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

Friday, April 13, 2007

Actor (and former Met minor leaguer) in Custody After the Death of His Girlfriend’s Cat

Petcka kills pet?!...This is just too much.

An actor who has appeared in “Sex and the City” has been arrested and charged in the death of his girlfriend’s cat in Manhattan, authorities with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said.

In a fit of anger because his “female acquaintance paid too much attention to the cat,” Joseph Petcka, 36, entered her apartment when she was at work and beat the 9-year-old domestic longhair to death, a spokesman for the ASPCA, Joseph Pentangelo said. The cat’s name was Norman.

...In the 1990s, Mr. Petcka played minor league baseball with the Mets before traveling to play in Europe.

Repoz Posted: April 13, 2007 at 03:36 AM | 118 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mets, minor leagues, obituaries

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. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: April 13, 2007 at 04:08 AM (#2333865)
In a fit of anger because his “female acquaintance paid too much attention to the cat,”

Obviously a case of ##### envy.
   2. Keith Law Posted: April 13, 2007 at 04:09 AM (#2333866)
What a sicko.
   3. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: April 13, 2007 at 04:11 AM (#2333867)
P-ssy is blocked?
   4. Raskolnikov Posted: April 13, 2007 at 04:15 AM (#2333868)
What's the big deal? Norman's still got eight more lives to spare.
   5. Francoeur Sans Gages (AlouGoodbye) Posted: April 13, 2007 at 04:15 AM (#2333869)
The legend of Kevin Mitchell lives on.
   6. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 13, 2007 at 04:56 AM (#2333883)
Is this in any way related to the PETCO thread?
   7. xbhaskarx Posted: April 13, 2007 at 05:21 AM (#2333885)
hah, obituaries. RIP norman the cat.
   8. Guapo Posted: April 13, 2007 at 05:33 AM (#2333886)
They should take his kittens away.
   9. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: April 13, 2007 at 08:30 AM (#2333900)
Sounds like he should have been on the Mets early-90's teams.
   10. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 13, 2007 at 08:42 AM (#2333901)
Jackass. No excuse for that kind of crap; I hope they throw the book at him.

30th round pick in '89, in case anyone was tempted to check.
   11. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: April 13, 2007 at 12:26 PM (#2333915)
Any chance that the cat was asking for it? Some of the stunts my cats pull seem to be veiled requests for a good beating.

So I abuse my cats by not abusing them. Since their lifestyle seems to be one long plea for pain, I torture them by denying them fulfillment their evidently sick masochistic fantasies.

Admittedly it's not easy somedays....

Best Regards

John
   12. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: April 13, 2007 at 12:45 PM (#2333924)
If you're going to play a young Tony Soprano...well, let's just say he's probably a Method actor.
   13. Repoz Posted: April 13, 2007 at 12:47 PM (#2333927)
Maybe Petcka misread the Puss 'n Boots label as the instructions.

BTW...In that same '89 draft, the Mets also selected Tommy Stuffeneuter...so be prepared.
   14. Perro(s) Posted: April 13, 2007 at 01:42 PM (#2333947)
Wan't able to bring up the story -- did his girlfriend break up with him over this incident?
   15. chris p Posted: April 13, 2007 at 01:44 PM (#2333949)
it looks like he was drafted twice by the mets... out of high school and then again in the 5th round out of college ... and then they gave up on him after 4 games, 2 2/3 innings and a 23.62 era. stupid mets.
   16. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: April 13, 2007 at 01:45 PM (#2333951)
Get up, feed cat.

Later...

Cat continually winds around your legs rubbing against you. Every time you make a move it darts out from under foot and heads towards its dish, stopping only to look back to see if you're following.

It's hungry, fair enough.

You get to the dish and it's half full of the food you gave it an hour or so ago. Cat sits in front of dish looking at you waiting to satisfy its hunger.

You point out to felinus dingleberrius that the dish is half full and you walk away.

No sooner to you leave the room when felinus retardus continually winds around your legs rubbing against you. Every time you make a move it darts out from under foot and heads towards its dish, stopping only to look back to see if you're following.

You give in. You pour food back into bag, shake it and refill the bowl. The cat tries to hinder this relatively simple operations by rubbing its empty head again the bag, the bowl or your hand causing some food to hit the floor. You scoop up fallen food and place it into the dish.

The cat look at you with an expression that says "Ick, I'm not eating that, it's touched the floor." As you leave felinus stupidis is serenely licking its anus.

No sooner to you leave the room when felinus assholis is again winding around your legs rubbing against you. Every time you so much as twitch, it darts out from under foot and heads towards its dish, stopping only to look back to see if you're following.

(sigh)

"Fine!" you think to yourself and head back to dish, empty back into bag, shake and pour however you're doing this while standing so felinus masochisticis's melon doesn't get in the way again. Meanwhile Einstein rubs against your leg like Paris Hilton after a couple of drinks.

You set food down, cat looks at dish, looks at you and just sits there.

Realizing you've been beaten you repeat the procedure. Finally felinus moronis decides to eat.

You try to remember just what the hell you were doing before the cat decided it wanted to eat so you can get back at it. Half a minute later, you restart activity only to feel felinus iwanttobeputinablenderis again is around your legs. Except this time whenever its got your attention it heads for the door. Since you don't want to have a mess to clean up you decide that the extra effort of getting the cat out of the house is worth it at so many levels.

You head for the door where felinus putmeinabelljaris is waiting, open it and the cat does a "whoops-I've-changed-my-mind" u-turn and heads to the next room. No sooner are you back to work when it repeats the earlier exercise. However this time it goes outside. You turn around and hear it meowing sitting outside the door looking at you as if to say "What's the big idea? I don't want to be out here!"

You try to ignore it however felinus iwannabedrawnandquarteredis starts to scratch at the door. You know your wife will blame you for letting the stupid thing scratch up the door so you reluctantly let the butthead in. It heads up the stairs and the nightmare is over. You don't see the cat for several minutes.

You go up to your room and there's a distinct aroma. You follow the smell to ground zero where there's a present awaiting you. Felinus suicidis sits outside the room look at you as if to say: "Don't blame me. I told you I had to go outside."

