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, November 20, 2020

Why Curt Schilling Has No Place In Cooperstown

For better or worse, the positioning of the Hall of Fame as purely about on-field merit is part of what makes it meaningful. The mythologies of all American sports are premised on the idea that performance on the field is ultimately the great equalizer, no matter your identity.

But it’s both ludicrous and irresponsible to suggest that Schilling’s exclusion would somehow make the Hall of Fame less legitimate, or damage its legacy. Ryan Fagan can make himself feel better by turning and looking away, but it doesn’t change the fact that Schilling will give his speech all the same, and he will forever be on a literal pedestal among players whose very humanity he would throw dirt on.

What makes this cowardice, apparently shared by the majority of the voting BBWAA, particularly gross is that real, tangible harm is caused by the lies, abuse, and invective that Schilling willingly stands for. Words matter. Documented hate crimes are at a modern-day high. People are dying thanks to the violence incited by Schilling and his allies. For the writers to act as if the imagined sanctity of a museum is somehow more important than the damage done to real, human lives is not only callous and cruel, but an active endorsement of the numerous -isms and phobias Schilling promotes.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 20, 2020 at 02:20 PM | 180 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: curt schilling, hall of fame

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 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Howie Menckel Posted: November 22, 2020 at 01:03 PM (#5990665)
socially distanced bump
   102. sunday silence (again) Posted: November 22, 2020 at 01:04 PM (#5990666)
All of these guys did much worse things than Schilling did. There appears to be a very high bar to exclude worthy athletes for non gambling or PED reasons (and almost no precedent in most sports for removing someone once they've been inducted), and nothing Schilling said or did comes within miles of those established standards for rejection.


I guess this is more or less what I was trying to say. If Dick Allen is your best case that a character clause exists, well that's kind of a silly argument because probably the vast majority of primates wouldnt think that's a good reason to keep Allen out. They'd argue his lack of longevity or short peak or bad defense etc. I dont think anyone would keep him out based on his character, maybe Bill James I guess.

That leaves Roiders/Pete Rose and of course I think most of us see that as a different category of crime. So again pointing out that Roiders are kept out of the HoF. Sure there's a character clause. But its not really being enforced against people who say FUKCING CRAZY THINGS.

***

I didnt know or remember that's what happened to Tyrer. He technically did not win 9 straight All Pros because the AFL award was called the All AFL or something (awarded by Sporting News). He won 7 of those in the AFL and 2 All Pro awards after the 1970 merger. Basically he was an all pro for 9 straight years or so, just the award had a different name in the AFL.
   103. SoSH U at work Posted: November 22, 2020 at 01:15 PM (#5990669)
I guess this is more or less what I was trying to say. If Dick Allen is your best case that a character clause exists, well that's kind of a silly argument because probably the vast majority of primates wouldnt think that's a good reason to keep Allen out. They'd argue his lack of longevity or short peak or bad defense etc. I dont think anyone would keep him out based on his character, maybe Bill James I guess.


Are you suggesting Allen's reputation didn't affect his Hall vote. If so, I think you're very wrong. Not as wrong as RMc here, but pretty wrong.
   104. Ron J Posted: November 22, 2020 at 01:19 PM (#5990671)
#97 I've begun to regret engaging you, but what on earth makes you think fraud? Or that any of the 22 cases that have been dismissed have been done so wrongly.

And just so we're clear I flat guarantee that nobody who's responded to you would be OK with the Democrats stealing an election.

You're not attempting to talk. So far you've indulged in some rhetorical bomb throwing. And been called out for it.
   105. bachslunch Posted: November 22, 2020 at 01:31 PM (#5990674)
At least given what the Pro-Football-Reference site says:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TyreJi00.htm

Jim Tyrer was named a 1st team all pro by either the AFL or post-merger NFL 10 times by at least one organization. He also made 9 Pro Bowl squads or the AFL equivalent and is a member of the All-AFL Team. There's absolutely no question that his off-field issues have kept him out of the PFHoF, as those are elite level honors.

