Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

N.Y. Times: At 88, a Hall of Famer Who’s Still in There Pitching (RR)

Bob Feller…on epileptic snakes, Phil Rizzuto and, of course…the war in Iraq.

Feller has strong opinions about the war in Iraq, and he bemoaned what he called a lack of leadership.

“We should have gone in there with 450,000 troops and declared a military dictatorship or martial law, have a curfew, taken over all the oil and given them the going price, same as we did with Japan when the war was over, and then given the country back to them when it was over,” Feller said.

“It would have been over years ago. The last good general we had, in my opinion, was Schwarzkopf,” he said, referring to Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf. “We haven’t had a lot of good leaders anywhere in our nation. I’m really concerned.”

 

Repoz Posted: March 07, 2007 at 10:08 AM | 49 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: indians

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.

   1. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 07, 2007 at 10:23 AM (#2308075)
My word! Mr. Feller's pertinacious sentiments can be quite nettlesome to those holding opposing viewpoints!
   2. Casey Blake's Indecent Photos of Mark Shapiro Posted: March 07, 2007 at 10:58 AM (#2308078)
Every year in mid-February Bob Feller wakes up and sees his shadow, which means six more weeks of his nonsense before Opening Day.
   3. vortex of dissipation Posted: March 07, 2007 at 11:04 AM (#2308079)
“We haven’t had a lot of good leaders anywhere in our nation. I’m really concerned.”

Can't disagree with that...
   4. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 07, 2007 at 02:43 PM (#2308102)
He is operating from a paradigm that disappeared long ago. He grew up during WWII, when it was OK to flatten entire cities. You can't do that anymore.

You can in a war. Iraq, however, was a liberation. You flatten entire cities and there won't be anyone left to greet you with flowers and candy.
   5. Hang down your head, Tom Foley Posted: March 07, 2007 at 02:51 PM (#2308109)
In 40 years, Curt Schilling will be the new old Bob Feller.
   6. salvomania Posted: March 07, 2007 at 03:25 PM (#2308133)
I saw the article in NYT this morning, with an accompanying photo, and Feller's grandson looks exactly like a young Bob Feller---I mean it's really uncanny....
   7. CraigK Posted: March 07, 2007 at 03:34 PM (#2308138)
Now my story begins in Nineteen-dickety-two. We had to say "dickety" because the Kaiser had stolen the wold "twenty". I chased that rascal to get it back, but gave up after dickety-six miles.

Dear Advertisers, I am disgusted with the way old people are depicted on television. We are not all vibrant, fun loving sex maniacs. Many of us are bitter, resentful individuals who remember the good old days when entertainment was bland and inoffensive. The following is a list of words I never want to hear on television again. Number one: bra. Number two: horny. Number three: family jewels."



"Maggie, your babysitters here. What's that mean? Ohhh, you must be sick! Lets see, what's old doc Washburn prescribe? Do you have dropsy? The grip? Scrofula? The vapors? Jungle rot? Dandy fever? Poor man's gout? Housemaid's knee? Climatic boo bow? The staggers? Dum dum fever?"


"We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell them stories that don't go anywhere. Like the time I took the fairy to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe so I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them. Give me five bees for a quarter you'd say. Now where were we, oh ya. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because if the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones."

Well, you're really asking two questions there. The first one takes me back to 1934. Admiral Byrd had just reached the pole, only hours ahead of the Three Stooges ... and I guess he won the argument, but I walked away with the turnips. The following morning, I resigned my commission in the Coast Guard. The next thing I heard, there was civil war in Spain ... and, that's everything that happened in my life right up to the time I got this phone call."

"Ehh, why didn't you get something useful, like storm windows, or a nice pipe organ? I'm thirsty. Ew, what smells like mustard? There're sure a lot of ugly people in your neighborhood. Oh! Look at that one. Ow, my glaucoma just got worse. The president is a Demmycrat. Hello? I can't unbuckle my seat belt. Hello?
   8. Sexy Lizard Posted: March 07, 2007 at 03:58 PM (#2308151)
"I leave these: a box of mint-condition 1918 liberty-head silver dollars. You see, back in those days, rich men would ride around in Zeppelins, dropping coins on people, and one day I seen J. D. Rockefeller flying by. So I run of the house with a big washtub and, where are you going?"