We find the defendant innocent on all charges--case dismissed.

Best Regards

John
   17. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 13, 2007 at 01:51 PM (#2333956)
I'm really struggling to see why this article was posted here.
   18. Charles S. will not yield to this monkey court Posted: April 13, 2007 at 02:00 PM (#2333960)
I'm really struggling to see why this article was posted here.

I don't know either, but John's post #17 made it worth it. Well done.
   19. salvomania Posted: April 13, 2007 at 03:03 PM (#2334002)
"Don't blame me. I told you I had to go outside."

Don't cat owners still use litter boxes?
   20. Flynn Posted: April 13, 2007 at 03:10 PM (#2334014)
Steak knives were involved in the posting of this article.
   21. HowardMegdal Posted: April 13, 2007 at 03:14 PM (#2334017)
"Don't cat owners still use litter boxes?"

Don't judge our humanity by this one former minor leaguer. We use toilets.
   22. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: April 13, 2007 at 03:29 PM (#2334031)
We find the defendant innocent on all charges--case dismissed.

Not quite. We find the defendant guilty of ten counts of harboring a deranged feline, and sentence him to one million hours of community service, to be served at the local SPCA.
   23. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: April 13, 2007 at 03:31 PM (#2334032)
Don't cat owners still use litter boxes?


I have a small lined one made of pine with brass handles that I can't wait to put the cat in.

Although I thought the box was to be placed on the litter to be hauled to the hole I have waiting in the back yard.

P.S. Yes, senor stupidhead has a box but he prefers to go outside. One day he's gonna find his Litter Green turned to Litter-Black-and-Blue.

Best Regards

John
   24. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: April 13, 2007 at 03:31 PM (#2334034)
#17: makes you wonder what the Egyptians were thinking, doesn't it?
   25. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: April 13, 2007 at 03:35 PM (#2334039)
#17: makes you wonder what the Egyptians were thinking, doesn't it?


By the same token it explains why God had no mention of the domesticated cat put in scripture.

Would you own up to something like that?

Best Regards

John
   26. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: April 13, 2007 at 03:36 PM (#2334042)
Come on, Kevin Mitchell should be known as more than a "former Met minor leaguer"
   27. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: April 13, 2007 at 03:56 PM (#2334055)
See, us Asians would have eaten the cat, thus eliminating the evidence.
   28. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: April 13, 2007 at 04:36 PM (#2334085)
eaten the cat


Is that what's they're calling it these days?

Best Regards

John
   29. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: April 13, 2007 at 04:45 PM (#2334093)
My cat likes to sleep on my pillow adn really isn't content until he's sprawled out on the entire pillow exiling my head to a tiny corner of my girlfriend's pillow. I wouldn't put up with him except that if he doesn't get his way he howls in a voice louder than Larry Bowa's.

That said, this guy should be sentenced to 25 kicks in the testicles daily for the rest of his life. F####### piece of ####.
   30. robinred Posted: April 13, 2007 at 04:48 PM (#2334098)
Brattain is always funny, but I don't think some shithead beating a domestic animal to death because he's pissed off about his gf is really much of a hoot. I adopted an abandoned cat recently, and I like cats.
   31. xbhaskarx Posted: April 13, 2007 at 04:51 PM (#2334100)
Petcka's PECOTA projection has him killing three cats this year.
   32. Mister High Standards Posted: April 13, 2007 at 04:57 PM (#2334107)
That said, this guy should be sentenced to 25 kicks in the testicles daily for the rest of his life. F####### piece of ####.


overreact much?
   33. HowardMegdal Posted: April 13, 2007 at 04:58 PM (#2334109)
"Brattain is always funny, but I don't think some shithead beating a domestic animal to death because he's pissed off about his gf is really much of a hoot. I adopted an abandoned cat recently, and I like cats."

I didn't take John's monologue as a tacit endorsement of the guy.

I love my cats, and the fact that one of them is huge allows me to test out fat jokes before I take them on the road.
   34. PETCO Thread Posted: April 13, 2007 at 05:01 PM (#2334113)
Is this in any way related to the PETCO thread?

Let me state clearly for the record, no. I know that this is going to probably start some sort of ridiculous debate, but I really doubt this thread will prove to be any competition to me.
   35. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: April 13, 2007 at 05:11 PM (#2334120)
"Brattain is always funny, but I don't think some shithead beating a domestic animal to death because he's pissed off about his gf is really much of a hoot. I adopted an abandoned cat recently, and I like cats."


I have two cats and have steadfastedly refused to give in to their pleas for physical abuse so I think my POV is pretty clear on how I feel about the physical abuse of animals.

Besides its far more fun messin' with what passes for their minds. Sometimes it can be funny and economical. I saved a bunch of neutering costs with the ol' mousetrap-buried-in-the-litterbox gag (of course fixing the dent in the ceiling cut into the savings a bit).

Best Regards

John
   36. robinred Posted: April 13, 2007 at 05:27 PM (#2334129)
I didn't take John's monologue as a tacit endorsement of the guy.

I know that. I meant the tone of the whole thread. I know jokes are more fun than 40 posts saying "This guy is an #######\" but this is not something that I personally like joking about. Just a personal sensibilities issue--not a value judgment.
   37. Doris from Rego Park Posted: April 13, 2007 at 05:37 PM (#2334134)
I adopted an abandoned baby recently, and I like babies.
   38. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: April 13, 2007 at 05:38 PM (#2334135)
but this is not something that I personally like joking about


Well, I don't think we're joking about this adipocere-for-brain's act as much as we're laughing at cats in general.

Nobody finds this dimwit funny. But cats are pretty freakin' hilarious.

Best Regards

John
   39. HowardMegdal Posted: April 13, 2007 at 05:39 PM (#2334138)
"I know that. I meant the tone of the whole thread. I know jokes are more fun than 40 posts saying "This guy is an #######" but this is not something that I personally like joking about. Just a personal sensibilities issue--not a value judgment."

That's fair. My wife knows not to repeat any stories about animal abuse to me, because they upset me too much. My tendency in the face of such things is to joke. So I can directly relate on both counts here.
   40. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: April 13, 2007 at 05:40 PM (#2334140)
overreact much?

