, I suppose.

And I'd still encourage anyone with access to copy and paste the full articles. Perhaps Jim should work out some deal with key restricted sites in order for Primates to be able to access their articles. I've paid BTF my voluntary "dues," and it seems that that would be a good partial use of our contributions.

But the bottom line is that it's absurd to be holding out a link for discussion on the one hand, and then pulling it back with the other. BTF is not a private club.

Perhaps Jim should work out some deal with key restricted sites in order for Primates to be able to access their articles. I've paid BTF my voluntary "dues," and it seems that that would be a good partial use of our contributions.

If Jim can do that, then fine. Until then, if ESPN or BPro had decided that certain content is restricted to paying customers, then I think that ought to be respected, even if you don't like it. And if BTF chooses not to link to restricted sites, that's fine with me too.

But I suppose my opposition to theft is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

In a word: Yes. Because (a) it's such a trivial use, and ESPN isn't going to gain any new subscribers by complaining about it;

Well, when you become the president of ESPN, you can decide that for them. Until then... not so much.

And yes, I know about "precedent," but since I'm not a lawyer my perspective is simple: BTF shouldn't be linking to articles that you can't fully access, since it defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. My suggestion was simply a way of getting around that.

You might as well have suggested "a way of getting around" having to pay to fill up your car, by asking someone to rob the gas station and then send you the stolen money.

I read the Neyer article, and he definitely did imply that Brett did cocaine.

To very closely paraphrase what Neyer wrote, Neyer mentioned how a lot of baseball players used cocaine in the early 1980s. He also mentioned that a number of baseball players had problems because of cocaine use, including members of the Royals, who were put into prison. Then Neyer says he did not want to suggest that Brett used cocaine, and yet, he mentions that Brett was the Jason Giambi of the midwest (Neyer states that Brett was one of the biggest partiers in the midwest in those years).

Neyer then mentions that Brett never got into problems, or at least none that were reported by the media.

You can make your own determination, but I think that it was a pretty unprofessional paragraph by Neyer (if you don't know that Brett was doing cocaine, then you have no business implying that he did).

Neyer certainly has the right to restrict access, but by exercising that right he also has no cause to complain if his views are distorted by those who can't access them. That's a fair enough tradeoff, I suppose.

I don't think Rob decided to restrict access; it was likely a decision made by ESPN.

And whether Rob "has cause to complain" has nothing to do with the issue.

Weatlhy man may have done coke in the 80s?

Well, If find that hard to believe.

Oh goody here comes the high and mighty noblemen of copyright law. I think half the people argue for copyright on the internet simply because they like arguing.

Or because they don't like seeing people encouraging others to steal.

And I'd still encourage anyone with access to copy and paste the full articles. Perhaps Jim should work out some deal with key restricted sites in order for Primates to be able to access their articles. I've paid BTF my voluntary "dues," and it seems that that would be a good partial use of our contributions.

We've actually explored something like this in the past, but big media companies do not like relinquishing their iron grips on premium content one iota.

Unfortunately, we're big enough that there's no way we don't instantly get ############ with a takedown notice if someone cuts and pastes an entire article, even from a non-walled source. Now, while I have no intention of complying when we're talking about the AP's recent draconian attack on fair use (though I can't speak for Jim), what you're talking about would be a huge stretch.

It's a losing game, Ray. Nobody cares about the sort of thing I'm talking about other than a few lawyers. And if ESPN programs their site to prevent copying, I won't complain. But if sites won't firewall their content, I have no obligation to do their work for them.

EDIT: We've actually explored something like this in the past, but big media companies do not like relinquishing their iron grips on premium content one iota.

Unfortunately, we're big enough that there's no way we don't instantly get ############ with a takedown notice if someone cuts and pastes an entire article, even from a non-walled source. Now, while I have no intention of complying when we're talking about the AP's recent draconian attack on fair use (though I can't speak for Jim), what you're talking about would be a huge stretch.

