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, October 23, 2009

Keith Law Chat: The David Wright/Jose Cruz Jr. trade that never happened

Are you the two biggest idiots ever?

Eddie (Milwaukee)


What was Steve Phillips thinking? Almost trading a 19 year old David Wright for Jose Cruz Jr.? Ridiculous.
Klaw
  (1:42 PM)


I’ve been asked about that trade rumor for three years but never answered while Ricciardi was still GM. The offer was made, though; I was there when the call came in. It was the first time I’d heard of Wright, since I wasn’t with Toronto in 2001 nor had I followed the draft when Wright was in it. JP’s reaction was, “I’m not trading a major league player for some guy in the Sally League.” And that was pretty much that. We had a chance to trade Cruz after that for Rafael Soriano, but JP refused to do it unless Seattle included Clint Nageotte, who, at the time, was a pretty hot prospect. It’s weird; I can’t remember some things that happened last week but I remember those conversations (over seven years ago now) like they just took place.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 23, 2009 at 02:14 PM | 144 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: blue jays, mets, rumors

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. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 23, 2009 at 04:57 PM (#3363872)
Way to do your homework guys. I'm not saying they should have known what Wright would become. But, "Never heard of him, pass" is not an acceptable answer for an MLB front office.
   2. JJ1986 Posted: October 23, 2009 at 05:03 PM (#3363882)
I never believed this story; I'm still not sure. Wright had been a supplemental pick a year earlier. That would be awfully early to give up on him.
   3. Mark S. is bored Posted: October 23, 2009 at 05:04 PM (#3363885)
I wouldn't believe it either, but it's been reported and confirmed by at least a couple sources already. The big question is who is stupider: Phillips for trying to trade him or JP for saying no.
   4. 8ball Posted: October 23, 2009 at 05:05 PM (#3363886)
Trading a guy to get a major leaguer who will help immediately, when you are in need of help at the major league level, isn't the same as "giving up on him."
   5. Dingbat_Charlie Posted: October 23, 2009 at 05:05 PM (#3363888)
poop.
   6. JJ1986 Posted: October 23, 2009 at 05:08 PM (#3363893)
Trading a guy to get a major leaguer who will help immediately, when you are in need of help at the major league level, isn't the same as "giving up on him."

It is if that's the first offer Phillips makes. He didn't offer a list of players or ask who JP wanted, he just came up with Wright on his own.
   7. RJ in TO Posted: October 23, 2009 at 05:10 PM (#3363898)
While it obviously wasn't a brilliant move to turn down the offer of Wright, it should be noted that the 2001 offseason was when the Jays had just finished a season with Eric Hinske as their RoY winning third baseman, and had already signed him to a 5 year extension. Back then, it didn't look at all like the Jays were going to need a 3B any time soon.
   8. Tom Nawrocki Posted: October 23, 2009 at 05:14 PM (#3363900)
But, "Never heard of him, pass" is not an acceptable answer for an MLB front office.


That's not what Law says. He says he hadn't heard of Wright before then, but he doesn't say that Ricciardi hadn't heard of him, or that they dismissed the trade offer out of hand without finding out more about Wright.
   9. 8ball Posted: October 23, 2009 at 05:16 PM (#3363902)
The big question is who is stupider: Phillips for trying to trade him or JP for saying no.


The timing is key, but if we assume this was in 2002 (when Wright was in the Sally League), I don't know that either g.m. was stupid.

Yes, in retrospect, that would have been a huge coup for the Blue Jays, but Wright at the time was a 19 year old third baseman in low-A. BA had him as the 10th best prospect in the Sally League, and the 4th best prospect in the Mets' system. Jose Cruz had a 30/30 season with an 857 OPS in 2001, and while 2002 was down from that, he was still a productive outfielder who could play all three outfield positions.
   10. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 23, 2009 at 05:27 PM (#3363911)
That's not what Law says. He says he hadn't heard of Wright before then, but he doesn't say that Ricciardi hadn't heard of him, or that they dismissed the trade offer out of hand without finding out more about Wright.

This strongly implies that they did:

JP’s reaction was, “I’m not trading a major league player for some guy in the Sally League.”
   11. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: October 23, 2009 at 05:31 PM (#3363918)
What was Steve Phillips thinking?


I think we know the answer to that after this week.
   12. Spahn Insane Posted: October 23, 2009 at 05:36 PM (#3363925)
What was Steve Phillips thinking?

I think we know the answer to that after this week.


David Wright may be a fine-looking man, but he's no Brooke Hundley.
   13. Alberto Gilardino Posted: October 23, 2009 at 05:49 PM (#3363933)
David Wright may be a fine-looking man, but he's no Brooke Hundley.

Wait, I thought Brooke Hundley was a fine-looking man.
   14. MM1f Posted: October 23, 2009 at 06:03 PM (#3363947)
I never believed this story; I'm still not sure. Wright had been a supplemental pick a year earlier. That would be awfully early to give up on him.

