User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.4709 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
This phrase is stunning. I mean it's not stunning that he would have this attitude, but it's stunning the man would voice this sentiment to a reporter.
Only if you don't know the man.
And, yes, what Hank meant was simply that reporters shouldn't listen to anonymous sources within the Yankee organization, but to himself and his brother. The issue, though, is that the phrase that rolled off his lips to express this thought was "piss-ant employee". Speaks to his experience of never actually being an employee.
I hate it when my Wang hurts.
Congratulations to the Post for scoring such a rare exclusive.
I am quite confident, though, that he's not a good person, and that's what comes through here.
Hank seems just ignorant and impulsive enough to put the Yankees firmly back on the aging star treadmill, and there's nothing to make me believe in a deity quite like an arrogant man who fails and bemoans his fate publicly. This offseason may be Hank-proof, though, with Teixiera and CC available.
Just too many threads on politics going on simultaneously, so DeMause and Palin have been closed to comments.
It's in no way obvious, for instance, that trading even the full package of Hughes, Kennedy, and Melky for Santana should be understood as a negative expectation move in the long or short run. Johan Santana is a durable pitcher in the middle of a Hall of Fame quality peak. Calling him an "aging star" and assuming that acquiring Johan Santana somehow leads to more losses, stretches credulity.
And, again, the take-away point from this article is that Hank Steinbrenner is a bad person.
Too bad. The Palin thread had some interesting life left in it as of last night.
This is a private site.
That we suffer you instead of simply sending you on your way should be proof enough that we try to allow as much freedom on our private property as possible.
Is there nothing on there that can't be talked about in the current political thread?
It was for health reasons: Dan was afraid the members of the leftwing cricle jerk would overly dehydrate.
The following is for test purposes, since it was unpostable in previous threads: Bush is a sociopath.
It's labeled [OT]. Matt and I are continuing are discussion where it was left off.
And of course Jim and Dan can do what they want. The site is private, and also free.
But political threads seldom just "break out." Repoz--cackling like a mad scientist all the while no doubt--posts stuff that anyone who hangs out here knows will get them going.
That's only been the M.O. around here for, oh I don't know, maybe four or five years now.
I do have to wonder, why allow them to even get going in the first place if you're just going to shut them down when they get too big? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
I have interest in the subject as well, and have a political site I go to probably more often than I come to this one(ourcampaigns.com).
Personally, I come to this one for baseball. I go to that one for politics. It works well.
I came to the realization a while ago that the game itself just isn't interesting enough to carry on the conservation on its own; that's why they've adopted the M.O. here that they have.
And I say this as someone who loves the game.
The trouble round here is that some people can't discipline themselves to avoid taking pot-shots at 'liberals' or 'conservatives' or Democrats or Republicans. And sometimes, as has been pointed out, Repoz sets us up and we bark like Pavlov's dog.
I don't see how it reflects on baseball in any way. I'd say it speaks well of the sport and the site that they create a situation where we can have a wide variety of discussions.
And, it's kind of funny that a good thread on baseball has been hijacked by a meta-commentary about how we don't talk about baseball.
I've found it odd that this baseball site spends as much time on meta-commentary about political threads as it does...
Those threads seem to be pretty heated. Maybe it's just me, but I don't like conversations that make my blood boil. I had an exchange with some here recently that made me so angry that I had to get up and take a walk. Maybe I just take stuff typed on the net too personally. But I have learned to not fly off the handle every time someone posts "Red Sox fans are d-bags!!" so I have made progress.
Like Andy often says, compared to a lot of places on the net, BTF political threads are Miss Manners meets the Algonquin Round Table. I have never checked out ourcampaigns.com, so it may be great.
As far as the Red Sox stuff, like Matt (and I and others) say: it is because your guys' team is a winner. Laugh at us and pity us instead of letting the blood boil.
Hank, on the other hand, has been very clear about his love for young players and his desire to build from within. He even pressured Cashman about moving Chamberlain to the rotation. He may lack the temperament for building a team, but he's starting several steps ahead of his old man.
There's some of that, to be sure, but even when we're at our worst someone just about always seems to inject some real intelligence into a thread and make it worth reading. And I agree with several posters: even with all the chaff the political threads here are far more interesting and varied than just about anywhere else, and largely for reasons Matt gives in 32.
WRT the Yankees: I said several times that I thought NYY should have pulled the trigger on the Santana deal, and two smart guys like me and Hank can't both be wrong. My reasoning was that I would rather have the next four years of Santana than those of Hughes, that you can't really project any player, particularly a P, beyond 3-4 years; that Kennedy and Cabrera are replaceable talents, and that money is not a problem for NYY. I may yet be proved wrong about this, of course, but I agree with ark in #15. When you can get serious, top-shelf guys in their 20s, it is almost always a good idea to do it, even if it costs a lot in players and money. It is older FAs and overpriced mid-talent-level FAs that can really kill you. But the teams that sign/acquire guys like Maddux, Bonds, and ARod in their 20s and even guys a couple of ticks below that level, like Beltran and Sabathia, seldom regret it ISTM.