Yet I've copied plenty of articles from the NY Times at times when their archives were restricted. Did that result in angry letters from lawyers?

Then Neyer says he did not want to suggest that Brett used cocaine, and yet, he mentions that Brett was the Jason Giambi of the midwest (Neyer states that Brett was one of the biggest partiers in the midwest in those years).

Bill Lee mentioned a Brett party in The Wrong Stuff. If George was into the booger sugar, he must've been pretty discreet. Willie WIlson got busted. Yeah, he may've been the wrong color, but he was perceived as a very good player at the time. I'd be curious to hear ballfan's take on this.

Dan, is there some legal reason why ESPN Premium or BPro Premium articles aren't linked? I don't subscribe to either, but I do subscribe to Bill James Online. But I don't check that site every day. I would like to know when there's a worthwhile article there if one of the other subscribers notices a linkworthy one.

The quote from James's Gold Mine article was literally a throwaway line - something he is fairly well known for doing.

-- MWE

In the early 1980s, many baseball players were using intravenous drugs and having unprotected sex. Some of them got into trouble, and one of Tony Gwynn’s San Diego teammates went to prison and another died of AIDS. Now, I’m not going to suggest that Gwynn was using drugs or has AIDS, but I do know he is considered one of the fattest men in the California. Funny thing, though … Gwynn never got into any trouble. None that made the papers, anyway.

it's such a trivial use, and ESPN isn't going to gain any new subscribers by complaining about it;

People post here ALL THE TIME that the only reason they subscribe to ESPN Insider is for Neyer. So I think posting full articles of his here would undermine their bottom line.

BTF shouldn't be linking to articles that you can't fully access, since it defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. My suggestion was simply a way of getting around that.

Huh?

Did I stumble onto Bizarro BTF?

I thought we were expected to form opinions without RTFA, ask what it all had to do with Frank Tanana anyway, then veer into quasi-political arguments.

RTFA?

What is this... Stalin's BTF?

I stopped reading Bugs and Cranks a long time ago.

Stalin's BTF? Bolshevik Think Factory? Not even close. More like Milton Friedman's Think Factory.

Neyer certainly has the right to restrict access, but by exercising that right he also has no cause to complain if his views are distorted by those who can't access them. That's a fair enough tradeoff, I suppose.

Andy has the right to keep the front door of his house locked, but by doing so he also has no cause to complain if we assume it's because he's trying to hide the kidnapped children he molests in his basement. I suppose.

And I'd still encourage anyone with access to copy and paste the full articles.

You do understand that not only can the person who does this be sued, but Jim/BBTF could be, as well, right? ESPN isn't going to go after some semi-anonymous poster with a cutesy username for posting a single article, but it may well go after the very easy to find website for hosting many such articles.

Andy has the right to keep the front door of his house locked, but by doing so he also has no cause to complain if we assume it's because he's trying to hide the kidnapped children he molests in his basement. I suppose.

I wouldn't say he has no cause to complain, but if he's acting suspicious in other ways, then people will draw conclusions from whatever evidence they see.

Andy has the right to keep the front door of his house locked, but by doing so he also has no cause to complain if we assume it's because he's trying to hide the kidnapped children he molests in his basement. I suppose.

Andy lives with Steve Garvey?

I stopped reading Bugs and Cranks a long time ago.

Andrea Reiher looks cute. Just don't bring up the Edmund Fitzgerald around her.

Stalin's BTF? Bolshevik Think Factory? Not even close. More like Milton Friedman's Think Factory.


Those on the right think that this place is Moscow in the bleachers. It looks like those on the left disconcur.

Neyer certainly has the right to restrict access, but by exercising that right he also has no cause to complain if his views are distorted by those who can't access them. That's a fair enough tradeoff, I suppose.

Andy has the right to keep the front door of his house locked, but by doing so he also has no cause to complain if we assume it's because he's trying to hide the kidnapped children he molests in his basement. I suppose.