"Dad, we'd love to stay here and listen to your amusing antidote, but we have to take these coins to the mall and spend em!"

"Anyway, about my washtub. I just used it that morning to wash my turkey, which in those days was known as a walking bird. We'd always have walking bird on Thanksgiving with all the trimmings: cranberries, injun eyes, and yams stuffed with gunpowder. Then we'd all watch football, which in those days was called baseball."
   9. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 07, 2007 at 04:02 PM (#2308153)
I saw the article in NYT this morning, with an accompanying photo, and Feller's grandson looks exactly like a young Bob Feller---I mean it's really uncanny....

That was the first thing I noticed, too, but just when I was about to mention it, BTF went offline for awhile and the post got zapped. I hope that the kid's only got the body cloned, and that he's not being channeled....
   10. bunyon Posted: March 07, 2007 at 04:39 PM (#2308173)
I saw the article in NYT this morning, with an accompanying photo, and Feller's grandson looks exactly like a young Bob Feller---I mean it's really uncanny....

There can be only one.
   11. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: March 07, 2007 at 05:20 PM (#2308192)
I need a quarter for the bus.
   12. Srul Itza Posted: March 07, 2007 at 06:05 PM (#2308218)
What Bob doesn't understand is that we don't have 450,000 combat soldiers to go in there.

Maybe, but Feller's comments coincide with what Eric Shinseki said, when asked how many troops it would take to do the job right in Iraq.
   13. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: March 07, 2007 at 06:27 PM (#2308236)
Ah, this thread was so worth it, just for those Grandpa Simpson quotes.
   14. Srul Itza Posted: March 07, 2007 at 06:34 PM (#2308246)
kev, are you saying that the venture was doomed from the start? Because that is what I said when the venture was first proposed.

The way I looked at it then, the end game always involved Sunni-Shiite conflict, with the most likely outcome being the Shiites winning because they are far more numerous and would get help from Iran (thereby creating a true anti-american regime in the area, as opposed to Sadaam's anti-americanism of convenience). In the meantime, the Kurds would sit out and beef up their defenses to make sure they were not next. Complicating wild cards included possible Arab intervention on behalf of the Sunnis (unlikely to happen, and unlikely to be effective, but not impossible); possible Shiites attacks on the Kurds for reasons of their own (oil, control of the whole country; religious doctrine); and a possible Turkish intervention, with or without assistance from other countries with Kurdish minorities, because they decided that they could not live with a Kurdish enclave.

HOWEVER, if the venture was to have ANY chance of being less than a debacle, it would require complete control on the ground that would require the hundreds of thousands of troops proposed by Gen. Shinseki -- and pooh-poohed by the Administration. I think it is possible that the larger force could have reduced the amount of the violence, and provided more control, so that there would be a 2% chance of success -- instead of the .01% chance of success of the current strategy.
   15. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: March 07, 2007 at 06:45 PM (#2308257)
My six-year-old boy loves to say "climactic buboes." An excuse to say "boob," I think. (When he was three, "poodle" was a favorite under-the-radar naughty word.) Sly subversive Simpsons writers!
   16. Dolf Lucky Posted: March 07, 2007 at 06:49 PM (#2308261)
When did the formal discussion about an "exit strategy" begin in the States? I think our national ambivalence about the war factored into the high level of uppity insurgency.

I wonder how the situation would look today if we had kept the hammer down.
   17. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: March 07, 2007 at 06:53 PM (#2308268)
When did the formal discussion about an "exit strategy" begin in the States? I think our national ambivalence about the war factored into the high level of uppity insurgency.

Are you saying the insurgency might not have taken root if more Americans had supported the war?
   18. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 07, 2007 at 07:16 PM (#2308279)
HOWEVER, if the venture was to have ANY chance of being less than a debacle, it would require complete control on the ground that would require the hundreds of thousands of troops proposed by Gen. Shinseki -- and pooh-poohed by the Administration. I think it is possible that the larger force could have reduced the amount of the violence, and provided more control, so that there would be a 2% chance of success -- instead of the .01% chance of success of the current strategy.