At least he hasn't been convicted of any felonies yet, so that's something.
But the teams that sign/acquire guys like Maddux, Bonds, and ARod in their 20s and even guys a couple of ticks below that level, like Beltran and Sabathia, seldom regret it ISTM.
Indeed. The killers are the merely good players who get paid like they're very good or great.
It's like the Golgafrinchans in Hitchhiker's Guide. There is the elite - the intellectuals, the scientists, the leaders, etc. That's a third (say). Then there is the laborer. Not super smart, but skilled and the real doer of a society. Then there is the telephone hygienist. Put that last third on a slow ship out of the system. It is true in baseball as well. If you can pull it off, have 2 or 3 elite talents, even if you overpay. Put them with some young guys with promise being paid the minimum and have the rest be serviceable guys who don't break the bank. Paying 10 million for a guy not much better than a promising non-arb eligible youngster or any random AAAA player and then convincing yourself that because they're paid 10 million they're superstars is what kills you.
I took that to mean suspended for 30 minutes, not banned for 30 days.
As one of the very, very few to be suspended/banned (BL, me, Chris P, and JC, I think), 30 minutes is appropriate, 30 days is not. I generally trust Dan, so his call is his call.
17. Dan Szymborski Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:40 PM (#2977686)
Kevin's gone for 30 and Kevin's Innermost Thoughts is gone for good. If we're going to hijack half a dozen random threads now for Meta discussion, I've got a lot more bullets
***
I like with the Hitchiker's Guide analogy, although being that I am a teacher, I assume that being placed on the slow ship would be my fate were it not for the fact that you are friendly with my mom. I have not been a huge fan of Steven Goldman's work the last couple of years, but he was right to make as big of a deal as he did over NYY passing on Beltran and signing Wright, Pavano and Womack in 2005. That is exactly what you are talking about.
Jocketty used the model in STL as well: a few stars and league-average guys filling holes cheaply. The downside is if you commit to an elite talent with durability issues like Carpenter, but of course, avoiding high-paid guys with durabilty issues is part of it as well.
Ok. I think Backlasher was 30 days. I didn't know they had 30-minute suspensions. That would seem very odd in an internet context, quite frankly. There is no detention hall here.
I agree that a 30 minute suspension is odd. Though I do like the idea of Kevin being gone for 30 and his innermost thought being gone for good. It's like a lobotomy.
At the risk of keeping this meta/OT here, there are "cool-down" periods. I was initially supposed to be suspended for something like that, along with JC and Chris. Mine lasted a few weeks, though.
See this for a summary written at the time (by someone else) of all that.
(If you don't want to read all that, this is the relevant portion: "Bernal, JC, and crispy were all banned in rapid succession of each other. The stated reason was a lack of persepective, and the ban apparently lasts until the posters calm down.")
What contributions? I'm curious - Kevin's a troll in every sense of the word.
Govt Drug policy and background knowledge about drug effects, history, particularly WW2, sometimes politics, some stuff about the Red Sox, and although only a handful of us care, basketball.
I know Kevin is, but what are you?
So's your mom.
At this moment, I have exactly one BTFer on ignore. It's not Kevin. In fact, he's not even #1 on the waiting list.
If you really feel that strongly about somebody, then use the ignore function. That is what it is there for. Schadenfreude over somebody getting a ban, just because you don't like him is really pretty pathetic.
FWIW, I have nobody on ignore.
EDIT: 2 germanisms in 1 post. Suck it #######.
Warum hassen Sie Amerika?
This assumes that when George was suspended, he actually refrained from any important decision making. I doubt that because:
A- Steinbrenner would push legal limits to get the results he was looking for--the Nixon conttributions, Spira. And that's only the stuff we found out about because he got caught. If he can go through back channels and still run his team, he will, if he thinks that that's the best way to win.
B- His ego also wouldn't let him be repremanded, if there was a way out of it. There was.
C- His mandated uninvolvement was unverifiable.
So I dunno...but I'm guessing he in some way OK'd what happened when he was "suspended", the shifting of Yankee team building tactics. Anything important anyway. Anything else doesn't say "Herr Steinbrenner"*.
*Bill Gallo stopped short of depicting George as a Nazi, merely a spike-helmeted WWI Hun
Even Kevin's most egregious buffoonery is like the banjo scene from "Deliverance"-- not strictly necessary to the main plot, but adding a certain deranged flavor which is in itself memorable. I urge the board's moderators to reconsider their ban.
Um. I get along with kevin as well as anyone (many an IRC used to start with just the two of us there for a good while), so I'm not speaking about him here. But having someone on ignore is not "melodramatic cliquishness", it's not caring to read what they have to say. I had one guy on ignore, pkb33. Once I saw other people quoting non-dickish stuff and responding, I pulled him back. The only two people I have on my list now both posted a string of posts that I considered offensive (and I'm very hard to offend), and I don't care to see what they have to say. It stands a small chance of making me angry, and why put up with that?