And Jose Cruz Jr was coming off a 34 HR season the year before.
Supplemental picks are nice but supplemental picks a long way from the majors are a dime a dozen. Wright's year in the SAL that season was good for a kid out of HS, and he showed plenty of potential, but hardly exceptional.

JP’s reaction was, “I’m not trading a major league player for some guy in the Sally League.”

I have a hard time believing ANY MLB GM would say this and mean it. Theres no way of verifying that quote and it seems Law doesn't lack for sour grapes. I can see an MLB GM saying that if he simply doesn't want the Sally Leaguer in question but even the most backwards SOB wouldn't categorically refuse to take any Sally Leaguer for any MLBer.
   15. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: October 23, 2009 at 06:10 PM (#3363953)
I don't think this is damning of either gm, really. I think it's just one of those what-if stories that are fun to hear about.
   16. Spahn Insane Posted: October 23, 2009 at 06:21 PM (#3363967)
Wait, I thought Brooke Hundley was a fine-looking man.

No, but she'd be a pretty cute elephant seal.
   17. SoSH U at work Posted: October 23, 2009 at 06:34 PM (#3363986)
I have a hard time believing ANY MLB GM would say this and mean it. Theres no way of verifying that quote and it seems Law doesn't lack for sour grapes. I can see an MLB GM saying that if he simply doesn't want the Sally Leaguer in question but even the most backwards SOB wouldn't categorically refuse to take any Sally Leaguer for any MLBer.


I'm not certain, based on that excerpt, that JP said it to Phillips, or just in a shooting the #### kind of way around the office once he had more politely rejected Phillips. Perhaps Keith will come around to clarify.
   18. GM Posted: October 23, 2009 at 06:36 PM (#3363989)
I don't think this is damning of either gm, really. I think it's just one of those what-if stories that are fun to hear about.

Not when one of them is an “expert” analyst on ESPN who loves to criticize the Mets.
   19. Mark S. is bored Posted: October 23, 2009 at 06:37 PM (#3363990)
I don't think this is damning of either gm, really. I think it's just one of those what-if stories that are fun to hear about.


It's a story that looks worse in retrospect then it did at the time.
   20. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 23, 2009 at 06:41 PM (#3363996)
I never believed this story; I'm still not sure. Wright had been a supplemental pick a year earlier. That would be awfully early to give up on him.

Tyler Ladendorf was 14 picks away from being a 2008 Supplementary pick and he was dealt this summer for Orlando Cabrera.
   21. Jeff K. Posted: October 23, 2009 at 06:42 PM (#3363999)
No, but she'd be a pretty cute elephant seal.

I guess, though I don't know what the rest of them look like. I don't think she'd be a particularly good one, though; she's got some heft on her, but enough to keep the elephants out? I don't see it.
   22. Swoboda is freedom Posted: October 23, 2009 at 06:43 PM (#3364003)
Brooke Hundley vs. Monica Lewinsky. If you had to, who do you choose?
   23. zonk Posted: October 23, 2009 at 06:50 PM (#3364006)
I don't think this is damning of either gm, really. I think it's just one of those what-if stories that are fun to hear about.


Agreed.

20/20 hindsight trades are the easiest to make.
   24. RJ in TO Posted: October 23, 2009 at 06:51 PM (#3364009)
Brooke Hundley vs. Monica Lewinsky. If you had to, who do you choose?


While she's not exactly a supermodel, I've never heard anyone describe Lewinsky as looking like an elephant seal.
   25. zonk Posted: October 23, 2009 at 06:52 PM (#3364011)
Brooke Hundley vs. Monica Lewinsky. If you had to, who do you choose?


Monica.

I have Lewinsky at -1 EORL, while I've got Hundley at -3.6 EORL.
   26. JJ1986 Posted: October 23, 2009 at 06:55 PM (#3364015)
Tyler Ladendorf was 14 picks away from being a 2008 Supplementary pick and he was dealt this summer for Orlando Cabrera.

I still think it sounds different, since JP had no interest in Wright and it was Phillips idea to trade him. I could be wrong.
   27. base ball chick Posted: October 23, 2009 at 07:17 PM (#3364040)
Swoboda is freedom Posted: October 23, 2009 at 02:43 PM (#3364003)

Brooke Hundley vs. Monica Lewinsky. If you had to, who do you choose?


- sigh

PUHLEEEEEEEZE

wouldn't none of all yall guys (not in a monagamous relationship already - giving you the benefit of the doubt) say no to neither one of em performing a sex act on you.

ain't real too many of yall got a woman who looks like a model/movie star
   28. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: October 23, 2009 at 07:29 PM (#3364049)
wouldn't none of all yall guys (not in a monagamous relationship already - giving you the benefit of the doubt) say no to neither one of em performing a sex act on you.