Nope. I think I'm underreacting. How many times do you think he had to hit the cat to kill it? Once? twice? 3 times? 4 times? Did he keep hitting it after it lost consciousness just to make sure?

Make it 30 kicks in the testicles everyday.
   41. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: April 13, 2007 at 05:46 PM (#2334144)
Well, I don't think we're joking about this adipocere-for-brain's act as much as we're laughing at cats in general.

Nobody finds this dimwit funny. But cats are pretty freakin' hilarious.


I agree that cats are good for comedy. I'm a recent cat owner and I wonder now how I stood the boredom of not having one for so many years.
   42. Sam M. Posted: April 13, 2007 at 05:49 PM (#2334149)
I am totally in favor of jokes about cats in general, and even more in favor of throwing the proverbial book at this evil, pathetic excuse for a human being.

That said, the one thing that cannot be allowed to let pass without comment in this thread is this:

I think being forced to appear as a male in "Sex and the City" should be a mitigating factor in any judgment.

Not. Awesome show, and Petcka's having had the privilege of appearing in it should actually be an aggravating factor. If he couldn't have his moral sensitivity raised by Sex and the City, then nothing is going to help the SOB. Lock him up, throw away the key.
   43. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: April 13, 2007 at 05:50 PM (#2334152)
I adopted an abandoned baby recently, and I like babies.

Fava beans...Chianti...mmmmmmmm, babies...
   44. base ball chick Posted: April 13, 2007 at 05:55 PM (#2334155)
can we call this the pet-GO thread?


robin,

cmon, everybody really making fun of the sick POS who do something like that.

- and just because you do a comedy routine about cats don't hardly mean you are this advocate for being a POS.

- i write about how my kidz drive me krazy (mamiiiiiiii - ida wanna be good how come i haftaaaaaaaaa boo don't hafta do not do TOO DO NOT DO TOO)or stupid brotherz (lookit baby sister my leg pouring blood gimme some kleenex and a bandaid ida wanna go to the ER no no noooooo they gonna give me a shot), crazy gf (well i know my bf just got this other grrrl pregnant, but i love him and he neeeeds me he don't got a job how can i throw his fine azz out?), unmoveable husband (boy go answer the door i'm in the middle of cooking dinner and i'm trying to get dogs out the kitchen - aw baby i juuuuust sat down you git it) &*%$^! parents who wont take there meds and wonder why they feel like ^%&#) but hey, i disbelieve in acting out violence. sometimes humor is what you need to not kick the cat you see what i'm saying

and me i personally detest cats but i wouldn't never do such an evil thing. and i wouldn't have nothing to do with someone who did
   45. robinred Posted: April 13, 2007 at 06:09 PM (#2334168)
robin,

cmon, everybody really making fun of the sick POS who do something like that.



Sure. Like I said, I'm not judging. There is stuff I think is funny that others wouldn't, I'm sure.

But I see it more in these terms:

Shooty opens a kumquatatorium Posted: April 13, 2007 at 01:40 PM (#2334140)


How many times do you think he had to hit the cat to kill it? Once? twice? 3 times? 4 times? Did he keep hitting it after it lost consciousness just to make sure?


Than in terms of something to kid about.
   46. HowardMegdal Posted: April 13, 2007 at 06:14 PM (#2334170)
And I can't even read that description without becoming ill. Just went over and picked up each of my cats after reading it.

I don't know, maybe reading a description like that would affect a monster who would do such a thing. I'm guessing not.
   47. HowardMegdal Posted: April 13, 2007 at 06:17 PM (#2334172)
"Not. Awesome show, and Petcka's having had the privilege of appearing in it should actually be an aggravating factor. If he couldn't have his moral sensitivity raised by Sex and the City, then nothing is going to help the SOB. Lock him up, throw away the key."

Help me out here Sam- why do you think this is so? I've watched this show, disliked it intensely, then tried again with my wife, who loves the show. You really think this is raising anyone's consciousness? She enjoys the show immensely, but agrees that those who take it seriously and try to learn from it are making a HUGE mistake.
   48. HowardMegdal Posted: April 13, 2007 at 06:18 PM (#2334174)
"Not. Awesome show, and Petcka's having had the privilege of appearing in it should actually be an aggravating factor. If he couldn't have his moral sensitivity raised by Sex and the City, then nothing is going to help the SOB. Lock him up, throw away the key."

Help me out here, Sam. Why do you like this show? We agree on so much...
   49. robinred Posted: April 13, 2007 at 06:21 PM (#2334176)
Help me out here, Sam. Why do you like this show?


Becuase the guys on it are better looking than the women?
   50. HowardMegdal Posted: April 13, 2007 at 06:22 PM (#2334177)
Ah, so the first post DID go through...
   51. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: April 13, 2007 at 06:23 PM (#2334178)
Not. Awesome show, and Petcka's having had the privilege of appearing in it should actually be an aggravating factor. If he couldn't have his moral sensitivity raised by Sex and the City, then nothing is going to help the SOB. Lock him up, throw away the key.

Agreed. And my GF and I are going to throw in the DVD and find out who this guy is.

If anyone is interested (probably not many): Season 4, Episode 5, Character "Sean Sullivan"
   52. CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck Posted: April 13, 2007 at 06:24 PM (#2334179)
The only thing keeping Sam from Most-Favored Poster Status is his stand on Sex and the City.
   53. robinred Posted: April 13, 2007 at 06:30 PM (#2334185)
I work with a lot of women (and in the past with one gay man who has moved on to another school) who love Sex and the City so I have checked it out--3-4 eps. I thought it was kind of interesting, but not really funny and not interesting enough to overcome that (of course, I really like The Shield, so I am not a good target audience, perhaps--although, in a way, come to think of it, there are a few parallels there). Having spent my entire professional life in environments that are about 60-65% female, and having listened to them a lot, I could see why women identify with it. I would, like Howard, also be interested in hearing why Sam is into it.
   54. Dewey, Crackpot and Soupuss Posted: April 13, 2007 at 06:31 PM (#2334186)
I don't think "Sex and the City" is as terrible as a lot of guys think it is, but having seen a few episodes, I don't know how it would raise anyone's moral sensitivity. It's not really a show about morals.
   55. Perro(s) Posted: April 13, 2007 at 06:48 PM (#2334198)
come to think of it, there are a few parallels there

There was a cat killing in one ep, but the cat/human torture/killing ratio is about 1/1000, so it didn't really stick out.