What's so ridiculous is that the PFHoF has no Character Clause and expressly says so in its selection guidelines. Unfortunately, it seems to apply in an unofficial sense about half the time to players and rarely if ever for owners. And the CC is applied haphazardly to players. Both Paul Hornung and Alex Karras were suspended a year for betting on NFL games -- Hornung was eventually inducted after being made to wait an interminably long time, but Karras languished forever until just making it in this year. Meanwhile, guys like Joe Schmidt and Bobby Layne, who either did the same thing or are strongly suspected of having done so, zoomed into the Hall in no time. And Kenny Stabler, who may have not just bet on NFL games but likely shaved points, got in after a long wait. Tyrer, meanwhile, languishes and probably will forever.
   106. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 22, 2020 at 01:33 PM (#5990675)
I finally caught up with Guiliani's press conference, and I don't know what to think of it. Some of it seems silly, some of it pretty damning,
There's no way to discuss this rationally with partisans.
If you thought Guiliani's presser contained damning revelations, then you're too partisan to discuss this rationally. The next fraud conspiracy Guiliani's team proves in court will literally be the first fraud conspiracy they prove in court.
   107. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 22, 2020 at 01:44 PM (#5990676)
“It’s impossible to have a rational discussion with you partisans about how Obama might not be an American!”
   108. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 22, 2020 at 01:45 PM (#5990677)
The ideal solution is to properly vote Curt Schilling into the Hall, and for an organized group of 250 or so attendees to boo for the duration of his speech. Everybody wins!
   109. Ron J Posted: November 22, 2020 at 01:53 PM (#5990679)
#102. He's marginal but is a reasonable comp to other marginal pitching selections from the 20s but maybe Carl Mays. Who in addition to killing Chapman was widely (with no real evidence though) believed to have been involved in a WS fix and was a deeply unpopular jerk before he killed Chapman.

Still not what you'd call compelling evidence. He did have the kind of record that could have got him in with the right backers.

You've got plenty of recreational drug users in the hall (coke and marijuana), including at least one who got caught up peripherally in a criminal case (Molitor -- who had to give evidence against his dealer)

That didn't keep them out.

As Bill James pointed out in the Will the McMeeting Come to Order essay many of the very best players were ... deeply flawed people.

I think Cap Anson is as good a comp as we're going to get for Schilling. A polarizing figure given to shooting his mouth off. And (almost) nobody considered it a reason not to induct him. Anson has other baggage too of course. It's easy to document that he bet on games that he played in. And there's his role in the color line (though his role was more loud spokesman for the majority than driving force).

Still, he went in with no particular problems and I wouldn't support his removal -- I don't think you'd be left with very many 19th century players. Charles Comiskey (as a player) is the only HOFer I can document as being opposed in any way to the color line. And of course he's not without controversy.
   110. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 22, 2020 at 02:00 PM (#5990680)
the Will the McMeeting Come to Order essay
Among my favorites of James' flights of fancy.

This isn't saying anything new, but Bill was a hell of a writer.
   111. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 22, 2020 at 02:03 PM (#5990682)
“It’s impossible to have a rational discussion with you partisans about how Obama might not be an American!”
This really is it.

"We shall accept no evidence, just as we will offer no consistency. With those ground rules settled, we invite you to talk - as civilized people do."
   112. Howie Menckel Posted: November 22, 2020 at 02:44 PM (#5990687)
the more interesting angles would be:

- partisans angry that Trumpers haven't yet accepted Biden as the legitimate winner - when we just had 4 years of endless chatter - including from Hillary and many of the primary candidates - about how Trump was "not the legitimate winner." there is, well, no consistency there.

- and if they ever DO find evidence of significant voter fraud against Trump, whether the media and the left would take it seriously. anyone who read even the first 10 pages of the executive summary of the Inspector General's report on the 2016-17 transition shenanigans by the FBI would say, "Holy ####, this is banana republic stuff!" - except almost nobody read it.

but saying, at this point, that there is any reason to take Trump's lawyers seriously is just a bridge too far (as Christie noted in Post 100).
   113. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 22, 2020 at 03:08 PM (#5990691)
Without exception, entire American intelligence community — including the Republican congressional intelligence committees — agrees that there was foreign interference in the 2016 election. The only thing the Durham investigations have revealed thus far is that the administration likes to lean on special investigators. The Trump campaign's fraud accusations haven't been able to survive even initial court challenges, with judges now openly mocking the campaign's lack of evidence. Let's not pretend the two sides are working at the same level here.
   114. tshipman Posted: November 22, 2020 at 03:17 PM (#5990693)
Howie showing how to give the more sophisticated version of right wing troll talking points.
   115. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 22, 2020 at 03:24 PM (#5990695)
Wow, I thought that politics wasn't allowed here. Guess I was mistaken. (smile)

FTR I've only got two things to say about Schilling and the HoF:

1. He should've gone in on the first ballot, or at the very least on the second. His peak and his historically great postseason record should make that obvious to anyone but the smallest of Small HoF advocates.

2. A player's social or political views---especially those expressed after he's retired and can't possibly affect the morale of his team---should have no influence on any HoF voter.
   116. ramifications of an exciting 57i66135 Posted: November 22, 2020 at 03:44 PM (#5990698)
2. A player's social or political views---especially those expressed after he's retired and can't possibly affect the morale of his team---should have no influence on any HoF voter.
counterpoint:

each HOF voter is allowed to decide for themselves whether a player is worth electing to the HOF, and if enough of them decide that schilling shouldn't get that honor while he's alive, then that's just how the process was designed to work.


you can talk about terrible people that have already been elected, but that doesn't matter. voters are not bound by precedent here.
   117. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 22, 2020 at 04:06 PM (#5990702)
My guess is that Trump will make a reasonably good fraud case to the Supreme Court;
I'll save you the trouble: your guess is not only wrong, but nonsensical. (We have the word "innumerate" for numerical illiteracy; we need a portmanteau for legal illiteracy.) One does not make cases to the Supreme Court; one makes cases to trial courts. So even if there were ironclad evidence of fraud — if Biden confessed as you jokingly suggest — the case could/would not be made to the Supreme Court.