There's nothing an online troublemaker can do that would shake me up more than the moment of cognitive dissonance when a thread abruptly stops making sense, because there's a piece missing. (I'm basing this opinion on another message board I've seen which mass-deleted a provocateur's posts, leaving inexplicable holes and jumpcuts behind. I ended up spending more time trying to puzzle out what had been removed than I ever would have spent being offended by it.)
Ist gerade trendy...
Kevin strikes me as more than moderately bright.... I think he's really sharp, but his problem is that he just can't handle being wrong. All of us are wrong about something on here sooner or later, and since Kevin likes to argue that any random Boston-affiliated player is better than any random non-Boston-affiliated player, he's wrong a lot too.
Most of us are capable of admitting that we're wrong, but Kevin either gets his back up and makes ever more outlandish claims - like arguing that Len Bias would have won five NBA MVP awards, or that some schmo in the Red Sox system is already as good as Grady Sizemore - or he just ignores counterarguments and makes extremely nasty ad hominems.
Of course, I'm probably wrong about this.
Rob Base was banned. I don't know if it was intended to be permanent at the time, but since he came back and registered inappropriate names just to post rude comments, I think it is permanent now.
I agree.
As least Ringolsby had the sense to ban himself.
(Hi Trace!)
Would it be impossible for him to log on under another screename?
I've always found kevin the perfect, spiritual complement to Nieporent in that both use every tool at their disposals to support their respective worldviews, and neither will ever, ever give in to the other on any point, no matter how minor. There's something quite wonderful in all that obstinacy.
I suppose the test is, would you write what you write here to kevin's face, so to speak?
Yes. Until he's IP-banned.
I'm guessing the IP address is blocked, too. So, he would have to use another computer. Although depending on the coding, there can be a way around it that I won't post to give ideas.
He knows about proxies, because while I was IP banned for weeks while Jim was saying that I wasn't, I used them to login and mentioned that fact.
I guess it's kind of like running your own store - you want to welcome business from anybody, but if their behavior is so obnoxious as to turn others away, you have to come up with an arrangement.
If insulting your employees and issuing ultimatums is cool, consider him Miles Davis!
In defense of myself, I don't believe any argument can be made that anything I did rose anywhere near to the level of Base or whatever it is you may think kevin has done. Nor Chris. Not to rehash the story that's linked above, but just so that someone who doesn't read that link doesn't lump either of us into that category.
Or, if he's lurking, it conjures the image of him gnashing his teeth and swallowing the responses he'd normally let fly. At that image is very funny, to me. I don't particularly dislike Kevin; I've had my go-rounds with him, but I don't have a grudge against him. When he's unreasonable, I pay little attention.
Oh, well. There are lots of people on here that I like despite not agreeing with them about everything. Kevin and Szymborski are both among them.
Yep. That's why, despite being a PolSci major and really, really interested in politics (I've called CSPAN a few times, for chrissakes!) I stay as far away from the 1000+ post threads as humanly possible; I don't read them, I don't post in them, I do nothing in them.
In defense of myself, I don't believe any argument can be made that anything I did rose anywhere near to the level of Base or whatever it is you may think kevin has done. Nor Chris. Not to rehash the story that's linked above, but just so that someone who doesn't read that link doesn't lump either of us into that category.
Just to verify, this is accurate. The only reason Jeff wasn't back quickly was that he got cute with the alternate handles.
Or, if he's lurking, it conjures the image of him gnashing his teeth and swallowing the responses he'd normally let fly. At that image is very funny, to me.
At the moment, when someone is suspended on the site, when they hit login, it redirects them to this page.
I think we need an experiment of more-but-shorter suspensions. 30 days is too much for 'ditchdigger', although I gather other things have been said.
So the suspended can come here and read, but not post. So kevin might be compiling a black book like Citizen Smith?
They are probably made of sterner stuff than a monastic type like me.
Do people actually complain? I once did about someone whom I thought went too far, but that wasn't directly an argument. Rather, a wish had been made about a national group in a post
Heh.
Does anyone have anything particularly egregious for Fred Dobbs that I can look at? From what I see, he's just trash-talking the Cubs troll-like. Is there anything personal?
BBTF asks you to not use vulgarity, profanity or insults in your comments. You are free to disagree (even vehemently) with what other members of the BBTF community have to say, but we ask that you do so in a respectful manner.
Comments will not be deleted for disagreeing with other members. They may be removed for the above reasons or if the comment is hurtful, spiteful, libelous, slanderous and really does nothing to move the conversation forward. Comments whose primary purpose is to advertise, self-promote may also be removed. Trolling (purposely posting inflammatory messages in order to disrupt an ongoing discussion) messages may also be removed.
So I think they're saying that he's a troll, you're acknowledging he's a troll, so why not him, as well?
(EDIT) IOW, why the bright line between insulting someone and trolling a thread?
(EDIT) IOW, why the bright line between insulting someone and trolling a thread?
We're trying to err on the side of being liberal.
I KNEW IT YOU RATZAFRATZING NO GOODNIKS
</retardo>
I hope I'm wrong here.
Put me down as being against banning, period. Not that it matters much as I rarely post anyway. I think I'll just go with the Rodney King plea of "why can't we all just get along?" Pathetic, but libertarian...I guess.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main