Finally pulled up the story, and I won't reprint the gory details of what he did to the cat, but the man is a psychopath who needs to serve serious time in jail for this act. He didn't just 'lose it' and accidentally kill the animal, but after fighting with the woman, came back the next day, and systematically killed it. They estimate the cat was in extreme pain for 15 minutes.

Previously, the guy was busted for beating up a girlfriend, including slamming her fingers in a door hard enough to sever one.

Hope he ends up an abused girlfriend.
   56. base ball chick Posted: April 13, 2007 at 07:02 PM (#2334211)
sex and the city

hmmmmmmm

well, i think that most males don't like it because even though the females are, um, people who like to have sex, and with lots of men - and some of the men are not exactly hot - the real point of the show is that men come and go. they wear out, fall out of fashion, don't go with your new outfits. like shoes. and what is really the glue of your life is your unbreakable/unshakeable love-friendship with your gf. that in the end, there IS no such thing as a "relationship" with any man. just sex.

it is worse than losing your woman to a hotter richer smarter cooler guy with a bigger youknowwhat

- smile

i like the show my own self. even though i don't exactly relate to perfectly dressed rich single white females living in nyc with glamorous jobs going to expensive restaraunts and clubs with lots of hot young guys.

husband does NOT like the show at all. so i don't watch it with him. just gets him in a bad mood.
   57. The Original SJ Posted: April 13, 2007 at 07:06 PM (#2334214)
We were talking about something similar in the lounge last night, I brought up this sick bastard.
   58. Honkie Kong Posted: April 13, 2007 at 07:14 PM (#2334224)
I always thought Sex and the city was Seinfeld for women. Never personally got into the show, never held my attention
   59. Dewey, Crackpot and Soupuss Posted: April 13, 2007 at 07:28 PM (#2334235)
well, i think that most males don't like it because even though the females are, um, people who like to have sex, and with lots of men - and some of the men are not exactly hot - the real point of the show is that men come and go. they wear out, fall out of fashion, don't go with your new outfits. like shoes. and what is really the glue of your life is your unbreakable/unshakeable love-friendship with your gf. that in the end, there IS no such thing as a "relationship" with any man. just sex.

FWIW, I don't like "Entourage", either, which is basically just "Sex and the City" for men.
   60. Sam M. Posted: April 13, 2007 at 07:29 PM (#2334237)
Help me out here Sam- why do you think this is so?

Several reasons. It shows that men and women are a lot more alike than we pretend when it comes to sex and love and desire. It shows that there is sometimes a price to be paid for bad behavior (e.g., Carrie's betrayal of Aiden), and a reward for good behavior (e.g., Miranda ends up happy with Steve). But it also shows that sometimes random crap happens, regardless of good or bad or moral or immoral. And ain't that the truth? I think the show was terrific in making me just care about the people who were central in it, even when from time to time I didn't like them much, and that's saying something.

The show admired independence, at least most of the way, until at the end when it pandered to the sense that its audience wanted a "happy" ending for each woman, and so they had to all be with a guy when the show closed its run. For most of the time, though, they were each OK with having men in their lives, but not driven to need ONE MAN to make their life complete or happy. They had careers, they had friends (male and female), and they had passions. Very few shows have even one such complete character, much less one such complete female character, much less FOUR of them. Hurrah!
   61. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: April 13, 2007 at 07:34 PM (#2334240)
As ever, Sam M. nails it.
   62. Perro(s) Posted: April 13, 2007 at 07:41 PM (#2334242)
Good synopsis, Sam. I've watched the show a few times and doubt I'll ever be a fan, but those two points -- that sexual relationships are fragile/unstable and that it's important to place at least as much value or more on friends, careers, and passions are good ones. At least don't toss those things overboard for sex and romance.

Women are more susceptible to doing so, but I know I've made that mistake myself.
   63. vortex of dissipation Posted: April 13, 2007 at 07:41 PM (#2334243)
there IS no such thing as a "relationship" with any man. just sex.


Well, no. My best friend for the last 20 years has been a woman, and it's been strictly a platonic relationship..
   64. SMK Posted: April 13, 2007 at 07:41 PM (#2334244)
I couldn't agree more with Sam. Bravo!
   65. HowardMegdal Posted: April 13, 2007 at 07:44 PM (#2334247)
"Several reasons. It shows that men and women are a lot more alike than we pretend when it comes to sex and love and desire."

Don't see this at all. Basically, nearly every male character in the show, including recurring ones, aren't remotely interested in the same things- in fact, nearly all of them have unforgiveable fatal flaws that render any attempt to get love or sex from the main characters to be shameful.

"It shows that there is sometimes a price to be paid for bad behavior (e.g., Carrie's betrayal of Aiden), and a reward for good behavior (e.g., Miranda ends up happy with Steve)."

Help me out here- Miranda was good to Steve? Really? Also, Carrie ends up with the guy she betrayed Aiden for- this is the price "she paid? Smiling and walking happily down the street? And finally knowing her lover's first name?

"But it also shows that sometimes random crap happens, regardless of good or bad or moral or immoral. And ain't that the truth?"

Yes, but is this particularly groundbreaking?

"I think the show was terrific in making me just care about the people who were central in it, even when from time to time I didn't like them much, and that's saying something."

Sam, these people were not people- they were cartoon characters. Contrast their depth with a show like Mary Tyler Moore. It's not even close, and the Sex writers had none of the restrictions MTM's did on network TV in the '70s.

"The show admired independence, at least most of the way, until at the end when it pandered to the sense that its audience wanted a "happy" ending for each woman, and so they had to all be with a guy when the show closed its run."

The independence, which manifested itself in proving that pretty much all men are scum, while the women who act "badly" are given a free pass, except for Carrie, who gets away with it anyway because she ends up happy?