But not only isn't there ironclad evidence of fraud, but there's none. Nada. If you believe everything that Trump's lawyers have submitted to the various state and federal courts, they still haven't shown any fraud. They're arguing procedural issues, not fraud. The fraud allegations have been in press conferences and on twitter, not in court.
   118. ramifications of an exciting 57i66135 Posted: November 22, 2020 at 04:12 PM (#5990704)
During the hearing, Giuliani repeatedly insisted that this case was about rampant voter “fraud.” But the lawsuit itself—like other Trump legal proceedings—never actually alleged fraud, as doing so would require clearing a higher legal standard. While repeatedly saying the case was about “fraud,” Giuliani went back and forth on the critical legal question of whether the campaign was alleging any for the purposes of the court. The judge asked, “It would be correct to say that you’re not alleging fraud in the amended complaint?” Giuliani responded that, actually, “it’s not correct” to say that because the complaint includes a “long explanation of a fraudulent process, a planned fraudulent process.” The judge followed up: “So you are alleging fraud?” Giuliani replied, “Yes, Your Honor.” A few minutes later, when the judge pointed out that the complaint would then have to meet a higher legal threshold, Giuliani chose to immediately “correct myself.”

“So does the amended complaint plead fraud in the particularity?” the judge asked. “No, Your Honor, it doesn’t plead fraud,” Giuliani finally acknowledged. “It pleads … a plan or scheme
...
At one point, opposing counsel openly mocked Giuliani’s comprehension of a key precedent, saying “I don’t think Mr. Giuliani has even read Judge Rogers’ argument or understood it.” Giuliani responded that he had read the opinion and understood it—but he got the judge in question wrong. “My goodness, Judge, I was accused of not reading your opinion, and if I did, not understanding it,” he said. “I have read your opinion and I do understand it. It was completely distinguishable from this case.” The opinion was written by a separate judge.

this all sounds eminently ironclad to me.

   119. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 22, 2020 at 04:15 PM (#5990705)
- partisans angry that Trumpers haven't yet accepted Biden as the legitimate winner - when we just had 4 years of endless chatter - including from Hillary and many of the primary candidates - about how Trump was "not the legitimate winner." there is, well, no consistency there.
This is sad whataboutism. There's no similarity here. Whining that Trump's presidency is "illegitimate" is not the same thing as saying that the election was fraudulent. Hillary conceded the election and acknowledged he was president. She never claimed that he didn't actually get the votes he was credited with.
   120. Ron J Posted: November 22, 2020 at 04:17 PM (#5990706)
#117 Hoped you would drop by. I get a sense that the judges who've been hearing these cases are ... not sure of the wording here, but maybe some combination of unhappy and distressed. The opinions I've read contain a lot of sharp language and in a number of cases the judges have asked some very pointed questions.

All that to say is that am I imagining things or are the judges actually doing some not too subtle dressing down of Trump's legal team?
   121. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 22, 2020 at 04:23 PM (#5990707)
All that to say is that am I imagining things or are the judges actually doing some not too subtle dressing down of Trump's legal team?
You’re not imagining things.They’re coming about as close to saying “Get the #### outta my courtroom, and you should be disciplined by the ARDC” as they reasonably can.
   122. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 22, 2020 at 04:27 PM (#5990708)

All that to say is that am I imagining things or are the judges actually doing some not too subtle dressing down of Trump's legal team?
You are not imagining things. The performance of these lawyers in the courtroom has fallen into one of two categories: reasonably-competent-in-the-service-of-irrelevant-arguments, and worse-than-Lionel-Hutz. (When I say irrelevant arguments, I mean arguments that would not lead to any meaningful relief for Trump. For example, they successfully got a court to hold that they could stand a little closer during vote counting. That was actually overturned by a higher court, but even before that: so what?) In Georgia they cited one case in support of standing, that had been overturned a long time ago, and submitted an affidavit that mixed up two states. They submitted an expert report that compares unfavorably to Facebook posts from TrumpMagafan38441334. Rudy, of course, did not even understand baseline concepts of constitutional law. On a scale of A team to C team, this isn't the C team; this is the Q team. (Pun intended.) Judges notice these things, and really don't take kindly to their time being wasted on 'emergency' litigation.
   123. bookbook Posted: November 22, 2020 at 04:33 PM (#5990709)
So, I think Schilling belongs in the HOF without qualification, but also to be shunned by all society.
   124. Ron J Posted: November 22, 2020 at 04:53 PM (#5990711)
#121 Another commentator pointed out that it's a bad sign when the judge prefaces a question with a reminder of the oath the attorney took (don't recall the precise words used) . Happened in one of the Pennsylvania cases. This commentator (a trial lawyer) said this was judge speak for, I'm losing my patience.
   125. Ron J Posted: November 22, 2020 at 05:02 PM (#5990712)
#123 Mentioned this before, but one of the guys in my strat league runs a game store and his partner got a very pleasant call from Schilling after a new Advanced Squad Leader release. And placed a decent sized order with Schilling (despite having no idea who Schilling was.)