The leading U.S. military journalist of his time, Hanson Baldwin, wrote a magazine article just before we introduced ground troops into Vietnam, and said that if we were to have any chance to succeed, it would require half a million soldiers. At a teach-in at Duke, I quoted this article to a State Department official, and I remember his exact words: "With all due respect, Hanson Baldwin doesn't know what he's talking about."

Sounds like what Rumsfield might have said about General Shinseki, doesn't it? Or what Bush might have said to Colin Powell behind closed doors.

The local situations in Vietnam and Iraq are of course not at all identical, but if there is one thing that unites 1965 and 2007, it's the desire of the respective administrations to win on the cheap, without any sacrifice at all required by those not in or related to the military. That, and the puzzling thought that you can get Americans to support an occupation of a hostile foreign country for a seemingly indefinite period of time without provoking a huge domestic reaction---which then in turn is blamed for "not supporting our troops."

Liddell Hart wrote a book in 1944 called Why Don't We Learn From History? Still a very good question.
   19. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: March 07, 2007 at 07:31 PM (#2308288)
The local situations in Vietnam and Iraq are of course not at all identical, but if there is one thing that unites 1965 and 2007, it's the desire of the respective administrations to win on the cheap, without any sacrifice at all required by those not in or related to the military.

I happen to agree with the notion of the administration wanting to win the war "on the cheap". Frankly, it makes me sick though when this argument comes from the guys who know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the militrary, generally don't like the military, and who openly proclaim that they wish the military was even SMALLER than it is now.
   20. Hombre Brotani Posted: March 07, 2007 at 07:49 PM (#2308302)
Frankly, it makes me sick though when this argument comes from the guys who know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the militrary, generally don't like the military, and who openly proclaim that they wish the military was even SMALLER than it is now.

I suppose it enrages you that men who actively dodged active military duty are now making military decisions.
   21. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 07, 2007 at 09:42 PM (#2308369)
The local situations in Vietnam and Iraq are of course not at all identical, but if there is one thing that unites 1965 and 2007, it's the desire of the respective administrations to win on the cheap, without any sacrifice at all required by those not in or related to the military.

I happen to agree with the notion of the administration wanting to win the war "on the cheap". Frankly, it makes me sick though when this argument comes from the guys who know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the military, generally don't like the military, and who openly proclaim that they wish the military was even SMALLER than it is now.


So do I. Just as it makes me sick to see a war led by draft dodgers. I'm sure you feel the same way.
   22. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: March 07, 2007 at 09:57 PM (#2308380)
Unlike some people who are always putting out the B.S. about supporting the troops but not the mission, I actually fully support the military all the time, regardless of whichever political party happens to be in power at the time. I was supporting them equally back when draft dodgers were bombing the hell out of the Serbs from the air, I support them now when a new set of draft dodgers is in charge, and I'll still fully support them in the future when another set of draft dodgers on the other side is in the Oval Office once again.

You see, what guys like you don't seem to be able to grasp is that there are a lot of us out here who aren't that interested in the reptile-brain partisan political Democrat/Republican debate. I kind of pity people who spend their every waking moment obsessed with such a silly game.
   23. bunyon Posted: March 07, 2007 at 10:14 PM (#2308388)
Okay, Joey, fair enough. I have a hard time figuring out how to "support the troops" which happens to include family and good friends while also opposing the mission from deep in my heart and mind. Invading Iraq was stupid and it has been handled badly. It was an explicitly imperial action treated as if it were a humanitarian mission by men who have little military service and, apparently, little grasp of history. Should I support those guys? Am I obligated to support any military action on the part of the US regardless of what it is? If Bush decided to nuke Tehran tomorrow do I have to support that? What if he decided to use the military against his domestic opponents? Do we have to support that?

