Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, October 11, 2008

HANK: I’M STILL IN CHARGE HERE! (RR)

Neat! I’m pretty sure The Piss-Ant Employees opened for The Vice Creems at one point.

“There is one very important point here,” Steinbrenner told The Post during an exclusive half-hour session. “The most important thing to remember is this: If you didn’t get it from me or my brother [Hal], it doesn’t mean [anything]. I don’t care about some piss-ant employee. If you don’t get it from me or Hal, it’s meaningless. I have a lot of things [in Tampa] and Hal is in New York, which is good.”

Asked if he has taken a step back, Steinbrenner emphatically said, “No.”

Since The Boss turned over the day-to-day operations to his sons, Hank has one regret.

“I should have pushed harder for the [Johan] Santana deal,” said Hank, who was talked out of signing Santana by Hal and GM Brian Cashman because they believed the Yankees’ talent (Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy and Melky Cabrera) and the money (Santana signed a six-year, $137.5 million extension with the Mets) was too costly.

“My dad wanted to do that,” Hank said. “But that doesn’t mean we would have won if we got into the playoffs, because [Chien-Ming] Wang was hurt.”

Repoz Posted: October 11, 2008 at 09:39 AM | 123 comment(s)
  Related News: GeneralNY Yankees

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >
   1. JCB Posted: October 11, 2008 at 10:20 AM (#2977590)
You mean, Alexander Haig isn't in control?
   2. shoewizard Posted: October 11, 2008 at 10:23 AM (#2977591)
I don’t care about some piss-ant employee.


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.
   3. KingKaufman Posted: October 11, 2008 at 10:42 AM (#2977597)
it's stunning the man would voice this sentiment to a reporter.

Only if you don't know the man.
   4. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 11, 2008 at 10:44 AM (#2977601)
That quote is the platonic form of D-Bag Rich Kid.

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.
   5. RMc is the President of the United States Posted: October 11, 2008 at 10:45 AM (#2977602)
“My dad wanted to do that,” Hank said. “But that doesn’t mean we would have won if we got into the playoffs, because [Chien-Ming] Wang was hurt.”

I hate it when my Wang hurts.
   6. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 11, 2008 at 10:49 AM (#2977607)
“There is one very important point here,” Steinbrenner told The Post during an exclusive half-hour session.

Congratulations to the Post for scoring such a rare exclusive.
   7. RB in NYC (Now with Christmas Spirit!) Posted: October 11, 2008 at 10:59 AM (#2977614)
Maybe this is totally crazy, but every time Hank goes off like this, I get less worried about him doing something terrible and ruining the Yankees for years to come. He just seems like someone full of bluster and know-it-allism without actually needing to be listened to.
   8. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 11, 2008 at 11:03 AM (#2977615)
To be clear, I'm doubtful that Hank is going to "ruin" the Yankees, both because he seems to have a similar outlook on building a roster as a typical BTF poster, and because you can't ruin a team with a payroll nearly triple the major league average, no matter how stupid you may be.

I am quite confident, though, that he's not a good person, and that's what comes through here.
   9. shoewizard Posted: October 11, 2008 at 11:13 AM (#2977622)
I agree Matt....actually that is pretty much what I was trying to say.
   10. kevin Posted: October 11, 2008 at 11:14 AM (#2977623)
Maybe this is totally crazy, but every time Hank goes off like this, I get less worried about him doing something terrible and ruining the Yankees for years to come.


It's totally crazy. The man's a lunatic. Nothing good can come from having a lunatic at the top of the managerial chain making decisions, any decisions.

Even if he doesn't do anything negative, it's certainly going to be true he is incapable of doing anything positive. And I have have yet to see any evidence that Cashman knows what he is doing either. He strikes me as a casper milquetoast who's only claim to fame is the formidable ability to hang onto his job.
   11. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: October 11, 2008 at 11:50 AM (#2977645)
kevin, do you know what happened to the Palin thread?

Maybe this is totally crazy, but every time Hank goes off like this, I get less worried about him doing something terrible and ruining the Yankees for years to come. He just seems like someone full of bluster and know-it-allism without actually needing to be listened to.
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.
   12. Dan Szymborski Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:00 PM (#2977653)
kevin, do you know what happened to the Palin thread?