I think a lot of people in the gaming community like him.
   126. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 22, 2020 at 05:17 PM (#5990713)
I think a lot of people in the gaming community like him.
Schilling may be the highest-profile celebrity wargamer. His love for ASL was mentioned a lot when he broke out.
   127. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 22, 2020 at 05:37 PM (#5990716)
There's also a very strong QAnon and Trump presence in the wargamer population, as GamerGate-y misogynistic and racist as any part of 8chan. My friend was one of the lead admin for ArenaNet until last year, and the stories he told about the forum harassment and in-game hunting of female gamers and players who professed liberal politics were many, varied, and chilling.
   128. TJ Posted: November 22, 2020 at 05:42 PM (#5990717)
So, I think Schilling belongs in the HOF without qualification, but also to be shunned by all society.


Does he have any children that could be taken away?
   129. Srul Itza At Home Posted: November 22, 2020 at 06:37 PM (#5990724)
- partisans angry that Trumpers haven't yet accepted Biden as the legitimate winner - when we just had 4 years of endless chatter - including from Hillary and many of the primary candidates - about how Trump was "not the legitimate winner." there is, well, no consistency there.


Remind me, again, how Obama refused to proceed with the transition?

Your incessant "whataboutism" in an attempt to defend Trumpism, while repeatedly claiming you are not, has worn thin. You are utterly dishonest.
   130. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 22, 2020 at 06:39 PM (#5990726)
The performance of these lawyers in the courtroom has fallen into one of two categories: reasonably-competent-in-the-service-of-irrelevant-arguments, and worse-than-Lionel-Hutz.
And one of the three Hutz-esque (not to be confused with "Hutz, Esq.") attorneys just got canned from the team.
   131. Howie Menckel Posted: November 22, 2020 at 06:46 PM (#5990728)
Howie showing how to give the more sophisticated version of right wing troll talking points.

unless you

a) read any of the Inspector General's report and
b) can tell me how comfortable you were with the transition schemes by the FBI and
c) can put together even single sentences acknowledging a basic grasp of both the comical "Steele Dossier" and the ethics of how multiple FISA warrants were obtained...

them ask not who's the troll - the troll is you

(rule of thumb: when someone has nothing of substance in their reply, it's a tell that they have no idea what they are talking about.)


"Whining that Trump's presidency is "illegitimate" is not the same thing as saying that the election was fraudulent."

wait, so the 2016 election was not fraudulent - but Trump's Presidency is "illegitimate?"

I mean, it was a million different terrible things. but that sounds like tortured syntax.


"Your incessant "whataboutism" in an attempt to defend Trumpism, while repeatedly claiming you are not, has worn thin."

yes, my providing that scathing Christie quote about the Trump evidence-free fraud claims really was my attempt to defend Trumpism. you caught me!

am looking forward to your cogent analysis of what the Steele Dossier ultimately turned out to be.

I mean, if you were just spouting off without having even a primitive grasp of the topic, you'd look pretty ignorant, after all. troll-like, even.

Horowitz's first task was to try to determine if it was clear that the Russia Russia investigation BEGAN purely as a political matter. he concluded no on that front, and he laid out why. and the press, the general public, and BBTF decided that was that - even though much of the rest of the report was an FBI shitshow.

the lack of intellectual curiosity in here is, as always, remarkable from those who fancy themselves to be sophisticated commenters.
   132. Srul Itza At Home Posted: November 22, 2020 at 06:50 PM (#5990729)
Judges notice these things, and really don't take kindly to their time being wasted on 'emergency' litigation


I am frankly amazed at the patience displayed by various courts, and in particular federal judges, when being faced with this nonsense. I can remember more than one federal judge who was more than a little threatening when his or her time was wasted with BS arguments, and gave little doubt that sanctions were in the offing. I have seen pro hac vice admissions yanked for misfeasance. Now, Giuliani's antices in Court may not rise to that level, but his nonsense press conference, making completely unsupported claims of criminal activity, to my mind, goes over the line. It may not be in court, but it is still improper action by an attorney, and attorneys can be sanctioned for out-of-court activity.
   133. bookbook Posted: November 22, 2020 at 07:05 PM (#5990733)
Howie,

I've read much of the Mueller Report. Mueller makes clear in that report that he couldn't prove collusion because Trump obstructed justice too effectively. (though it is established that top members of the Trump campaign team shared proprietary information with Russian agents in several of the 100+ contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians.) Which fits with multiple meetings between President Trump and Putin, where Trump refused to have any Americans present other than a translator--which is absolutely unprecedented, and a terrible idea for obvious reasons.