One of the things that really pisses me off is that we do have a fine military. I personally know half a dozen guys who have exhibited great courage and would - seriously - die for this country. Hell, I know two guys who have. And that effort has been pissed away in the desert to no great benefit of the American people. I agree completely that I don't want to let those guys know what I think their sacrifices have been worth but at least a couple of them agree with me.

So, anyway, Joey, tell me how I can support the troops but not the mission. But if you tell me I have to support the mission, regardless, then we're no longer a republic. If we're not a republic, then absolutely, level Iraq and kill anyone who dares lift a finger against an American soldier or citizen anywhere. Empires aren't pretty, but we have it in us. Personally, I'm glad the American people aren't yet ready to make that move. One day, perhaps soon, they will be. If that is the world you wish to live in, I think you're nuts.
   24. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 07, 2007 at 10:24 PM (#2308396)
Unlike some people who are always putting out the B.S. about supporting the troops but not the mission

Is blind obedience to the current (or any) Commander in Chief the only form of supporting the troops? If he's leading the military into a quagmire, are people supposed to just shut up about it? There are scores of questions along this line that can't be answered by generalities about "support."

Is it BS to criticize the administration for not providing proper protection for tanks?

Is it BS to criticize the Army for letting Walter Reed Hospital deteriorate?

Is is BS to wonder where Rumsfeld's contingency plans were in 2002 and 2003, the ones that went beyond "Mission Accomplished"?

It's not enough to just label all pointed criticism as partisan. Bush does that, Clinton did that, and pretty much every president has done that. But if you don't keep pressing them for answers, then what in the hell is the whole concept of citizenship about? Those in the civilian population are not privates in the Army; they're the ones who should be looking out, through their elected officials and in other ways, to make sure that the interests of the privates in the Army are upheld, and not just talked about in speeches. Their duty is to ask those rude questions, and not let the questions be evaded.
   25. Srul Itza Posted: March 07, 2007 at 10:35 PM (#2308405)
There is a story (fable?) about a ruler who ordered his elite troops to march off a cliff, to demonstrate how willing and obedient his troops were, so as to sew fear in the hearts of his enemy.

I would like to think that this is one case where supporting troops would mean directly obstructing the mission.
   26. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: March 07, 2007 at 10:36 PM (#2308406)
It was an explicitly imperial action treated as if it were a humanitarian mission

This is absolute complete and unadulterated bullcrap, and you know it just as well as I do buddy. And anyone who really believes this has absolutely no historical concept whatsoever of what an empire is really like. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was no more "imperial" than getting rid of Slobodan Milosevic was.

What we are doing there now is an attempt at nation-building from the ground up, not an easy task by any means to be sure. If the Iraqi government told us they wanted us out of the country tomorrow we would be on our way out.

Now, if you want to criticise nation-building on principled grounds you certainly may do so, but please don't lay this sort of insulting garbage on me.
   27. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: March 07, 2007 at 10:45 PM (#2308412)
If the Iraqi government told us they wanted us out of the country tomorrow we would be on our way out.

Do you honestly believe that? Al-maliki opposed the "surge," and the US went ahead with it anyway. What makes you think the US would listen if he suddenly demanded that we withdraw completely?
   28. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: March 07, 2007 at 10:55 PM (#2308417)
if you want to criticise nation-building on principled grounds you certainly may do so

You mean like George W. Bush did during the 2000 campaign? Oh, sorry, I forgot that you're not into politics.

Seriously, while I agree that words like imperialism should not be so carelessly bandied about, one could truthfully say that anyone who really believes that the administration's motives in Iraq were humanitarian has absolutely no historical concept of what humanitarianism is really like.
   29. bunyon Posted: March 07, 2007 at 11:36 PM (#2308437)
Sorry if I was unclear. I don't mean Bush's intention (sorry, our intention) was imperial. I mean that invading a country, occupying it and installing a government, of any form, is an imperial action. If one wishes to undertake this action, fine, but the way to do it is to march in, overwhelm them and make them do as you say. You don't send in too few troops and expect everyone to make nice.

While our invasion may not have had imperial intent, the statement that citizens should do whatever their government tells them most certainly does.
   30. bunyon Posted: March 07, 2007 at 11:41 PM (#2308438)
Now, if you want to criticise nation-building on principled grounds you certainly may do so, but please don't lay this sort of insulting garbage on me.