"For most of the time, though, they were each OK with having men in their lives, but not driven to need ONE MAN to make their life complete or happy."

Sure seems more like they were driven to have that man, but man after man was criminally inept at satisfying.

"They had careers, they had friends (male and female), and they had passions. Very few shows have even one such complete character, much less one such complete female character, much less FOUR of them. Hurrah!"

If you can tell me honestly that you know anybody like any of the four characters, then kudos to you. No woman I know is less than an amalgamation of the four, and I'm not excited about a show where it takes four characters to make up one I'd actually care about.

And none of this takes into account the writing, where virtually every joke is so telegraphed, anyone could write the punch lines.

Calling this Seinfeld for Women is as misogynistic as anything Don Imus ever said. Seinfeld was a well-written show. I believe women know the difference.

Put it this way- a show which treated women the way Sex treated men would never get on the air, and if it did, would be panned universally. No one would be talking up its artistic merit.
   66. Dewey, Crackpot and Soupuss Posted: April 13, 2007 at 07:50 PM (#2334250)
Put it this way- a show which treated women the way Sex treated men would never get on the air, and if it did, would be panned universally. No one would be talking up its artistic merit.

Do you disagree with my assessment of "Entourage", above? Or does that get a pass because it's HBO?
   67. HowardMegdal Posted: April 13, 2007 at 07:55 PM (#2334254)
"Do you disagree with my assessment of "Entourage", above? Or does that get a pass because it's HBO?"

To be fair, I haven't seen the show. But let me just elaborate on that point- not panned overall, but a show which reversed field wouldn't be praised for its relationship portrayals, or said to have any higher moral truths, and to the extent that said show did have its portrayal dissected, it would be to criticize.

It is not my understanding that anyone is pointing to Entourage for truths about interpersonal romance.
   68. Dewey, Crackpot and Soupuss Posted: April 13, 2007 at 07:58 PM (#2334257)
I guess "Sex and the City" was HBO, too, now that I think about it.
   69. base ball chick Posted: April 13, 2007 at 07:58 PM (#2334258)
vortex,

i don't mean that there IS no such thing as a relationship with a man where you really do have the same sort of emotional bond that the females in the show had with each other. or even a no sex friendship with any man straight or gay.

i meant that that is why i think that most men who don't like the show don't like the show.

- and i didin't like the ending neither. did not go with the characters and i don't need a show "wrapped all up" with a romance ending.

but you are lucky your wife can deal with you having a platonic female best friend. i am not sure i could really handle husband having a real close female friend. and i KNOW he can't handle me having a close male friend.
   70. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 13, 2007 at 08:02 PM (#2334263)
overreact much?

I'm betting that cats aren't much interested in standng up for the National Anthem ...
   71. Sam M. Posted: April 13, 2007 at 08:09 PM (#2334269)
Basically, nearly every male character in the show, including recurring ones, aren't remotely interested in the same things- in fact, nearly all of them have unforgiveable fatal flaws that render any attempt to get love or sex from the main characters to be shameful.

That is completely false. In fact, probably the three most admirable characters in the show -- the ones with the fewest flaws -- were Aiden, Steve, and Harry. And you could really add Jarrett to that as the fourth most admirable. The guys that Charlotte, Miranda, and Samantha ended up with (and the guy Carrie betrayed) were the best people on the show. Hell, even Trey was a good guy who just happened to have a sexual problem. Only Big, Richard, and Alexandr had big-time fatal flaws.

Help me out here- Miranda was good to Steve? Really? Also, Carrie ends up with the guy she betrayed Aiden for- this is the price "she paid? Smiling and walking happily down the street? And finally knowing her lover's first name?

Miranda was ultimately good to Steve, yes. What message did the show send? When she sacrified her own personal desires by moving out of Manhattan for the sake of her family, and was willing to let Steve's mother move in with them, she found true and greater happiness. Was she good to Steve all along? No, but then again, how many of us are? And no, Carrie didn't burn in eternal hellfires for her affair. But she did lose Aiden, who tried to forgive her but ultimately realized it couldn't work. And the show did an excellent job of showing her being ostracized and feeling very much like the worst human being in New York for what she'd done. She didn't end up with Big until several seasons later -- which, by the way, was an ending I hated.

The independence, which manifested itself in proving that pretty much all men are scum, while the women who act "badly" are given a free pass, except for Carrie, who gets away with it anyway because she ends up happy?

As I said, you really weren't paying enough attention if you think Sex and the City showed that "all men are scum." A lot of the men were actually terrific guys.
   72. Srul Itza Posted: April 13, 2007 at 08:12 PM (#2334273)
Where are the decent, down-to-earth hardworking folks who are really the ones who make that town tick?

Queens
   73. base ball chick Posted: April 13, 2007 at 08:13 PM (#2334274)
HowardMegdal Posted: April 13, 2007 at 03:44 PM (#2334247)

Basically, nearly every male character in the show, including recurring ones, aren't remotely interested in the same things- in fact, nearly all of them have unforgiveable fatal flaws that render any attempt to get love or sex from the main characters to be shameful.

- agree


Help me out here- Miranda was good to Steve?
- uhhh, no
she was a ***** to him most of the time
and the getting back together part was one of the end of the series things that was just too stupid.

Really? Also, Carrie ends up with the guy she betrayed Aiden for- this is the price "she paid? Smiling and walking happily down the street? And finally knowing her lover's first name?

- more bullstuff ending. they should have let it be. because truth is that aiden really WAS "everything she wanted" and she didn't want it. with big, she ends up with the good without the bad. which is really against everything the show said about whwt women want from men.



"The show admired independence, at least most of the way, until at the end when it pandered to the sense that its audience wanted a "happy" ending for each woman, and so they had to all be with a guy when the show closed its run."

The independence, which manifested itself in proving that pretty much all men are scum, while the women who act "badly" are given a free pass, except for Carrie, who gets away with it anyway because she ends up happy?


- well she ends up happy until the first time big cheats on HER. which we didn't get to see the sequel.

"For most of the time, though, they were each OK with having men in their lives, but not driven to need ONE MAN to make their life complete or happy."