I would say no if I had no interest in the girl. There's no such thing as a sex act free and clear so it's gotta be worth the inevitable post-coital complications. I've actually turned down women many times when I was single. (I know, I know. But I'm serious!)
   29. base ball chick Posted: October 23, 2009 at 07:36 PM (#3364057)
well shooty

you are definitely the first single guy i have ever known would would turn down a, uh, upton (ahem) from a female who offered - or at least, who said so
   30. SouthSideRyan Posted: October 23, 2009 at 07:40 PM (#3364058)
I would absolutely say no to Hundley, and I believe everyone else here who says likewise. Lewinsky's a different story.

I know you think we'll do anything that moves(and most things that don't), but there is a certain level of ugly(which Hundley is well beyond) that most people wouldn't touch. It's not just the repulsiveness of the person herself(though that's more than enough to keep me away), it's that once that leaks out that you even talked to a manatee like her, you'll never stop hearing about it; girls you talk to will never stop hearing about it; your kids someday down the line will never stop hearing about it. Even if you were uggo-blind, it still wouldn't be worth the reputation hit.

Just look at what Phillips is taking now over this, do you think 3 blowies from that llama was really worth it? Wouldn't a quick shower jerk thinking of somebody with female genitalia have done the trick just as well?
   31. Dingbat_Charlie Posted: October 23, 2009 at 07:48 PM (#3364066)
BBC, I think your generalization is a bit too broad. Guys aren't all the same in this regard. There are plenty that would accept favors from any living female, but there are also plenty of dudes that don't like to get it on with the uggos.
   32. base ball chick Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:11 PM (#3364082)
well

all yall boys got to understand that i myself have never been a male, only watched them and listened to them

and i know that if you go in any, say walmart or kroger or even a baseball stadium, there are LOTS of brooke hundleys and LOTS of females who make her look like megan fox. and a HUGE % of them have children and or men with them. so there are PLENTY of men who don't say no. and i don't know where YOU live, but i can tell you that here, at LEAST 50% of females over 20 have at LEAST 20 lbs too much weight and by the time you hit 30 it is a LOT higher than that so if you got a problem with fat on females you might as well be gay if you don't have $$$$$ or are not seriously HOTTTTT

and i am puzzled by the lewinsky is ok but hundley is not - they are just about the same fatness and about the same ugly and hundley is younger

you gotta forgive me here boy, but like i said, i never heard of a single, young, straight guy who turned down an uggo IF he couldn't get anything better.

my brother the playa sez - you gotta throw the uggos a bone(r) now n then

then, maybe it is a White guy vs Black guy thing...
   33. Bourbon Samurai in Asia Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:21 PM (#3364088)
Monica sure, Hundley no.
Unless I've had a lot to drink, in which case all bets are off.
   34. RJ in TO Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:22 PM (#3364091)
and i know that if you go in any, say walmart or kroger or even a baseball stadium, there are LOTS of brooke hundleys and LOTS of females who make her look like megan fox. and a HUGE % of them have children and or men with them.


And what do the men with them look like? I'm guessing a lot of them aren't exactly model material either.

As to the Lewinski thing, it's already been noted that she's not gorgeous, but I think most men (except for people with very unique tastes) would prefer this over this.
   35. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:26 PM (#3364096)
I'm with Shooty and Dingbat Charlie. I've turned down women before just because I knew I probably wouldn't want to have anything to do with them afterwards and I don't want to be that guy. Plus, saying no just makes you all the more desirable...

bbc: Really? You're puzzled by Lewinsky vs. Hundley? I think it's no contest. Sure, both are fat but I don't think Monica is an uggo. Plus she was smart enough to get a position as a White House intern, which tells me she's probably pretty intelligent, which helps. And she has come off in interviews as personable and charming with a decent sense of humor, which can help immensely, no matter how fat a girl is. Not that I know anything about Hudley's personality....As for younger, well, Hundley is the same age Monica was.
   36. The District Attorney Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:29 PM (#3364098)
Okay, but consider what's available to a guy who talks about baseball on cable TV, and what's available to the most powerful man in the world. Adjusting for context, the two ladies' UGGO+ might be quite similar.

Sometimes I think Kennedy was the only real President...
   37. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:29 PM (#3364099)
Just for the purposes of polling: No on Hundley, yes on Lewinsky, no on Fox (for whatever reason, she just doesn't do it for me).
   38. KJOK Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:30 PM (#3364102)
I don't think this is damning of either gm, really. I think it's just one of those what-if stories that are fun to hear about.