Just too many threads on politics going on simultaneously, so DeMause and Palin have been closed to comments.
   13. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:00 PM (#2977654)
Hank seems just ignorant and impulsive enough to put the Yankees firmly back on the aging star treadmill
Hank's very obviously devoted to growing the farm system, and even if he's somewhat more willing to trade prospects than Cashman, he's shown no tendency to want to do anything stupid with them.

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.
   14. kevin Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:06 PM (#2977655)
Just too many threads on politics going on simultaneously, so DeMause and Palin have been closed to comments.


Well, then close the other ones, don't close the most popular ones, Mr. Libertarian.

For someone who throws the word "freedom" around so promiscuously, you don't seem to have a particular fondness for the actual concept when it hits close to home.
   15. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:10 PM (#2977659)
Calling him an "aging star" and assuming that acquiring Johan Santana somehow leads to more losses, stretches credulity.
If you reread my post you may note I wasn't referring to Santana as an "aging star". In fact, like Teix and CC, he's exactly the kind of FA (mid to late 20s, true star) the Yanks should sign when they go that route. My point was that Hank, like his dad, has the sort of temperament that will let his emotions get the better of what he knows. If the Yankees miss the playoffs next year Hank's entirely capable of throwing huge sums of lojng-term dollars at guys in their 30s

Just too many threads on politics going on simultaneously, so DeMause and Palin have been closed to comments.
Too bad. The Palin thread had some interesting life left in it as of last night.
   16. Dan Szymborski Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:12 PM (#2977660)
For someone who throws the word "freedom" around so promiscuously, you don't seem to have a particular fondness for the actual concept when it hits close to home.

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.
   17. Dan Szymborski Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:13 PM (#2977663)
Too bad. The Palin thread had some interesting life left in it as of last night.

Is there nothing on there that can't be talked about in the current political thread?
   18. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:16 PM (#2977664)
Well, then close the other ones, don't close the most popular ones, Mr. Libertarian.

For someone who throws the word "freedom" around so promiscuously, you don't seem to have a particular fondness for the actual concept when it hits close to home.


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.
   19. kevin Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:17 PM (#2977665)
You know who suffers, Szym?

People who loan you money, that's who suffers.
   20. Dan Szymborski Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:18 PM (#2977667)
Response on the current off-topic thread.
   21. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:19 PM (#2977668)
Is there nothing on there that can't be talked about in the current political thread?
I haven't found that thread yet... Of course not, Dan, but shifting threads does disrupt the flow of ideas. Btw, your private property assertion comes off as a bit... Hank-ish.
   22. Lassus Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:26 PM (#2977673)
I don't think there's a problem with shifting threads, Dan, nor do I think you're even not within your rights or ethical scope to close them. Just so you know where I stand....
   23. Dan Szymborski Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:32 PM (#2977677)
However, where the heck is this thread you're talking about?

It's labeled [OT]. Matt and I are continuing are discussion where it was left off.
   24. robinred Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:38 PM (#2977682)
Hey, can BTF also apply this rule when there are four or five Red Sox, Yankees or Mets threads going on simultaneously?

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.
   25. robinred Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:38 PM (#2977683)
   26. RB in NYC (Now with Christmas Spirit!) Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:42 PM (#2977688)
And, again, the take-away point from this article is that Hank Steinbrenner is a bad person.
On this point, I agree 100%
   27. The Politics of Torre: How the HOF Really Works Posted: October 11, 2008 at 12:44 PM (#2977690)
What if you actually wanted to talk about Bialik's article? You can't really do that now. Then again Delta Socrates hijacked it from the get go.
   28. Joey B. Posted: October 11, 2008 at 01:10 PM (#2977703)
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.
   29. Rafael Bellylard (p8p) Posted: October 11, 2008 at 02:22 PM (#2977744)
I've found it odd that this baseball site spends as much time on politics as it does.

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.
   30. Joey B. Posted: October 11, 2008 at 02:29 PM (#2977746)
I've found it odd that this baseball site spends as much time on politics as it does.

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.
   31. fra paolo Posted: October 11, 2008 at 02:30 PM (#2977747)
Personally, I come to this one for baseball. I go to that one for politics. It works well.