Sure seems more like they were driven to have that man, but man after man was criminally inept at satisfying.


- yep. because there is no such thing as a perfect man. there really isn't. but they couldn't never take what was good about any man, and deal with the bad that always go along with it. because the perfect man who don't exist is a cartoon character too.



If you can tell me honestly that you know anybody like any of the four characters, then kudos to you. No woman I know is less than an amalgamation of the four, and I'm not excited about a show where it takes four characters to make up one I'd actually care about.

- i got a gf and a cousin JUST like samantha. not as old. not as rich. but the exact same thinking that men are just for sex and you get tired of em quick and time ot move on.


Calling this Seinfeld for Women is as misogynistic as anything Don Imus ever said. Seinfeld was a well-written show. I believe women know the difference.

- well, some of us women think that seinfeld was not well written and not funny. at ALL.

Put it this way- a show which treated women the way Sex treated men would never get on the air, and if it did, would be panned universally. No one would be talking up its artistic merit.

- you ever seen a whole lot of rap videos?
- or entourage?
   74. CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck Posted: April 13, 2007 at 08:13 PM (#2334275)
Appear.
   75. robinred Posted: April 13, 2007 at 08:26 PM (#2334285)
Where are the decent, down-to-earth hardworking folks who are really the ones who make that town tick?

On The King of Queens? SITC wasn't about that. That is sort of like saying "Where are the intellectuals in My Name is Earl?"

I have to say, some of the irritation men are expressing here may be a clue as to why women liked it. The shows I saw--well, it wasn't my thing, but I thought there was a certain depth of character there if you looked for it, and some decent dry comedy with a hint of satire. I do agree, though, that, at least in the ones I saw, there were no real positive "messages" per se and I found none of the four characters to be likable. the three women I work with here who REALLY liked it are all smart women, but a little shallow in some ways, and often bag heavily on men--like the women on the show.
   76. robinred Posted: April 13, 2007 at 08:27 PM (#2334286)
Posted 77 before I read 74.
   77. robinred Posted: April 13, 2007 at 08:32 PM (#2334290)
Getting back to the cat-killing: I actually read the article before the thread--and like Whizzinator said, reading what the #### did to the cat, well, hard to joke after that.
   78. base ball chick Posted: April 13, 2007 at 08:37 PM (#2334293)
gef the talking mongoose Posted: April 13, 2007 at 04:02 PM (#2334263)

overreact much?

I'm betting that cats aren't much interested in standng up for the National Anthem ...


oooooooooh

ME OWWWWWWW
   79. Dewey, Crackpot and Soupuss Posted: April 13, 2007 at 08:37 PM (#2334297)
The shows I saw--well, it wasn't my thing, but I thought there was a certain depth of character there if you looked for it, and some decent dry comedy with a hint of satire. I do agree, though, that, at least in the ones I saw, there were no real positive "messages" per se and I found none of the four characters to be likable.

Ditto. I thought the show was fairly well-written, and clever, just not my thing.

I never got the violent reactions against it, but I never thought the show was particularly profound or ground-breaking.
   80. robinred Posted: April 13, 2007 at 08:45 PM (#2334302)
I'm betting that cats aren't much interested in standng up for the National Anthem ...

Also, the cat was a longhair.

Now, I have made a lame joke, about it, too. Typical.
   81. robinred Posted: April 13, 2007 at 09:01 PM (#2334310)
Ditto. I thought the show was fairly well-written, and clever, just not my thing.

I would say this about Seinfeld as well. In one respect, sitcom comedy (or all comedy) often allows you to feel superior to the characters involved (Jim Ignatowksi, Kramer, George, Ralph Kramden, Homer Simpson, Lucy etc)--but if the characters are thin, moneyed, well-dressed, women, rather than poor fat guys, bald guys and weirdos, the feeling of superiority tends to manifest as sneering contempt (like kevin) rather than as good-natured sympathy. This is why Lucy--a pretty good-looking woman--had to get into such SILLY scrapes--so you could still feel superior. So, with the superiority manifesting differently, you need to identify, and few men could identify with SITC cahracters, so well...

I mean, the whole basis of the show is fatuous. Carrie is writing a column on how to manage relationships? She doesn't know thing 1 about managing a relationship.

Well, I would say that was the basis of the comedy in part, and also was how you were supposed to identify. In the ones I saw, Carrie came off as kind of shallow and fussy, but basically good-hearted, introspective at a certain level and ultimately very concerned with her friends' welfare.
   82. Perro(s) Posted: April 13, 2007 at 09:07 PM (#2334313)
Did any of the women on the show own a cat?

Seems to recall a dog-as-man-substitute ep.
   83. Dewey, Crackpot and Soupuss Posted: April 13, 2007 at 09:14 PM (#2334316)
the feeling of superiority tends to manifest as sneering contempt (like kevin) rather than as good-natured sympathy. This is why Lucy--a pretty good-looking woman--had to get into such SILLY scrapes--so you could still feel superior. So, with the superiority manifesting differently, you need to identify, and few men could identify with SITC cahracters, so well...

An excellent point. In most comedies, wealthy, attractive people who think they're smart are objects of derision, to be torn down (unless of course they're mannequins meant to provide a love interest to the REAL main characters). Oliver Hardy thought he was much smarter than Stan Laurel, but he was always the butt of the joke. The Marx Brothers specialised in deflating pompous characters. Jack Benny made a career out of being pompous and getting made to look foolish by the characters around him.

The "Sex and the City" characters, on the other hand, aren't really made to look foolish. Despite being rather pompous themselves, they're the heroines, not the butt of the jokes. Even if they suffer a setback or two during the course of the show, by the end, everything is back to normal.
   84. The Bones McCoy of THT Posted: April 13, 2007 at 09:16 PM (#2334318)
I wonder if PETA ever got around to making that documentary about the ACFA called "Sex 'N The Kitty."

<rim shot>

Best Regards

John
   85. Srul Itza Posted: April 13, 2007 at 10:10 PM (#2334346)
I mean, the whole basis of the show is fatuous. Carrie is writing a column on how to manage relationships? She doesn't know thing 1 about managing a relationship.