Nothing in the "Steele Dossier" has yet been refuted. You call it comical because you disagree with its implications.

Russians got into many states voting systems and voting rolls in 2016, but all indications are that they did not change any votes.

Trump's farcical legal arguments are designed to keep his violent followers convinced that Biden didn't actually win. How many innocents will be killed by the violence that provokes? We've been on a steady upswing of racist violence since 2016. It's about to spike higher.

   134. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 22, 2020 at 07:21 PM (#5990735)
but that sounds like tortured syntax.


You pretty clearly don't know what syntax means. Nieporent explained this very clearly, and as an actual lawyer who identifies as Libertarian and can't stand either Trump or the Dems, he should pass the Menckel non-partisan test. But I suppose that the upside here is that the pathetic narcissism of your and RMc's schtick is being further exposed, and the attempted shift to the Steele Dossier and the Mueller Report is mostly just a dodge. The main issue here is Trump's legal silliness and the fact that he has not conceded, and whatever anybody on the Right wants to say about Hillary Clinton, she conceded on Election Night. Like RMc, you should take your act to OTP, and keep it there.





   135. greenback used to say live and let live Posted: November 22, 2020 at 07:59 PM (#5990743)
the ethics of how multiple FISA warrants were obtained...

Julian Sanchez just went over the mechanics of FISC at EFF. Suffice to say, the FISC process is fundamentally flawed, and its flaws extend well beyond the Trump campaign. Basically our legal system is set-up with an assumption of adversarial advocates, and that includes the structure of FISC. But there's never been an effective adversarial review of FISA warrants, and the side that pursue these warrants has responded accordingly.
   136. Howie Menckel Posted: November 22, 2020 at 08:15 PM (#5990753)
I've read much of the Mueller Report...... Nothing in the "Steele Dossier" has yet been refuted. You call it comical because you disagree with its implications.


you forgot to add, "not only have I read none of the IG report, I strongly disagree with Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, and basically every top official who is in a position to know regarding the merits of the dossier and the FISA actions as of 2020."

I call the dossier comical while, well, you appear to be its leading remaining advocate on Earth.

but maybe the top FBI guys have converted into being Trumpers. how else to explain how all of them have testified publicly under oath that they would not have supported the issuing of those warrants if they had known then what they know now?

Trump must have promised them all pardons - yeah, that's the ticket!

do you know who Carter Page is? how are you with the FBI's actions regarding him, in retrospect? (friendly hint: if you're all good with it, you're further out on a lonely limb.)

alas, rr shall look in vain where I support Trump not having formally conceded. what I did say about his post-election efforts is that I have yet to see any significant evidence whatsoever presented by his attorneys. and again, I noted here Christie's expert analysis of the affair so far. reading comprehension is one of the many dying arts these days.

my point was quite different - that it shows a lack of self-awareness for any side to continue to use words like "illegitimate" and phrases like "he stole the election" for four full years and then clutch their pearls at the nerve of disappointed supporters on the other side acting the same way for - so far - a couple of weeks (although they, too, certainly will be mewling for four full years).

it would be nice if a moratorium on such nonsense could be declared within, oh, 60 days of the election.

any losing side should, well, move on.
   137. ramifications of an exciting 57i66135 Posted: November 22, 2020 at 08:21 PM (#5990754)
"the rise in ritualistic torture murders seems troubling, but we should spend more of your time chasing a few petty thieves instead."

-- howie.
   138. Howie Menckel Posted: November 22, 2020 at 08:51 PM (#5990758)
waiting for a substantive reply here is about as fruitful as waiting for OJ to catch the real killers.

how would one know if the IG report showed "petty thieves," or perhaps more, unless one at least read the 10 recommended pages?

the glorification of ignorance and blind faith in one's social media feed is remarkable.

the IG is incredibly well-respected across the political spectrum.

he reached a conclusion regarding whether there was sufficient justification to initially open the Trump Russia probe in 2016. he is hailed as a conquering hero on the left for that conclusion - minstrels write songs about him.

so what is so terrifying about learning what else he concluded - or Comey, or Rosenstein, or Yates, et al?

is the FBI illegally spying on an innocent American citizen, and then lying about it repeatedly to a federal court, now just a joke - a "petty crime?"

really?

so whether this conduct is ok now depends on the laundry? that's amazing.

I'm so old, I remember when the FBI's excesses against innocent citizens provoked lots of outrage. the ACLU opposed it, and everything.

if and when somebody else's Constitutional rights are trampled, I'm not going to ask for a resume before I oppose it.

you're allowed to both vociferously oppose Trump AND recognize other serious issues.