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.
   32. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 11, 2008 at 02:45 PM (#2977754)
I'd say the difference is that BBTF collects a bunch of smart, articulate people based on one shared interest - baseball - and it creates a community in which other discussions can also be carried out. I like debating politics with these people. It'd be a lesser site if that weren't possible.

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.
   33. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 11, 2008 at 02:47 PM (#2977756)
The trouble round here is that some people can't discipline themselves to avoid taking pot-shots at 'political threads'...

I've found it odd that this baseball site spends as much time on meta-commentary about political threads as it does...
   34. The Politics of Torre: How the HOF Really Works Posted: October 11, 2008 at 02:51 PM (#2977757)
I like debating politics with these people. It'd be a lesser site if that weren't possible.


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.
   35. The Politics of Torre: How the HOF Really Works Posted: October 11, 2008 at 02:53 PM (#2977758)
Plus, my political IQ has sunk to Jon Gruden level ignorance over the years. I'd be like some high school kid facing Josh Beckett if I stepped into some of those debates.
   36. fra paolo Posted: October 11, 2008 at 02:53 PM (#2977759)
I'd say a majority portion of the threads go off at a tangent to the starting subject. The tangent might be baseball related, it might be sophomoric hilarity or it might be some altogether different subject. It really depends on the moment. I'm actually complaining that the vast majority of the political discussions here descend into 'boo Democrat' or 'boo Republican' or 'yay Libertarian' ding-dongs that don't actually take us anywhere except into lawyerly quibbling and insults.
   37. robinred Posted: October 11, 2008 at 02:58 PM (#2977761)
Those threads seem to be pretty heated. Maybe it's just me, but I don't like conversations that make my blood boil.


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.
   38. The Politics of Torre: How the HOF Really Works Posted: October 11, 2008 at 03:10 PM (#2977765)
The level of discourse about baseball is pretty high here compared to some other places. I'll take your word for it that this applies to discussions of politics and indie rock and other stuff as well. Anyways, I really should be doing some research right now.
   39. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 11, 2008 at 03:11 PM (#2977767)
My point was that Hank, like his dad, has the sort of temperament that will let his emotions get the better of what he knows. If the Yankees miss the playoffs next year Hank's entirely capable of throwing huge sums of lojng-term dollars at guys in their 30s
I think this mis-diagnoses George Steinbrenner. I don't think he knew that the best way to build a winning ballclub was to grow its farm system, but would foolishly let his emotions get the better of him and lose track of the one true way. I think he really truly believed that the expensive free agents he liked would make the team better and the frustrating young players weren't worth it. There was no sustained effort to build from within - the expensive free agents were the plan, until he got suspended.

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.
   40. bunyon Posted: October 11, 2008 at 03:25 PM (#2977771)
I've always interpreted the off-topic stuff as an offshoot of baseball. Go to a game. There is time between pitches and innings and friends usually fill that time with gab. Sometimes about the game, sometimes not.
   41. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: October 11, 2008 at 03:29 PM (#2977772)
I think this mis-diagnoses George Steinbrenner.
Possibly so. It was difficult at times to read George through the bluster and self-importance, and not being a Yankee fan I may have heard his occasional paean to young players without the required grain of salt.

I'd say a majority portion of the threads go off at a tangent to the starting subject. The tangent might be baseball related, it might be sophomoric hilarity or it might be some altogether different subject. It really depends on the moment. I'm actually complaining that the vast majority of the political discussions here descend into 'boo Democrat' or 'boo Republican' or 'yay Libertarian' ding-dongs that don't actually take us anywhere except into lawyerly quibbling and insults.
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.
   42. robinred Posted: October 11, 2008 at 03:44 PM (#2977776)
One more meta comment: unless there is something really, really bad we didn't see, I think banning kevin for 30 days was excessive. kevin is kevin, he makes a lot of contributions along with the bluster, has been that way forever, and "ignore" is always an option.

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.
   43. Joey B. Posted: October 11, 2008 at 03:50 PM (#2977780)
When it comes to the game itself, Hank definitely seems to be more on the ball than George was. He's still a classless jerk just like the old man.

At least he hasn't been convicted of any felonies yet, so that's something.
   44. bunyon Posted: October 11, 2008 at 03:55 PM (#2977781)
kevin got banned?