Exactly - reminds me very much of the story where Jocketty almost traded Albert Pujols for Carlos Hernandez (and fortunately Traded Ben Johnson with Heathcliff Slocumb instead).
   39. vortex of dissipation Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:33 PM (#3364104)
I don't want to get too explicit here, but the best long-term physical relationship I've had with a woman was one whom, if you just saw a photo of her, wouldn't be considered a knockout by any means. But we just clicked, and the physical relationship was fantastic. On the other hand, the girlfriend I've had whom was the best-looking, by conventional standards, simply wasn't anywhere as much fun...
   40. RJ in TO Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:34 PM (#3364107)
I like the story better when you posted it in the Larkin thread.
   41. base ball chick Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:38 PM (#3364110)
ryan

well there boy, i've seen a few pics of some of the guys here and uh, well, let's say that theres a whole lot of guys who ain't no bernal or meatwad you know what i'm sayin. and i've seen bout every kind of guy there is with fatties. even one of the astros wives a couple years back was, uh, lets say - not blond or hot

as for your pics, i completely understand your monica preference as the other creature has larger, sharper teeth...

dock,
there are a LOT of men who are completely turned off by IQ in females. in fact, when i first started talking to youse guys about what females you think are attractive, i was absolutely STUNNED by the number of guys here who said that they were more turned off by stupidity (say, jessica simpson) than fat or ugly. (and trust me i was shocked by that because here and i thought males preferred the blond and stupid - like jessica or pam anderson)

or, as a certain male relative once told me (removing some, uh, not ok language)
trouble with (female humans) is they are always smarter then you think they are so if you KNOW they are smarter then you to start off, you best get running
   42. Gaelan Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:40 PM (#3364114)
I hadn't seen pictures of her yet but this thread made me curious. So I googled her and based upon descriptions I expected way worse.
   43. RJ in TO Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:45 PM (#3364116)
in fact, when i first started talking to youse guys about what females you think are attractive, i was absolutely STUNNED by the number of guys here who said that they were more turned off by stupidity (say, jessica simpson) than fat or ugly.


I don't know why you were surprised by that. Even for the biggest horndog out there, you can only spend so much time a day #######. For the rest of the time, and if you want to actually have a relationship, you've got to be able to talk about something, and it's hard to have anything approaching a decent conversation with an idiot.
   44. Lassus Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:45 PM (#3364117)
I hadn't seen pictures of her yet but this thread made me curious. So I googled her and based upon descriptions I expected way worse.

Guys in groups discussing women are kind of dicks. Sun rises in east. News at 11.
   45. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:48 PM (#3364122)
I can’t judge a girl with a still photo. There are too many things they don’t show you. For instance, I just went on three dates with a girl. She seemed nice, but she was so shy, I was like Dial in comparison. I like more extroverted girls. I’m supposed to be the quiet one.
   46. RJ in TO Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:50 PM (#3364124)
Guys in groups are kind of dicks.


You can probably take "kind of" out of that claim, and it'll be much more accurate. Since they're thinking for us, it's only to be expected that we act like them.
   47. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:58 PM (#3364132)
I can’t judge a girl with a still photo. There are too many things they don’t show you. For instance, I just went on three dates with a girl. She seemed nice, but she was so shy, I was like Dial in comparison. I like more extroverted girls. I’m supposed to be the quiet one.

When I started dating my wife I was having dinner with my family and I said something along the lines of "I think I like her, but shes very quiet, she hardly talks on our dates".

My grandfather replied " If you find a woman who doesn't talk you should get down on you knees and thank God, and marry her right away."

My Mom was none too pleased :-) But, I did marry her.
   48. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:59 PM (#3364133)
I don't know whether it's because she's my (technical) office-mate (I've never even seen her in the halls), but I have a lot of sympathy for her. I know some 22-year-old girls, and I don't think any of them are so confident about their bodies that they would be able to handle widespread Internet criticism about their looks.

It's one thing if you go to the gym and eat well and moisturize because the cameras are rolling on you (like an actress), but to be unknown and then suddenly famous for this sort of thing has to be disconcerting when it happens this quickly.

She's fairly likely to be the wide-bottomed girl who schtupped a mediocre baseball commentator and ruined his marriage forever. That note that she wrote is going to be there; when she applies for a new job, for instance, this'll come up when they do a routine Google search on her name forever.
   49. Spahn Insane Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:59 PM (#3364134)
While she's not exactly a supermodel, I've never heard anyone describe Lewinsky as looking like an elephant seal.

Indeed. Monica's nothing special, but this isn't a close call.
   50. The Good Face Posted: October 23, 2009 at 08:59 PM (#3364135)
I would say no if I had no interest in the girl. There's no such thing as a sex act free and clear so it's gotta be worth the inevitable post-coital complications.


Truer words were never spoken.
   51. Spahn Insane Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:01 PM (#3364137)
well shooty

you are definitely the first single guy i have ever known would would turn down a, uh, upton (ahem) from a female who offered - or at least, who said so


Lisa, Lisa. Put away the broad brush. Just 'cause we're men doesn't mean we (all) lack standards.
   52. Spahn Insane Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:03 PM (#3364139)
I would say no if I had no interest in the girl. There's no such thing as a sex act free and clear so it's gotta be worth the inevitable post-coital complications.