Who insulted you? I asked you how I can both "support the troops" and "oppose the mission" in a way that would satisfy you. You have not answered the question that I implied and Andy asked directly: must a US citizen support any US military action our government wishes to undertake?
   31. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: March 07, 2007 at 11:59 PM (#2308450)
must a US citizen support any US military action our government wishes to undertake?

No, of course not. There are legitimate grounds on which to oppose military actions. There are straightforward and principled pacifists, such as the Quakers for example, who oppose the use of military force under any circumstance. I legitimately respect this kind of viewpoint, even though I happen to vehemently disagree with it.

The problem is that this whole entire debate is phony. There are a lot of people who only oppose the mission because of their Bush Derangement Syndrome and would have supported it had it been conducted by a Democrat.

Far worse than the pure partisan robots though are the liars who claim that they support the troops, when in reality they truly despise the military. You can usually identify these types because they're the ones who oppose pretty much any actual defense funding for things like new and improved systems and increased troop levels. We have a couple of regulars here who have outed themselves this way. They "support the troops" only in a completely abstract and theoretical manner. In reality, they hate the troops, and in most cases they usually don't personally know anyone in the military, except for the occasional "friend of a friend" or acquaintance of some distant relative. And I'm onto their little game.
   32. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: March 08, 2007 at 12:58 AM (#2308476)
Climactic buboes!
   33. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: March 08, 2007 at 01:11 AM (#2308480)
And I'm onto their little game.

Keep up the good work, soldier!
   34. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: March 08, 2007 at 02:50 AM (#2308530)
I heard there was a fire, so I brought some gasoline!

Let's see...

I support our troops, and believe the best way to preserve their right to life is to bring them home. Alive.

A smaller military is an excellent idea, and cutting the military budget in half over a period of a few years is eminently sensible.

"Nation building" is an incredibly bad idea.
Being the world's policeman may be an even worse idea.
If cutting the military budget helps curb the American imperial appetite (and keeps our troops alive), all the better.

Overthrowing Saddam Hussein wasn't a bad idea but, as I stated at the time, these (the Bush administration) were not the guys to do it. (It wasn't even their motive.) It was something like having transmission trouble, tossing your eight year old your car keys, and telling him to drive it down to the service station and have it fixed. It's simply not possible that he'll be able to do it.
   35. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 08, 2007 at 05:33 AM (#2308588)
The problem is that this whole entire debate is phony. There are a lot of people who only oppose the mission because of their Bush Derangement Syndrome and would have supported it had it been conducted by a Democrat.

Which is why the same class of people enthusiastically supported "Johnson's War," I suppose, the last of what Bob Dole used to refer to as "Democrat wars."

Far worse than the pure partisan robots though are the liars who claim that they support the troops, when in reality they truly despise the military. You can usually identify these types because they're the ones who oppose pretty much any actual defense funding for things like new and improved systems and increased troop levels. We have a couple of regulars here who have outed themselves this way. They "support the troops" only in a completely abstract and theoretical manner. In reality, they hate the troops, and in most cases they usually don't personally know anyone in the military, except for the occasional "friend of a friend" or acquaintance of some distant relative. And I'm onto their little game.

Do yourself a favor and read Thomas Ricks's Fiasco. You might learn something about the true nature of the opposition to the execution of this war, rather than just reflexively assigning it to "anti-military" sentiment. Thomas Ricks is about as "anti-military" as Bill James is "anti-baseball."
   36. The George Sherrill Selection Posted: March 08, 2007 at 05:39 AM (#2308591)
This is nothing compared to how long Piazza will still be catching.
   37. Spahn Insane Posted: March 08, 2007 at 06:16 AM (#2308599)
The problem is that this whole entire debate is phony. There are a lot of people who only oppose the mission because of their Bush Derangement Syndrome and would have supported it had it been conducted by a Democrat.