I'm kidding - you'd get buried on your social media feed. the bullies - like the ones here - pounce on any lack of complete fealty to the cause. so why take a chance?
   139. Mefisto Posted: November 22, 2020 at 09:20 PM (#5990764)
Mueller makes clear in that report that he couldn't prove collusion because Trump obstructed justice too effectively.


Not quite right. Mueller never tried to prove collusion because collusion is not a legal term.* The legal term is conspiracy. It was conspiracy which Mueller couldn't prove because the obstruction was successful.

*Use of the term "collusion" was a deliberate ploy by Trump and his enablers seed that word into the discourse so that they could then say that Mueller didn't prove it.
   140. ramifications of an exciting 57i66135 Posted: November 22, 2020 at 09:40 PM (#5990767)
is the FBI illegally spying on an innocent American citizen, and then lying about it repeatedly to a federal court, now just a joke - a "petty crime?"

have you been asleep for the last 20 years?

the federal government "illegally" spying on american citizens hasn't been so much as a petty crime since (at the absolute latest) 9/11.


also, i assume your so-called learnedness extends to the concept of "testi-lying", right? because lying repeatedly in court has been one of the main underpinings of our criminal justice system since mapp v. ohio.
you're allowed to both vociferously oppose Trump AND recognize other serious issues.
except you only ever do one of those things, and even that only very rarely touches on "serious issues" rather than niche criticisms that are neither major, nor serious, nor systemic, nor persistent.
   141. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 22, 2020 at 09:48 PM (#5990769)
Nothing in the "Steele Dossier" has yet been refuted.
You may want to check on that again.
   142. Mayor Blomberg Posted: November 22, 2020 at 09:59 PM (#5990772)
Now someone explain how Batshit Betty who "proved" the Chavez Plot was just canned by Roodie?

Good to see Howie dropped the high-minded mask finally.
   143. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 22, 2020 at 10:09 PM (#5990775)
2. A player's social or political views---especially those expressed after he's retired and can't possibly affect the morale of his team---should have no influence on any HoF voter.

counterpoint:

each HOF voter is allowed to decide for themselves whether a player is worth electing to the HOF, and if enough of them decide that schilling shouldn't get that honor while he's alive, then that's just how the process was designed to work.


Far be it for me to tell any HoF voter how to vote. I'm just saying that IMO Schilling is clearly a HoFer on the basis of his playing career, and that his political opinions should be irrelevant as his opinions on the current state of baseball. Obviously at this point only 70% of the voters agree with me.
   144. Lassus Posted: November 22, 2020 at 10:24 PM (#5990777)


Maggots and clowns, all the way down.
   145. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 22, 2020 at 10:51 PM (#5990780)
do you know who Carter Page is? how are you with the FBI's actions regarding him, in retrospect? (friendly hint: if you're all good with it, you're further out on a lonely limb.)
The FBI's big sin here is that one of their lawyers said the the CIA declared that Page lied about being an informant for the CIA. As it turned out, Page actually DID lie to the FBI about being a CIA informant, and the FBI found out about it, but — and here's the entire case — the CIA never publicly said it, because the CIA doesn't publicly tell people who their informants are.

The lawyer in question, Kevin Clinesmith, plead guilty to changing emails and naming the CIA as the unnamed intelligence body Page was lying about. It's important to note that Clinesmith was RIGHT that Page lied to the FBI, and he was RIGHT that the unnamed intelligence source Page was lying about was indeed the CIA. The right thing to do would be to go after the lawyer for overreach on his evidence.

Instead, DoJ is spinning it as this Page being some poor innocent victim of the evil liberal deep-staters at the FBI, hoping everyone will ignore the fact that Page totally lied to the Feds, and that the FBI's interest in him was fully legit. The GOP's own Senate intelligence report stated:
“While there were several problems with the F.B.I.’s FISA renewals for Page, the committee assesses that Page’s previous ties to Russian intelligence officers, coupled with his Russian travel, justified the F.B.I.’s initial concerns about Page.” Link
   146. Howie Menckel Posted: November 22, 2020 at 11:47 PM (#5990784)
ok, we finally have someone here who knows - well, anything.

I would need a cite about Page actually improperly lying to the FBI. but if it's there, it's there.

I take it that Clinesmith was the one who forged an email and pleaded guilty. "changing emails" strikes me as quite a kindness.

and I thought we had already litigated whether the FBI was justified in opening the investigation.

Horowitz found yes. what matters is what happened after.

and I truly appreciate your substantive response.

also, "DoJ is spinning it as this Page being some poor innocent victim of the evil liberal deep-staters at the FBI"

but how does this square with the regrets of Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, et al?

don't you need legitimate and accurate intelligence to spy on an American citizen, regardless of the subject's political affiliation? would you care to inform the peanut gallery here of the widespread sworn testimony of the top FBI people involved now that the cat got out of the bag?