This. Men may be less likely to think through the consequences of casual sex with any random outlet than women (and decide, accordingly, whether or not to drillbabydrill), but it doesn't mean they don't do it.
   53. base ball chick Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:04 PM (#3364141)
ryan

you are talking about a "relationship" and i was talking about a sexual encounter

but a whole lot of couples basically don't talk to each other about much of anything. not sure how they stay together, but maybe it is the not talking part that helps out
   54. Spahn Insane Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:05 PM (#3364142)
I can’t judge a girl with a still photo.

The Post article I read had about 11 photos, none of which were very flattering. Think we're getting beyond SSS caveats here.
   55. jyjjy Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:08 PM (#3364146)
Lewinsky is chubby but good looking imo
This;
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/10/24/alg_steve_phillips_brooke_hundley.jpg
not so much
   56. Spahn Insane Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:08 PM (#3364147)
It's one thing if you go to the gym and eat well and moisturize because the cameras are rolling on you (like an actress), but to be unknown and then suddenly famous for this sort of thing has to be disconcerting when it happens this quickly.

Well, psycho-ness does have its costs.
   57. Lassus Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:09 PM (#3364148)
There's no such thing as a sex act free and clear so it's gotta be worth the inevitable post-coital complications.

This. Men may be less likely to think through the consequences of casual sex with any random outlet than women (and decide, accordingly, whether or not to drillbabydrill), but it doesn't mean they don't do it.

Jeez. I find this vaguely odd and slightly 50's and 80's in its FEAR OF SEX thing. I've certainly had encounters without a single complication. And some that did that were minor enough to to be basically inconsequential and far from the "THIS IS HOW IT IS WITH WOMEN" proclamations.


you are definitely the first single guy i have ever known would would turn down a, uh, upton (ahem) from a female who offered - or at least, who said so

I'd concur with Shooty, and I'm sure a number of men, er, might.
   58. Spahn Insane Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:11 PM (#3364151)
I find this vaguely odd and slightly 50's and 80's in its FEAR OF SEX thing. I've certainly had encounters without a single complication.

No no no--the fear's not of the sex (necessarily), but of the (non-sexual) fallout thereof.

And some that did that were minor enough to to be basically inconsequential and far from the "THIS IS HOW IT IS WITH WOMEN" proclamations.

Of course. The point isn't that it's "like this with women" all the time or even most of the time, but that the chances that it might "be like this" with a *particular* woman are less worth the risk if you're married and/or prominent and therefore have a lot to lose (particularly if, as with this large an age difference, there may well be a disconnect between the two parties' expectations of/emotional reactions to the encounter). Which was obviously the case here--Brooke obviously placed a lot more stock in this dalliance than Phillips did, and acted accordingly (if extremely).
   59. Spahn Insane Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:19 PM (#3364156)
As Dan Savage might say, Phillips violated the campsite rule.
   60. Lassus Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:21 PM (#3364157)
Ah, well, if you personally are talking about this specific situation, who the hell knows? You can't really figure anything out with people. He's an idiot, she was nuts.

But the "there's no such thing as a sex act free and clear" statement IS general, and holds to my initial reaction.
   61. Spahn Insane Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:25 PM (#3364162)
But the "there's no such thing as a sex act free and clear" statement IS general, and holds to my initial reaction.

Fair enough; I won't endorse the categorical nature of Shooty's statement, but I'm not sure he meant it quite that literally--I took it as a counter to Lisa's suggestion that all men will boink anything that moves if the opportunity presents itself, regardless of other factors.
   62. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:30 PM (#3364165)
and i am puzzled by the lewinsky is ok but hundley is not - they are just about the same fatness and about the same ugly and hundley is younger


My own opinion of the matter is that Monica is a bit curvier than Hundley. I'm trying to think of a nice way to say this but I can't...in the pictures I've seen Hundley is sort of a lump. Monica is heavy but everything seems to be proportionally larger or rounder or whatever it should be which is more attractive.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to buy some ice water for the trip to hell.
   63. Lassus Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:36 PM (#3364171)
Fair enough; I won't endorse the categorical nature of Shooty's statement,

Shooty said that? I hadn't even realized that. Tsk.
   64. Spahn Insane Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:41 PM (#3364176)
Shooty said that? I hadn't even realized that. Tsk.

Nobody--not even Shooty--is perfect.

**disintegrates amid crashing lightning bolt**
   65. Enrico Pallazzo Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:42 PM (#3364178)
Just for the purposes of polling: No on Hundley, yes on Lewinsky, no on Fox (for whatever reason, she just doesn't do it for me

Really? I understand if you have different tastes in celebrity looks and personalities and whatnot. I, for example, find Angelina Jolie incredibly overrated and Zooey Deschanel or Evangeline Lilly (from Lost) absolutley adorable.