Dude, it's a sitcom, not a documentary. Next thing you know, you're going to complain that Homer Simpson is unqualified to work around a nuclear reactor.

Seinfeld at least had the absurd predicaments going for it.

The next time I laugh at something on Seinfeld will be the first time. And I am probably the target audience.

I had the same problem with Seinfeld as with Sex and the City -- I could not find myself giving a damn about any of the protagonists (and 90% of the supporting characters), so I had no interest in seeing what was happening to them; and it was not funny enough to keep me tuned in just to see things happen TO them.
   86. CrosbyBird Posted: April 13, 2007 at 10:25 PM (#2334356)
but if the characters are thin, moneyed, well-dressed, women, rather than poor fat guys, bald guys and weirdos, the feeling of superiority tends to manifest as sneering contempt (like kevin) rather than as good-natured sympathy.

George inspires sympathy? Jerry?

The thing about Seinfeld is that well before the final episode (also crappy), it was plenty clear that all four main characters were selfish, petty, troubled people who generally got what they deserved whenever things went wrong. The problems they have are almost always due to their own actions.

My ex used to watch Sex In the City over and over, and I saw almost every episode over a few years. It really is a great show on many levels, some of which I appreciate (there has never been a show in which the location was so incredibly important; it could not be set in Paris, or LA, or Chicago... it had to be NY and the city itself was a character) and some of which I did not even though I understand why many do (the role of fashion in the show).

Until the garbage final episode, everything was less important than the friendship between the 4 women, and that in itself is a great story. Those women had a friendship that transcended their tremendous differences. It's why the final episode was so terrible: it shifted emphasis from how they had fulfillment in each other to being fulfilled by relationships with men.
   87. greenback likes millwall Posted: April 13, 2007 at 10:29 PM (#2334362)
Getting back to the cat-killing: I actually read the article before the thread--and like Whizzinator said, reading what the #### did to the cat, well, hard to joke after that.


I appreciate this information. I have two cats, so I'll skip this article.
   88. CrosbyBird Posted: April 13, 2007 at 10:40 PM (#2334369)
I had the same problem with Seinfeld as with Sex and the City -- I could not find myself giving a damn about any of the protagonists (and 90% of the supporting characters), so I had no interest in seeing what was happening to them; and it was not funny enough to keep me tuned in just to see things happen TO them.

That, to me, is part of Seinfeld's charm. It was one of the first shows where the characters, by design, are inherently unlikable. Seinfeld is a tough horse to jump onto, though. As the episodes progress, it is taken for granted that you've seen the ones that come before. Curb Your Enthusiasm does the same thing, perhaps even more so.
   89. robinred Posted: April 13, 2007 at 10:46 PM (#2334371)
George inspires sympathy? Jerry?

I left Jerry off my list--and Elaine. They are a different kind of character than Gerorge or Kramer, and also than the SITC women. I've seen Seinfeld maybe 5 times; George was a fat, short, bald bumbler. Annoying as hell, maybe--but hardly a threat. You may not feel sorry for him in the sense you would if he were a true victim, but if you don't like him, your reaction is going to be different than it would be to not liking a thin, hot, pompous (good point by JRE in 86) blonde in expensive clothes. To put it in baseball terms, it is sort of like the difference in a sitcom about John Kruk and a sitcom about Derek Jeter.

Kristen Davis is the only one of the four on SITC that I personally think is pretty, BTW--I am speaking generally. SJP and Cattrall never did much for me, although I think they are both OK as actresses. I am sure they would both be heartbroken if they knew.
   90. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 13, 2007 at 10:47 PM (#2334372)
I have two cats, so I'll skip this article.

It's short, anyway. Thankfully.

This ####### prick should get 1 year's full time community service at the local ASPCA. He should have to clean up after cats every single day. He should have to feed them every day. And he should have to be present when the ASPCA workers euthanize healthy kittens due to over crowded facilities, just to see the anguish these workers go through during those times.

This story is sickening.
   91. robinred Posted: April 13, 2007 at 10:54 PM (#2334379)
This ####### prick should get 1 year's full time community service at the local ASPCA.

I think he should do a little jail time, too. And, looking at his record, and the pre-mediated nature of this, I think he will.
   92. robinred Posted: April 13, 2007 at 11:01 PM (#2334381)
meditated
   93. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 13, 2007 at 11:29 PM (#2334403)
I think he should do a little jail time, too. And, looking at his record, and the pre-mediated nature of this, I think he will.

That would be nice. Becoming an inmate's ##### might be a just punishment.
   94. HowardMegdal Posted: April 14, 2007 at 03:03 AM (#2334581)
"Dude, it's a sitcom, not a documentary. Next thing you know, you're going to complain that Homer Simpson is unqualified to work around a nuclear reactor."

But that is the essence of the humor. We're supposed to take her columns as the lessons out of the shows.

"That is completely false. In fact, probably the three most admirable characters in the show -- the ones with the fewest flaws -- were Aiden, Steve, and Harry. And you could really add Jarrett to that as the fourth most admirable. The guys that Charlotte, Miranda, and Samantha ended up with (and the guy Carrie betrayed) were the best people on the show. Hell, even Trey was a good guy who just happened to have a sexual problem. Only Big, Richard, and Alexandr had big-time fatal flaws."

Here's the thing, Sam- Steve is kicked around for five seasons. Aiden is kicked to the curb. Yes, Harry is portrayed as good- but out of necessity (in other words, his appearance is so ridiculed that he needs to be beyond decent for his character's relationship with Kristin Davis to make any sense at all). And Jarrett is basically a male model who turns out to be nice. Just the fact that he is nice is not really explored- it's supposed to be enough that he is.

But until the final season, essentially, only Aiden is portrayed as worthwhile- Harry is a diversion, Steve gets treated like crap for his troubles (and no one seems to have anything to say to their friend Miranda about it), and Jarrett is nowhere to be found.

INSTEAD, you have episode after episode with disposable men with something a little wrong or very wrong- off they go. Dozens of them.

Just because Sex tried to make itself redeemable by completely changing the character of the show at the very end so that some just men existed (something you acknowledged probably only happened for the sake of a happy ending) doesn't mean the sneering attitude toward men wasn't palpable in word and deed for seasons 1-5.