So much hyperbole. But who told you about those children? That information was only supposed to be accessed by my luxury box holders.

But for the record, I don't molest children. That's what I hire those carpet munchers for.

------------------

BTF shouldn't be linking to articles that you can't fully access, since it defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. My suggestion was simply a way of getting around that.

Huh?

Did I stumble onto Bizarro BTF?

I thought we were expected to form opinions without RTFA, ask what it all had to do with Frank Tanana anyway, then veer into quasi-political arguments.

That's probably the only proper perspective on this. Why should anyone want to read what was actually written before replying to it?

(b) what's the bloody point of linking to an article that you have to pay to read, and that you have to read in order to form a coherent opinion on?

Well, some of us have access to Insider, and it's nice to have one's attention drawn to articles of particular interest, since I don't look at the articles that assiduously. I don't believe that BTF policy should be that a link must be of benefit to every member in order to be posted.

Well, some of us have access to Insider, and it's nice to have one's attention drawn to articles of particular interest, since I don't look at the articles that assiduously. I don't believe that BTF policy should be that a link must be of benefit to every member in order to be posted.

That's what I was asling Dan, but he hasn't got back to me yet. He's probably busy mailing kevin $15.

Dan, is there some legal reason why ESPN Premium or BPro Premium articles aren't linked? I don't subscribe to either, but I do subscribe to Bill James Online. But I don't check that site every day. I would like to know when there's a worthwhile article there if one of the other subscribers notices a linkworthy one.

There's no legal reason, but we don't like to link articles that the vast majority of people will be unable to read.

I don't believe that BTF policy should be that a link must be of benefit to every member in order to be posted.

If every primate were as adept at thread hijacking as Mets fans - no such discussion would be necessary.

Yet I've copied plenty of articles from the NY Times at times when their archives were restricted. Did that result in angry letters from lawyers?Z

I'm not sure if we ever got a complaint from the Times, but in the old days, there were plenty of times people cut-and-pasted an entire article and we got notified to take it down. It's almost never an issue because people almost never do it on BBTF.

(b) what's the bloody point of linking to an article that you have to pay to read, and that you have to read in order to form a coherent opinion on?

Well, some of us have access to Insider, and it's nice to have one's attention drawn to articles of particular interest, since I don't look at the articles that assiduously. I don't believe that BTF policy should be that a link must be of benefit to every member in order to be posted.

Oh, great, the luxury box mentality comes to BTF. I guess it was but a matter of time.

Or in another context, "The President has access to information that we can't let you see, but if only you could see it, you'd understand the wisdom of his ways. But if you pony up for our weekly Ronald Reagan statue dedication luncheon, we'll be more than glad to let you sneak a peek, and you'll agree with us even more."

I don't believe that BTF policy should be that a link must be of benefit to every member in order to be posted.

Not every link must be of benefit to every member, but we'd like at least a majority of our readers to be able to read the material. I'd be shocked beyond belief if even 10% of the people who read ESPN.com daily have premium memberships.

Oh, great, the luxury box mentality comes to BTF. I guess it was but a matter of time.

I don't get the nature of your complaint, Andy.

I'd be shocked beyond belief if even 10% of the people who read ESPN.com daily have premium memberships.


Thanks for your reply, Dan. I wonder what percentage RTFA. I usually don't unless it's something that interests me and I didn't already know about it.

I don't get the nature of your complaint, Andy.

The link here is to Bugs and Cranks, not ESPN Insider. Am I missing something? Should we only be linking to articles that reference other free articles?

Worst thread I've seen here in a long time.

From Sons of Bill Simmons...

That is a pretty big statement to say, without actually saying it. Looks like Brett didn’t have Neyer’s Hall of Fame vote.

So Rob had a vote all along...

Thanks for your reply, Dan. I wonder what percentage RTFA. I usually don't unlees it's something that interests me and I didn't already know about it.