But this is Megan Fox. I think you should go watch (or re-watch) Transformers. I'm not a Megan Fox homer or anything, I wouldn't place her at the top of the pedestal like the media seems to want to. But just look at the girl.
   66. BrianBrianson Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:47 PM (#3364186)
Baseball Chick
They're just having one over on you. All men know you can avoid complications by using a fake name. Here, you may already know their names, so ...
But men who'd prefer dumb women? Well, it ain't electromagnetism, like attracts like here.
   67. SouthSideRyan Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:50 PM (#3364189)
I'd say just look at pictures from Transformers, don't subject yourself to the actual movie. I'm not much of a Fox fan either, but if you're gonna go yes on Lewinsky, you have to go yes on Fox.
   68. Jeff K. Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:54 PM (#3364195)
Hey, I was on record as saying Lewinsky was an attractive chick. Sure, she could have stood to lose some weight, but she was by no means to' up from the flo' up.

Pic. And it's on time too, because Clinton's there. But she was cute, I like 'em a little curvy (at almost any # of lbs, it's better for a woman to be that amount over 'normal' weight than under.) Hundley, not my cup of tea.
   69. Jeff K. Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:58 PM (#3364198)
#65, I don't know who you are, and I don't much care. You put a finger on Zooey, and I will own that finger. And then I will eat it, or cause it to be eaten by others, all the while sending her literature on how people missing fingers are not to be trusted.
   70. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: October 23, 2009 at 09:59 PM (#3364200)
Lisa,

You mentioned earlier that it may be a white guy/black guy thing but have you considered it may be more of a white GIRL/black girl thing? After three blow jobs, Hundley taped a letter to Steve Phillips's wife to her door and stalked her kids on Facebook. I hate to play armchair psychiatrist but this sounds to me like the behavior of a spoiled middle-class white girl who is used to getting what she wants (I bet she wanted that job at ESPN pretty bad). Do you know any black women who would react so strongly after giving a married man three blow jobs (I'm asking seriously here)?

Going back to the white guy/black guy thing, you mentioned being surprised by our collective preference in women (which I share). I think it's more specifically a socio-economical thing; we're mostly a bunch of over-educated white guys that come from middle-to-upper-class backgrounds of a certain post-feminist generation that was taught to have a healthy respect for women. We're also the kind of men who like to be challenged, from the books we read to the baseball we watch, to the debates we have on here. We expect the same from our women. And maybe it's a regional thing as well. I have a stereotypical idea of what populates the Walmarts of Texas but us NYC men can tell you that you can have both brains and looks. Only when we're drunk, lonely and/or vulnerable would we settle for less. Anyway, after you factor in the potential for obsessive behavior, there's a lot of reasons why some guys would turn down sex.

Here's an example. Let's say I worked at ESPN and Hundley was expressing an interest in me. I mention this to a co-worker and he tells me that they hooked up a few times but after that, she was constantly calling/texting/emailing him and facebooking his family and friends. If he's a bro, he'll tell me to stay the #### away from her. Even if he wasn't, I would anyway. If you have any experience in dealing with obsessive women, then you know that the sex isn't worth it, no matter how hot she is.

To expound on Monica, well, if you're a fat girl who wants to seduce the most powerful man in the world, you need to bring a lot to the table. She did.
   71. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: October 23, 2009 at 10:04 PM (#3364204)
I don't see what the big deal about Megan Fox is. She's sort of cute but I don't think she's stunning and every time I hear her talk I want to vomit.

Zooey Deschanel is gorgeous, period. I think her and Kat Dennings are the prettiest actresses in movie-making today. I guess I probably also gave away my taste in movies there, eh.
   72. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: October 23, 2009 at 10:05 PM (#3364205)
Dock Ellis's take is spot on. Imagine how insightful he could be if he weren't on acid.
   73. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: October 23, 2009 at 10:16 PM (#3364213)
lewinsky's too waspy.

hundley's too, well, lumpy was a good word for it.




mia kirshner, day 1, owns all.
   74. Jeff K. Posted: October 23, 2009 at 10:18 PM (#3364215)
Hey you, #71! Anything happens to my Zooey, I've got a .45 and a shovel. I doubt anyone would miss you.
   75. Enrico Pallazzo Posted: October 23, 2009 at 10:22 PM (#3364217)
#65, I don't know who you are, and I don't much care. You put a finger on Zooey, and I will own that finger

It's on. That is all I have to say.
   76. Spahn Insane Posted: October 23, 2009 at 10:25 PM (#3364219)
Dock Ellis's take is spot on. Imagine how insightful he could be if he weren't on acid.

Who says that's not where his insight comes from?

Angelina Jolie is hugely overrated, and Megan Fox does nothing for me. Deschanel's a cutie.
   77. An Athletic in Powderhorn™ Posted: October 23, 2009 at 10:25 PM (#3364220)
Nice try, Athletic Supporter. I know an Albright link when I see one.
   78. vortex of dissipation Posted: October 23, 2009 at 10:25 PM (#3364221)
I don't know who you are, and I don't much care. You put a finger on Zooey, and I will own that finger. And then I will eat it, or cause it to be eaten by others, all the while sending her literature on how people missing fingers are not to be trusted.