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.
   45. Jeff K. Posted: October 11, 2008 at 03:59 PM (#2977783)
I think banning kevin for 30 days

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.
   46. Fancy Pants Handle Posted: October 11, 2008 at 04:05 PM (#2977786)
Alex Perros also I believe...
   47. robinred Posted: October 11, 2008 at 04:05 PM (#2977787)
From the Dice-K Breaks all the rules thread, which appears to be closed to comments:

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.
   48. robinred Posted: October 11, 2008 at 04:08 PM (#2977788)
I took that to mean suspended for 30 minutes,


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.
   49. bunyon Posted: October 11, 2008 at 04:12 PM (#2977789)
I think teachers could get on either the laborer or leader ship, though I'm biased. I assume the Golgafrinchans probably sent a lot of good people out on that ship. Moreover, I think the leader ship has mistakenly led people to think it's better to be a telephone hygenist than to be a laborer. As long as you pay people for the job they do, a skilled laborer is extremely important to a society.

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.
   50. Jeff K. Posted: October 11, 2008 at 04:16 PM (#2977790)
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.

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.")
   51. Joe Bivens, Ditch Digger Posted: October 11, 2008 at 04:16 PM (#2977791)
30 minutes? Uh, no.
   52. The Artist Posted: October 11, 2008 at 04:17 PM (#2977793)

One more meta comment: unless there is something really, really bad we didn't see, I think banning kevin for 30 days was excessive. kevin is kevin, he makes a lot of contributions along with the bluster, has been that way forever, and "ignore" is always an option.


What contributions? I'm curious - Kevin's a troll in every sense of the word.
   53. robinred Posted: October 11, 2008 at 04:19 PM (#2977795)
What contributions?


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.
   54. Repoz Posted: October 11, 2008 at 04:26 PM (#2977797)
I miss Tina.
   55. CookieMonster! Posted: October 11, 2008 at 04:30 PM (#2977800)
Me miss me.
   56. Fancy Pants Handle Posted: October 11, 2008 at 04:31 PM (#2977801)
What contributions? I'm curious - Kevin's a troll in every sense of the word.

I know Kevin is, but what are you?
   57. Chip Posted: October 11, 2008 at 04:37 PM (#2977805)



What contributions? I'm curious - Kevin's a troll in every sense of the word.


So's your mom.
   58. Hal Chase Headley Lamarr Hoyt Wilhelm (ACE1242) Posted: October 11, 2008 at 05:02 PM (#2977815)
Kevin's not a troll. He's a moderately bright, sincere, expressive guy whose social skills are ... uh, a little stunted. You may not feel like doing the work required to tolerate him (which I freely admit is substantial), but he's made many positive contributions here.

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.
   59. Fancy Pants Handle Posted: October 11, 2008 at 05:09 PM (#2977818)
Well I was going to make that point, but got sidetracked by making kindergarten level jokes...

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 #######.
   60. Hal Chase Headley Lamarr Hoyt Wilhelm (ACE1242) Posted: October 11, 2008 at 05:17 PM (#2977821)
2 germanisms in 1 post.

Warum hassen Sie Amerika?
   61. tfbg9 Posted: October 11, 2008 at 05:19 PM (#2977823)
There was no sustained effort to build from within - the expensive free agents were the plan, until he got suspended.


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
   62. tfbg9 Posted: October 11, 2008 at 05:20 PM (#2977825)
Hank is my new favorite thing about the NYY's, I'd like to add. He's the coolest.
   63. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 11, 2008 at 05:29 PM (#2977829)
I can't imagine ever putting anybody on Ignore, least of all our Kevin. It strikes me as being akin to fourth grade melodramatic cliquishness, where the most exciting thing about having a party is deciding who not to invite.

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.
   64. Jeff K. Posted: October 11, 2008 at 05:39 PM (#2977839)
I can't imagine ever putting anybody on Ignore, least of all our Kevin. It strikes me as being akin to fourth grade melodramatic cliquishness, where the most exciting thing about having a party is deciding who not to invite.