I probably read about 20% of the posted articles and about 50% of those that I comment on. News releases I generally don't read because all the info I need is usually in the excerpt, so it's mostly the opinion and analysis stuff I'll actually read. Also, I don't RTFA's of Plaschke or Richard Griffin or Mariotti and that ilk for GP's.

Bill Lee mentioned a Brett party in The Wrong Stuff. If George was into the booger sugar, he must've been pretty discreet. Willie WIlson got busted. Yeah, he may've been the wrong color, but he was perceived as a very good player at the time.

As someone who was a young man in the late '70s/early '80s, jeezus. Practically everybody did cocaine at some point or another. It wasn't exactly a big deal.

"Well, Neyer came into my bookshop about ten years ago on a Friday, talked a lot, spent like a drunken sailor, and then rushed out the door just before noon. I wonder what that was all about...."

Maybe they're working on a remake of "Brewster's Millions"?

Speaking of your shop, Andy, what's your URL again? I seem to have misplaced it.

Maybe they're working on a remake of "Brewster's Millions"?

The 80s were a special time. I was 12 or 13 when that came out, and my first thought was "why doesn't he just buy everyone coke?"

/thread synergy FTW!

I was 12 or 13 when that came out, and my first thought was "why doesn't he just buy everyone coke?"

If they had DVD's then, that would be the accompanying "Behind the Scenes" documentary.

The "cocaine paragraph" is probably meant to be read in that context, i.e. Brett was a huge partier but he was careful not to do anything that could really hurt him, like regularly use cocaine.

I read it the same way.

hahaha, buying $30M worth of cocaine would probably lead to Brewster getting arrested and sentenced to 700 years in prison.

I don't get the nature of your complaint, Andy.

The link here is to Bugs and Cranks, not ESPN Insider. Am I missing something? Should we only be linking to articles that reference other free articles?

The nature of the complaint is that while the link is technically to Bugs & Cranks, the entire column revolves around the inaccessible Neyer article. If Neyer's piece had been merely a random and marginal link rather than the central point of Bugs & Cranks, I wouldn't have even mentioned it.

I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand. In blunter terms, the link was little but a cockteaser.

-------------

Speaking of your shop, Andy, what's your URL again? I seem to have misplaced it.

Two links: Prints of Propaganda and Historic Football Posters, which now has over 150 different schools and over 850 different game programs.

hahaha, buying $30M worth of cocaine would probably lead to Brewster getting arrested and sentenced to 700 years in prison.

Dude, you just share with the cops. Problem solved!

As Abraham Lincoln said, find out what brand of cocaine George Brett was snorting, and send a case of it to all my other players.

As Abraham Lincoln said, find out what brand of cocaine George Brett was snorting, and send a case of it to all my other players.

I couldn't access the whole article, but I heard that Neyer said that it was the cleverly labeled "Preparation H" brand that reporters were too grossed out about to inspect very carefully.

Not a muckraker among them, eh?

Brewster's Millions was on HBO last night and every time I see that movie I try to think of ways to spend the money. Last night I came up with a million bucks a night at a strip club.

Not a muckraker among them, eh?

Nah, both Brett and Manny got their passes on some weird shlt stuff.

Brewster's Millions was on HBO last night and every time I see that movie I try to think of ways to spend the money. Last night I came up with a million bucks a night at a strip club.

I don't think I'd have any trouble spending that loot in a week, much less 30 days.

Oh, great, the luxury box mentality comes to BTF. I guess it was but a matter of time.

Andy, a subscription to ESPN insider (and I subscribe only for the purpose of reading Neyer) is like $35/year. That's not "luxury" to anyone who can afford internet access in the first place. But whether it's "luxury" or not is not the issue: it's your choice to subscribe or not. But whining about it and encouraging theft is a bit much.

Two links: Prints of Propaganda and Historic Football Posters, which now has over 150 different schools and over 850 different game programs.