And then her husband will write a really sad song about it, with a gorgeous minor-key melody and a slow, repeating riff, and then sing it in a fragile, wavering voice. And the album will go to number one...
   79. Spahn Insane Posted: October 23, 2009 at 10:26 PM (#3364222)
I'd have chosen "frumpy" over "lumpy," but at least they rhyme. You know, elephant seals are kinda lumpy too, though I was only thinking of Brooke's face when I made that comment...

Mia Kirshner. Forgot about her. First saw her in "Exotica." Good stuff.
   80. Spahn Insane Posted: October 23, 2009 at 10:31 PM (#3364226)
Oh, that's really Albright? No wonder Fox doesn't do it for me.
   81. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: October 23, 2009 at 10:34 PM (#3364228)
This is great. You psychos can all fight over the intern and the actress with the big eyes, and I'll take Angelina.
   82. Jeff K. Posted: October 23, 2009 at 11:43 PM (#3364276)
And then her husband will write a really sad song about it, with a gorgeous minor-key melody and a slow, repeating riff, and then sing it in a fragile, wavering voice. And the album will go to number one...

Making him enough money to buy half of Kensington. The slightly altered version suitable for duets, and featuring his wife's lovely voice as well, would provide more than enough to buy the lot of England with a little left over for the Irish. </Douglas Adams>
   83. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: October 23, 2009 at 11:50 PM (#3364279)
it's hard to have anything approaching a decent conversation with an idiot.

That goes against the very business model of this site.
   84. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: October 23, 2009 at 11:54 PM (#3364281)
Dibs on Halle Berry and Jennifer Connelly before she got too skinny.
   85. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: October 23, 2009 at 11:55 PM (#3364282)
68. Jeff K. Posted: October 23, 2009 at 05:54 PM (#3364195)
I like 'em a little curvy (at almost any # of lbs, it's better for a woman to be that amount over 'normal' weight than under.)


This physical description doesn't necessarily fit your target demographic.
   86. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: October 23, 2009 at 11:58 PM (#3364285)
As I once recounted in verse, Halle Berry is a lot more trouble than she's worth.
   87. base ball chick Posted: October 24, 2009 at 12:01 AM (#3364287)
i looked up zooey deschanel - she as skinny as me

she looks like a LOT like monica lewinsky minus like 80 lbs

dock,

very interesting.
i been trying to think of any sista i know who would <sexual act> some old ugly married White guy unless it was for $$$/job and then why bother to leave his wife a note? (if it was doing some young hot married guy, he be an athlete/musician and you know you just one chick in a long LONG line so why even bother to bother his wife)

but actually
i can't think of anyone i know who doesn't know that if you tryin to take some other woman's man and your, uh, encounters with him are you upton-ing him and then he zips up and leaves, then all u doing is giving his wrist a rest and if u left his woman a note all she do is laugh

but there is a LOT of - how do i put it - leaving notes (ahem) on The Other Woman's door. but in all the cases i know, the, uh, encounters were not only, uh, oral. and i know of a couple of times the woman AND the other woman/womEn went in to deliver at the same time and there was, uh, some, uh, discussion between the females and their friends/family. but none of those guys married....

i never understood fighting over a man or standing in line for the opportunity to be X in a line of hundreds - it is not like there ain't a whole lot of men out there...

but then again, there is something about a LOT of women where they seem to only want men that some other woman already got. my husband couldn't hardly get a date until him and me hooked up and then suddenly there's b*tch*z wantin to find out what i found

as for women having both brains and looks,
ahem
youse guys Up There kind of prejudice - there are PLENTY of women here got brains and looks. for example, my mama. and her BFF. there are more than a few texan women who started and/or ran large businesses/companies and didn't look like no brooke hundley
   88. Young Blasarius yonder Posted: October 24, 2009 at 12:02 AM (#3364288)
Oh man I feel like a loser posting this on a Friday night, but for my money, there is no current American girl hotter than Cat Power.. Smokin' hot, she is.
   89. The District Attorney Posted: October 24, 2009 at 12:07 AM (#3364292)
Anyway, it always seemed like Jose Cruz Jr. should have been better than he was... dad was a terrific player, five tools, played great in college as I recall, #3 overall pick. I was gobsmacked when the Mariners traded him for two relievers. (As it turned out, I wonder if Timlin ended up having a better career than him.) But he turned out to pretty much be just a guy. I had no idea he ever did anything like go 30/30. (Not that he was all that great doing it.)
   90. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: October 24, 2009 at 12:20 AM (#3364294)
Thanks, Lisa, for responding.

Hey, maybe The Other Woman leaving notes on the door of The Woman is just women being women, regardless of cultural differences. Being a man, it's not like I know dick about women to begin with.