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?
   65. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 11, 2008 at 05:57 PM (#2977850)
Well, different strokes, then. The scroll feature works just as well for posts I don't care to read. Kevin's assessed my mental abilities and general quality of life many times (SPOILER ALERT: the assessments came out poorly), but I still wouldn't consider using Ignore.

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.)
   66. Fancy Pants Handle Posted: October 11, 2008 at 06:01 PM (#2977851)
Warum hassen Sie Amerika?

Ist gerade trendy...
   67. Boots Day Posted: October 11, 2008 at 06:15 PM (#2977856)
He's a moderately bright, sincere, expressive guy whose social skills are ... uh, a little stunted.

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.
   68. tfbg9 Posted: October 11, 2008 at 06:49 PM (#2977865)
I think he does 95% of that stuff just to wind people up, this kevin fellow.
   69. aljunquin Posted: October 11, 2008 at 06:49 PM (#2977866)
It's that cardboard pisspot. Leaks everytime he takes a leak. But for 200 mil, he's learned to love'em.
   70. DLangetty Posted: October 11, 2008 at 06:57 PM (#2977869)
About ####### time. KevinThinkFactory.org was getting old and repetitive. Was there ever a thread that Kevin was involved in that didn't result in him loudly trying to be the center of attention? Why in God's names did the admins not do this in 2005 or so?
   71. Monty Posted: October 11, 2008 at 07:02 PM (#2977873)
I have Kevin on Ignore about 60% of the time. The problem is that a lot of the time, a thread with Kevin in it has a lot of people responding to him and I end up wanting to know what on earth he said.
   72. Greg Pope Posted: October 11, 2008 at 09:10 PM (#2978137)
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.

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.
   73. frannyzoo Posted: October 11, 2008 at 10:15 PM (#2978430)
Fred C. Dobbs is not banned and Kevin is. Blown call, imho.
   74. David Nieporent Posted: October 12, 2008 at 01:13 AM (#2979488)
Of course, I'm probably wrong about this.
Not that I'm unbiased, but I think you are. About the part about him being "really sharp," I mean; you're right about his willingness to make even more outlandish claims if necessary to support his originally-ridiculous claims. I disagree ideologically with a lot of people here; even some of the ones I think are left-wing nutjobs I generally think are reasonably bright and informed, if wrong. Kevin, though, doesn't seem to me to have thought deeply about any political issue; he basically provides a talk-radio level of understanding. And his ability to construct logical arguments based on evidence is generally is at that level; Backlasher may be on the same side as Kevin on many of the steroids-related topics, but Backlasher can actually take a fact and analyze it, while Kevin's pretty much limited to "Does it support an alleged steroid user? Then it's a lie." or "Do I think it make an alleged steroid-user look bad? Well, then, who cares if it makes sense? Fist pump!"
   75. Fancy Pants Handle Posted: October 12, 2008 at 08:02 AM (#2979786)
Quis moderatiet ipsos moderati?
   76. RB in NYC (Now with Christmas Spirit!) Posted: October 12, 2008 at 09:29 AM (#2979796)
I think he does 95% of that stuff just to wind people up, this kevin fellow.
Which is exactly why I have him on ignore. If you exist solely to wind people up, you aren't worth listening to.
   77. Joe Bivens, Ditch Digger Posted: October 12, 2008 at 09:58 AM (#2979801)
Be careful, he may be lurking, and we all know how much he can leg press.
   78. bunyon Posted: October 12, 2008 at 11:22 AM (#2979849)
Lord knows I've crossed swords with kevin a time or two as well, but I'm not sure it's terribly cool to be discussing him/ragging on him like this while he's banned and unable to respond. I mean, you're perfectly free to, of course, but it comes off pretty bad, IMO.
   79. scotto Posted: October 12, 2008 at 04:30 PM (#2979962)
Lord knows I've crossed swords with kevin a time or two as well, but I'm not sure it's terribly cool to be discussing him/ragging on him like this while he's banned and unable to respond. I mean, you're perfectly free to, of course, but it comes off pretty bad, IMO.

I agree.
   80. Repoz Posted: October 12, 2008 at 05:07 PM (#2979970)
As one of the very, very few to be suspended/banned (BL, me, Chris P, and JC, I think),

As least Ringolsby had the sense to ban himself.