Let me know if you ever come up with a Northeastern poster.

Two links: Prints of Propaganda and Historic Football Posters, which now has over 150 different schools and over 850 different game programs.

Watching Chicago transition from powerhouse to popsicle over the course of the posters on your site is a bit depressing. Great site and I love the commentary, Andy.

I have a problem with letting stupidities from behind paywalls get away unsnarked at.

Brewster's Millions was on HBO last night and every time I see that movie I try to think of ways to spend the money. Last night I came up with a million bucks a night at a strip club.

Insider and BPro subscriptions for everybody so everyone can at least have the ability to RTFA?

Insider and BPro subscriptions for everybody so everyone can at least have the ability to RTFA?

Naw. I would just rent Rob Neyer and Keith Law and invite you all over for lectures and, perhaps, a dunking booth. For $30 million, I'm having a damn dunking booth.

I think that articles behind pay walls should be ignored by BTF, because scholarly discourse can't be productively conducted from behind pay walls. If people don't put their thoughts out in the open, they shouldn't expect a response.

last i checked, dunking booths cost $30,000,008.25, so you are out of luck

Andy, a subscription to ESPN insider (and I subscribe only for the purpose of reading Neyer) is like $35/year. That's not "luxury" to anyone who can afford internet access in the first place. But whether it's "luxury" or not is not the issue: it's your choice to subscribe or not. But whining about it and encouraging theft is a bit much.

Ray, I know you're right about this on principle, though I'd much rather give an extra $35 to BTF than fatten up ESPN.

Perhaps Vaux put it better than I have when he wrote this:

I think that articles behind pay walls should be ignored by BTF, because scholarly discourse can't be productively conducted from behind pay walls. If people don't put their thoughts out in the open, they shouldn't expect a response.

None of this is a slam on Neyer, BTW. It's his decision, and ESPN's. But the whole idea of premium mainstream websites leaves me cold. It's not like BPro where that's likely to be their major source of income.

But correct me if I'm wrong. Is it possible that ESPN Insider is free of advertising?

I think that articles behind pay walls should be ignored by BTF, because scholarly discourse can't be productively conducted from behind pay walls. If people don't put their thoughts out in the open, they shouldn't expect a response.

They are out in the open. They're publicly available to everyone; they're just not freely available. (Contrast this with, say, some of BP's formulas, which are not disclosed.) You might as well complain that ESPN doesn't send a copy of Neyer's column to your home for free. Of course, when ESPN does do that -- e.g., with ESPN The Magazine -- people (including me) complain.

You guys don't have a right to ESPN's content for free. You think you do -- because you don't mind when the entire content is posted without permission -- but, actually, you don't.

You guys don't have a right to ESPN's content for free. You think you do -- because you don't mind when the entire content is posted without permission -- but, actually, you don't.

Of course we don't have a "right" to free ESPN content, any more than someone who doesn't report his gambling winnings to the IRS has a "right" to do that---and please, no deep philosophical distinctions between Good Private Enterprise and Evil Rapacious Government. Laws are laws.

But just as I'm not particularly disturbed if my friends don't let Uncle Sam know when they win a few hundred bucks on the Super Bowl, I don't care a bit if someone copies the full text of a "premium" Neyer column here. It's a matter of proportion, not absolute principle. These two don't always dovetail, and you surely know that.

Tell me, do you scold your gambling friends if they don't keep full records for the IRS? Do you expect every waiter or waitress to declare every last dime of every tip?

And if BTF started making it a habit of posting restricted articles, I wouldn't like it a bit, for the OBVIOUS reason that BTF is supposed to be a public forum, and in a public forum the idea of restricted information is an inherent contradiction. I'm glad to see that Dan agrees with this concept. If ESPN Insider customers want to discuss restricted content, let them do so on the ESPN Insider forums. That would seem to be a more logical place to do so than here.