But as far as brains vs. looks...I wonder if you, your mother and her BFF represent a small sample size. There are what, 25 million people in Texas? How many of them are women as smart as you and your mother and her BFF? And where can I meet them if I ever move to Texas? In NYC (or more specifically, my neighborhood in Brooklyn), I can't throw a rock without hitting an intelligent woman. And she's probably fun and good-looking, too.
   91. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: October 24, 2009 at 12:27 AM (#3364297)
I think a lot of the guy's not turning down sex is a cult of masculinity myth pushed by those who don't get many opportunities.

If you actually have all sorts of women propositioning you, it's pretty annoying. I think a lot of men, due to this societal culture don't tend to experience that.

The thing I don't get is the "No, I wouldn't sleep with ANYONE. Certainly not if they were too ugly."

Looks don't really have much to do with the whole thing--those are just societal standards that got made up and changed over time. If you would have sex with someone really stupid, annoying and physically attractive, it probably says that you have sex for ego more than anything else.

Finally, if it is about ego, why does it matter if you actually sleep with the person or not? Isn't the same if you get propositioned by someone beautiful and not too interesting but don't actually have to sleep with them?
   92. SouthSideRyan Posted: October 24, 2009 at 12:33 AM (#3364298)
Ugh, Kat Dennings is gross.
   93. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: October 24, 2009 at 12:35 AM (#3364299)
The thing I don't get is the "No, I wouldn't sleep with ANYONE. Certainly not if they were too ugly."

wtf. Who the hell says that?
   94. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: October 24, 2009 at 12:36 AM (#3364301)
As I once recounted in verse, Halle Berry is a lot more trouble than she's worth.

How did I miss that? I was particularly impressed by the rhyming of "hospice" and "Justice."
   95. Latnam's first name is Bob Lemon's middle name Posted: October 24, 2009 at 12:55 AM (#3364308)
Ugh, Kat Dennings is gross.

Sir, you are dead to me.
   96. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: October 24, 2009 at 12:55 AM (#3364309)
I was particularly impressed by the rhyming of "hospice" and "Justice."

TRICKS OF THE TRADE: I actually had to cheat and use a rhyming dictionary for that one.

-The thing I don't get is the "No, I wouldn't sleep with ANYONE. Certainly not if they were too ugly."

wtf. Who the hell says that?


Monks.
   97. Flynn Posted: October 24, 2009 at 01:00 AM (#3364313)
lewinsky's too waspy.

Really?
   98. base ball chick Posted: October 24, 2009 at 01:02 AM (#3364315)
dock

(laughing)

texas is filled with beautiful smart women of all colors/races. we're just, um, not all inyourface like with the women Up There. steel fist in the velvet glove, like my mama's BFF sez. more of your good manners/charm type females.
   99. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: October 24, 2009 at 01:19 AM (#3364316)
####, wtf am I doing in NYC?
   100. Spahn Insane Posted: October 24, 2009 at 01:26 AM (#3364319)
Enjoying the culture.

**ducks Lisa's 100-mph brick**
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
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-29-2014
(35 - 2:58pm, Jul 29)
Last: BDC

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(502 - 2:56pm, Jul 29)
Last: Swedish Chef

NewsblogFull Count » Tim Kurkjian on MFB: ‘I’m going to say that Jon Lester is not going to be traded’
(14 - 2:52pm, Jul 29)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3474 - 2:48pm, Jul 29)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogDmitri Young explains his amazing weight loss
(38 - 2:48pm, Jul 29)
Last: They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot

NewsblogTrader Jack? As Seattle's GM struggles to complete deals, some rival executives wonder | FOX Sports
(6 - 2:47pm, Jul 29)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogFormer OF Jason Lane takes loss in first start
(38 - 2:42pm, Jul 29)
Last: spycake

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Discussion
(10 - 2:30pm, Jul 29)
Last: Chris Fluit

NewsblogABC News: ‘Capital Games’: How Congress Saved the Baseball Hall of Fame
(26 - 2:08pm, Jul 29)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogMelky Cabrera smashed a windshield with a homer
(11 - 1:58pm, Jul 29)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogHall of Fame Announces Changes to Voting Process for Recently Retired Players, Effective Immediately
(109 - 1:42pm, Jul 29)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogGossage on Bonds, McGwire Hall hopes: ‘Are you f–king kidding?’
(152 - 1:42pm, Jul 29)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogBarney + cash to Dodgers for PTBNL
(27 - 12:47pm, Jul 29)
Last: Der-K and the statistical werewolves.

NewsblogO'Connor: Tulo looks more A-Rod than Jeter
(32 - 12:30pm, Jul 29)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogDeadspin: David Ortiz Pissed Off the Rays Again
(56 - 10:39am, Jul 29)
Last: Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class

Page rendered in 0.4895 seconds
53 querie(s) executed