I mean, we have a poster here who remains all-in on the Steele Dossier. any wisdom you wish to impart will go a much longer way coming from you than me (recognizing that there are land mines in revealing what you - and anyone who paid attention - know, as you clearly do, goes too outside the prescribed norms these days. I suspect that even acknowledging 2019-20 sworn public testimony of the top FBI people and those regrets might not go over well).

regardless, I am grateful to be respond to an adult in the BBTF playroom.

the infants continue to gather. in 2020, ignorance has finally become bliss after all.
   147. Dog on the sidewalk has an ugly bracelet Posted: November 23, 2020 at 12:48 AM (#5990787)
Howie, apparently I don't find the existence of malfeasance within the FBI as shocking as you do, but otherwise I don't disagree much with anything you're saying.

That said, you're making me agree with a stiggles post (#137), and for that you should apologize. Right now, one side, led by the ****ing president, is running a depressingly effective gaslighting campaign to obliterate the nation's confidence in our basic institutions, in an attempt to overturn election results it dislikes. The other side is not.

I'll happily join you in pointing out the left's foibles once Trump's assault on democracy has been thwarted.
   148. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 23, 2020 at 01:29 AM (#5990790)
Right now, one side, led by the ****ing president, is running a depressingly effective gaslighting campaign to obliterate the nation's confidence in our basic institutions, in an attempt to overturn election results it dislikes. The other side is not.*

*And never has, false equivalencies notwithstanding.
   149. Brian C Posted: November 23, 2020 at 01:57 AM (#5990791)
Just caught up with this thread and have a few thoughts:

1) The cases against Schilling being in the HoF seem unpersuasive to me. I took a friend to see a Paul Gauguin exhibit at the Art Institute of Chicago a few years back, and she expressed some mild revulsion about how some of Gauguin's Tahitian models and presumed lovers were ... very young. And sure, it's pretty easy to make the case that Gauguin's behavior was awful. But, if you start really caring about all that stuff to the point where you want the art removed - and my friend did not say they should, but for the sake of argument - then you might as well set the museum on fire because you won't have much left.

So yeah, Schilling is a semi-disgusting public figure. But it is what it is, and honestly his crimes aren't really all that bad in the scheme of things. Basically, he has the 38 Studios fallout that no one seems to honestly care about at all, and we have a bunch of inane-but-ugly stuff he's posted on social media. So he's a complete clown but ... we already know some real a-holes are in the Hall. And the law of averages tell us that there are almost certainly more who we don't know about, that did a better job of managing their p.r., but in reality did worse than Schilling did. And there will be more inducted in the future. What are we going to do, burn it down? If he was good enough to get in, put him in, and we're all free to call him an a-hole anyway.

2) Didn't guess at the outset that this thread would turn to the merits of the Steele dossier, and I don't understand the relevance either to Schilling or the subsequent (inevitable) political turn. Howie just brought it up out of the blue (#112) to make a specious claim about how the media would cover actual evidence of election fraud. Then having brought it up out of the blue, he proceeded to affect high dudgeon about it, with the clear implication that everyone was unserious about the actual issue at hand because they were unwilling to engage him satisfactorily on his irrelevant pet issue. Right or wrong, seems like weird behavior.
   150. JJ1986 Posted: November 23, 2020 at 08:24 AM (#5990798)
At least Howie's not being incredibly rude for no reason.
   151. Hugo Chavez crashing on Zonk's couch as he codes Posted: November 23, 2020 at 08:56 AM (#5990800)
do you know who Carter Page is? how are you with the FBI's actions regarding him, in retrospect? (friendly hint: if you're all good with it, you're further out on a lonely limb.)


Yes, I know who Carter Page is. Do you?

Are you aware that in 2013, Carter Page was the object of a Russian espionage recruitment effort - that two Russian agents were convicted of espionage in the scheme, with one deported and the other going to prison? No, Page wasn't charged - because at the point the ring was broken up, he hadn't acquired anything secret, illegal, or otherwise unavailable quasi-publicly? And that in fact, the first FISA warrant to monitor Page was the year following because rather than appearing chastened by his brush with the SVR, he essentially put it on his resume? All this years before he - presumably at least, even met Trump?

Should we do Paul Manafort next?

The problem with these excuses is that they all depend on some fanciful flight of foofurall where Time Began with a golden escalator ride and oddly, nothing that happened before that point counts....
   152. Howie Menckel Posted: November 23, 2020 at 09:41 AM (#5990805)
the consensus seems to be that keeping Schilling out of the Hall because he is a dumbass is silly, so yea BBTF.

the Trump fraud stuff was a boring pinata, obviously, so it was useless.

and it's now pretty obvious to all which posters know what they are talking about regarding politics - and which just throw around insults like caged monkeys tossing their feces, parroting whatever their social media feeds tell them to. that, well, unmasking strikes me as a win.

good day, chaps.
   153. BDC Posted: November 23, 2020 at 09:52 AM (#5990808)
Well, I'd say Schilling is more evil than dumb, but he was a great baseball player and I would vote for him for the HOF.