(Hi Trace!)
   81. The Most Interesting Man In The World Posted: October 12, 2008 at 05:45 PM (#2979977)
Be careful, he may be lurking, and we all know how much he can leg press.

Would it be impossible for him to log on under another screename?
   82. Bowling Baseball Fan Posted: October 12, 2008 at 05:50 PM (#2979978)
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.
   83. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: October 12, 2008 at 06:13 PM (#2979980)
When it comes to the game itself, Hank definitely seems to be more on the ball than George was. He's still a classless jerk just like the old man.

At least he hasn't been convicted of any felonies yet, so that's something.
Give him time, give him time...

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?
   84. Jeff K. Posted: October 12, 2008 at 06:33 PM (#2979984)
Would it be impossible for him to log on under another screename?

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.
   85. The Most Interesting Man In The World Posted: October 12, 2008 at 06:59 PM (#2979991)
I am kind of mixed on the banned user concept. On the one hand I would like to see all kinds of opinions expressed. On the other hand, one really has to be an a-hole to be blocked here, so I'm not feeling all that sympathetic.

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.
   86. Baseballing powerhouse Crispix Attacks Posted: October 12, 2008 at 07:03 PM (#2979994)
Hank is my new favorite thing about the NYY's, I'd like to add. He's the coolest.

If insulting your employees and issuing ultimatums is cool, consider him Miles Davis!
   87. Jeff K. Posted: October 12, 2008 at 07:09 PM (#2979997)
On the other hand, one really has to be an a-hole to be blocked here, so I'm not feeling all that sympathetic.

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.
   88. Joe Bivens, Ditch Digger Posted: October 12, 2008 at 07:16 PM (#2979999)
Lord knows I've crossed swords with kevin a time or two as well, but I'm not sure it's terribly cool to be discussing him/ragging on him like this while he's banned and unable to respond. I mean, you're perfectly free to, of course, but it comes off pretty bad, IMO.

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.
   89. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: October 12, 2008 at 07:41 PM (#2980005)
It's the same problem with banning anything; it keeps it in the spotlight, instead of letting it play itself out. Here we've had a thread hijacked by people talking about kevin, when the idea of banning him is to keep him from . . . what, exactly?

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.
   90. In what respect, Craig K? Posted: October 12, 2008 at 07:50 PM (#2980008)
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.
   91. Dan Szymborski Posted: October 12, 2008 at 07:54 PM (#2980010)

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.
   92. Dan Szymborski Posted: October 12, 2008 at 07:58 PM (#2980011)

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.
   93. fra paolo Posted: October 12, 2008 at 07:59 PM (#2980013)
Actually, I find myself sympathizing with suspension. kevin's 'ditchdigger' comment genuinely shocked me when I read it, not long after it was posted. And some of the argy-bargy going on between Fred C Dobbs and Cubs fans, among others, really is beyond the bounds of what I have come to accept around here.

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.
   94. Joe Bivens, Ditch Digger Posted: October 12, 2008 at 08:00 PM (#2980015)
#92 That's cruel.
   95. Dan Szymborski Posted: October 12, 2008 at 08:01 PM (#2980016)
What is this Fred C. Dobbs vs. Cubs fans thing? Nobody's complained to me about it.
   96. Joe Bivens, Ditch Digger Posted: October 12, 2008 at 08:05 PM (#2980018)
Go get 'em, Dan!
   97. fra paolo Posted: October 12, 2008 at 08:07 PM (#2980020)
when they hit login

So the suspended can come here and read, but not post. So kevin might be compiling a black book like Citizen Smith?
   98. fra paolo Posted: October 12, 2008 at 08:11 PM (#2980022)
Nobody's complained to me about it

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
   99. Dan Szymborski Posted: October 12, 2008 at 08:13 PM (#2980025)
Do people actually complain?

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?
   100. Jeff K. Posted: October 12, 2008 at 08:29 PM (#2980042)
Okay, since we've gone full-blown meta in here, I'll quote the TOS just to point out where some people are confused about where the line is (we've done this before, Dan, but I'm not sure who has seen your responses to such):

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?
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

<< Back to main

Support BBTF

donate

My Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets.

We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule

Buy Cheap MLB Tickets

Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers

Page rendered in 0.7910 seconds
81 querie(s) executed