Eh, I'm part of the problem. I bought the complete series for my wife. What can I say? She loves it, and I love her.
   95. Raskolnikov Posted: April 14, 2007 at 03:25 AM (#2334588)
I think Petcka should be forced to watch all the seasons of Sex and the City as punishment.

Good grief, the show was mediocre at the beginning, peaked as decent in Seasons 2 and 3, and went downhill from there. It was the Juan Samuel of sitcoms. None of the characters were likeable except Aiden, and they dropped him by Season 3. Samatha is a completely soulless character, Charlotte is nuts, and Miranda and Carrie are full of themselves.

If anything, Sex and the City shows the hollowness of comtemporary yuppie life.
   96. SMK Posted: April 14, 2007 at 03:49 AM (#2334598)
I don't mean this in a snarky way, but reading this thread it struck me that there's something amusing about a group of straight (for the most part) men analyzing and critiquing Sex and the City.
   97. Sam M. Posted: April 14, 2007 at 04:07 AM (#2334604)
Here's the thing, Sam- Steve is kicked around for five seasons. Aiden is kicked to the curb. Yes, Harry is portrayed as good- but out of necessity (in other words, his appearance is so ridiculed that he needs to be beyond decent for his character's relationship with Kristin Davis to make any sense at all). And Jarrett is basically a male model who turns out to be nice. Just the fact that he is nice is not really explored- it's supposed to be enough that he is.

First of all, what you said earlier was that all of the men were portrayed as awful people with fatal flaws. That's very different from what you're saying now, which is that they were good (perhaps underexplained and sketchily developed, but good) and kicked around by the women.

Taking them in order. I guess reasonable minds can vary as to whether Stee was "kicked around for five seasons." In one sense, he was: he loved Miranda long before she loved him (or before she either realized she did, or was ready to commit to it). Welcome to life: it happens. That doesn't make Miranda a bad person; it makes her an interesting character and the relationship a somewhat realistic one -- it changed as each of them grew and changed, and they ultimately found their way together, in part because he never gave up. Good for him, good for them.

Aiden was kicked to the curb? Yes he was. Carrie hurt him, betrayed him. How many shows have the guts to take the central character and portray her doing what she did, make her so unsympathetic? It was riveting and brave and it worked -- the best story the show told. And if it made Carrie less of a good person as a whole, which it did, so be it. FWIW, I can almost never make it through the episode when Aiden ultimately breaks it off with her.

As for Harry and Smith Jarrett, I just disagree with you whether they were just overly nice and nothing more, for the sake of just being nice guys for Charlotte and Samantha to end up with. To the contrary, while neither one was as fully and completely drawn a character as the four women (duh), each was established as very much the opposite of what Charlotte and Sam expected to be drawn to in some significant way -- challenging their assumptions and the audience's expectations, too.
   98. CrosbyBird Posted: April 14, 2007 at 04:38 AM (#2334618)
each was established as very much the opposite of what Charlotte and Sam expected to be drawn to in some significant way -- challenging their assumptions and the audience's expectations, too.

Especially in contrast to the relationships that had come before, Samantha with Richard, and Charlotte with Trey. Both relationships seemed on the surface to be precisely the sort you'd pick for them; both ended in failure.
   99. Flynn Posted: April 14, 2007 at 05:42 AM (#2334668)
I'll agree with Sam that they did several things to make the four women unsympathetic characters from time to time. Carrie was flat out unlikeable for much of the show, and not just from a female perspective - I've talked about the show to several women who thought Carrie was a whiny brat.
   100. McCoy Posted: April 14, 2007 at 06:18 AM (#2334700)
I think the shield makes for an interesting comparison. Having never seen Entourage I can't say anything about it. But in the very first episode of the Shield the lead character kills a cop. A cop who for the most part was doing his job. You quickly realize that the 4 main characters are for the most part bad guys and bad human beings in general. Sure Lem is the best of the bunch and is constantly battling with his conscience but even he doesn't always play by the rules and they end up killing him for his troubles. Yes despite the evilness of the main characters you root for them and hope they overcome the obstacles that are put in front of them.

So far the Shield is one of those rare shows that doesn't let me down season after season. The Glenn Close episodes might have been a bit weak but other then that season they have all been exciting seasons. Very few shows have been able to pull that off past a couple of seasons and Sheild is on what their 5th season? Sopranos hasn't been good since the Pine Barrens season, OZ went into the crapper when they killed off Adibese. Some of the early Simpsons stuff, back when they were trying to do the standard morals lesson in every episode, I find is unwatchable.

Hopefully Venture Bros will match the Shield in longevity and greatness.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
1k5v3L
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(329 - 10:17pm, Apr 18)
Last: Manny Coon

NewsblogPirates Acquire Ike Davis From Mets
(12 - 10:15pm, Apr 18)
Last: billyshears

NewsblogOMNICHATTER FOR APRIL 18, 2014
(138 - 10:13pm, Apr 18)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(899 - 10:11pm, Apr 18)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogEscape from Cuba: Yasiel Puig’s Untold Journey to the Dodgers
(23 - 10:07pm, Apr 18)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(324 - 10:04pm, Apr 18)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(79 - 10:00pm, Apr 18)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(142 - 9:36pm, Apr 18)
Last: Langer Monk

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1676 - 9:25pm, Apr 18)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogMitchell: Now Playing First Base for the Yankees
(53 - 8:09pm, Apr 18)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogRB: Carlos Beltran: more of a center fielder than Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb or Duke Snider. So what?
(32 - 7:39pm, Apr 18)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogFletcher: Foes have slowed Trout in one category so far - steals
(7 - 7:22pm, Apr 18)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-18-2014
(29 - 7:10pm, Apr 18)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogGleeman: Mets minor league team is hosting “Seinfeld night”
(153 - 7:00pm, Apr 18)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogNightengale: Pujols nears 500 home runs...and no one seems to care
(82 - 6:18pm, Apr 18)
Last: Rob_Wood

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.0562 seconds
52 querie(s) executed