There's a word for this, but I'm struggling to come up with it at the moment. Oh, right--it's "bullshite." Anyone who thinks opposing this disaster is based (or can only be based) on a personal hatred of the Feckwit in Chief is a ####### idiot, a mindless GOP partisan, or both.
   38. Spahn Insane Posted: March 08, 2007 at 06:18 AM (#2308600)
And to preempt your inevitable response of "I said A LOT OF PEOPLE, not all people", fine. Name, say, three.
   39. Spahn Insane Posted: March 08, 2007 at 06:20 AM (#2308601)
Hilarious--the nanny lets "feckwit" and "bullshite" past, but censors "g0d d@mned." Time to update it to catch all that nasty Irish dialect, Jim.
   40. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 08, 2007 at 06:33 AM (#2308603)
My thoughts on the eve of the war:
1. There's a case to be made for invading, but it wasn't made.
2. If America absolutely must invade, these "leaders" aren't the ones to get it done right.

Over the last four years, I've seen or heard nothing to dissuade me from those views.
   41. Hombre Brotani Posted: March 08, 2007 at 07:36 AM (#2308613)
1. There's a case to be made for invading, but it wasn't made.

I thought they were. On the eve of invasion, I was all for it. I mean, they had pictures and everything! And there was no possible way an American president would preemptively invade a Mid-East nation and possibly destabilize the entire region unless they had all the cards, right?

I supported the action whole hog, which makes me extra bitter now.
   42. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 08, 2007 at 07:56 AM (#2308618)
I supported the action whole hog, which makes me extra bitter now.
What I left out of my above statement was, Although I have deep misgivings about the reasons why we're invading and whether we can competently handle the aftermath, this still has my support. After all, this is far too important for political point-scoring.
Ooops.
And that's what bothers me the most. Emotionally and intellectually, as a patriotic American, I got on board because the president asked - only to be crushed upon realizing I took the war far more seriously than he did.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNBA 2021-2022 Season Thread
(1992 - 12:30am, Jan 20)
Last: rr: cosmopolitan elite

NewsblogHow a heart attack led to Hall of Famer Greg Maddux spurning Yankees for Braves
(1 - 11:55pm, Jan 19)
Last: Jack Sommers

NewsblogHow baseball changed forever in 1972: A timeline of MLB's most memorable events, 50 years later
(4 - 11:53pm, Jan 19)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogBaseball Hall of Fame tracker 2022
(1073 - 11:34pm, Jan 19)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogWhy does Baseball Hall of Fame voting make people so mad?
(7 - 11:27pm, Jan 19)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogRosenthal: The pressure is mounting — MLB cannot afford to lose games this season
(17 - 11:08pm, Jan 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Domestic Cups, Congested Fixture Lists and Winter Breaks
(253 - 11:00pm, Jan 19)
Last: MY PAIN IS NOT A HOLIDAY (CoB).

NewsblogWhat would a Mets trade package for Luis Castillo look like?
(9 - 10:43pm, Jan 19)
Last: Adam Starblind

NewsblogMLB, union stopped blood testing for HGH due to pandemic
(441 - 9:36pm, Jan 19)
Last: Ziggy: social distancing since 1980

NewsblogMelky Cabrera retires after 15 seasons
(35 - 7:53pm, Jan 19)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

NewsblogIf the Blue Jays truly believe in the dynamic duo of Vladimir Guerrero Jr. and Bo Bichette, now is the time to get the deals done
(16 - 4:57pm, Jan 19)
Last: Darren

NewsblogAnthony DeSclafani, San Francisco Giants agree to three-year, $36M contract, sources say
(11 - 3:32pm, Jan 19)
Last: Smitty*

NewsblogDodgers promote former MLB reliever Brandon Gomes to general manager as L.A. reshapes front office
(6 - 3:07pm, Jan 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogAfter 14 seasons, Francisco Liriano hangs up spikes
(10 - 3:01pm, Jan 19)
Last: gef the talking mongoose, peppery hostile

NewsblogThe history of baseball’s revenue streams
(7 - 10:51am, Jan 19)
Last: DL from MN

Page rendered in 0.2945 seconds
45 querie(s) executed