And that's obviously a "should" statement. I understand that I'm not a HOF voter and that the character clause has been variously interpreted by actual HOF voters. So it's like saying that Stockard Channing should have won an Oscar for Six Degrees of Separation. It's not my decision but I do get to have an opinion :)

Well, except that Stockard Channing is neither evil nor dumb.
   154. SoSH U at work Posted: November 23, 2020 at 10:08 AM (#5990811)
Howie sure showed you guys.
   155. mike f Posted: November 23, 2020 at 10:36 AM (#5990815)
Folks the ignore button is right there.
   156. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: November 23, 2020 at 11:26 AM (#5990824)
I took a friend to see a Paul Gauguin exhibit at the Art Institute of Chicago a few years back, and she expressed some mild revulsion about how some of Gauguin's Tahitian models and presumed lovers were ... very young. And sure, it's pretty easy to make the case that Gauguin's behavior was awful. But, if you start really caring about all that stuff to the point where you want the art removed - and my friend did not say they should, but for the sake of argument - then you might as well set the museum on fire because you won't have much left.
Gauguin's art often revolves around the fetishization of underage girls, which makes it materially different from the bulk of the art on the walls. Degas (for instance) was a virulent anti-Semite, but he doesn't remind you of that fact in half of his pictures. You could argue that much of Gauguin's art is a pedophile's record of his successfully pedophilia. This feels worse than most politically incorrect art -- it's not like a racist's art depicting racist themes, but closer to someone who has taken part in physical violence against minorities making art glorifying that violence.

To be clear, I also wouldn't take Gauguin's art off the walls and believe that setting this sort of precedent can lead to a slippery slope. It's just that his stuff is worse than 98% of the rest of what's on a typical museum's walls.

Also, I'd vote for Schilling for the HoF.
   157. rr: calming the thread down with my arms Posted: November 23, 2020 at 12:33 PM (#5990836)
I learned some stuff about Gauguin, and Menckel confirmed some stuff about his "politics" and "character", at least online, with his own words. So I will call this a win, too, since we all know that these discussions are a competition. Heh. Gauguin was played by Oscar Isaac in a movie about Van Gogh (Willem Dafoe, who was great) a few years back. Gauguin was portrayed very sympathetically, in terms of his friendship with Van Gogh.
   158. Hugo Chavez crashing on Zonk's couch as he codes Posted: November 23, 2020 at 12:35 PM (#5990838)
I refuse to concede the concession accepted until all the valid whattabouts are counted.
   159. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: November 23, 2020 at 12:59 PM (#5990847)
and it's now pretty obvious to all which posters know what they are talking about regarding politics - and which just throw around insults like caged monkeys tossing their feces, parroting whatever their social media feeds tell them to. that, well, unmasking strikes me as a win.


It's unclear why you automatically put yourself into the neutral, "know what they are talking about regarding politics" category. You started the thread by adopting Trump's provocative talking point about being "spyed upon" indicating that you had already moved from neutral observer to partisan. So why are you surprised and insulted that everyone doesn't want to engage you on your terms?

Investigations happen all the time. Sometimes they find something and sometimes not. People are wiretapped, with a warrant, during investigations all the time. Sometimes they find something and sometimes not. What is not done is cry that people being wiretapped during an investigation are being spyed upon. For example, does anyone say that you are spying on an alleged Mafioso when you wiretap him? Does anyone say that you are spying on someone when the FBI has an informer wear a wire during an interview with them during an investigation? What makes Carter Page so different that the pejorative word "spying" is appropriate?

There can certainly be questions on whether the investigation of Carter Page was begun appropriately, although you seem to concede this point. You can also question if the investigation's scope got too wide or went on too long. But you need more than these question to justify using "spying".

In your question of the Steele dossier, what are you alleging? It was a set of raw intel gathered through Steele's extensive network of Russian contacts. Like all raw intel, much of it was accurate, some of it wasn't, and some couldn't be proven either way and remain speculative. The importance wasn't the raw intel itself since it was still unproven, but giving investigators leads to follow-up on. While some of these leads proved to be dead-ends, this doesn't disqualify the dossier as a basis for further investigation.
   160. Hugo Chavez crashing on Zonk's couch as he codes Posted: November 23, 2020 at 01:12 PM (#5990851)
It seems painfully obvious at this point that the single biggest error of 2016 was picking up an abandoned oppo research project initiated by a Rubio backer rather than simply finding a bunch of ne'er do wells to act as proxies to hit up a wanted hacker for juicy ill-gotten e-mails...

Lessons learned, I guess.
   161. base ball chick Posted: November 23, 2020 at 02:34 PM (#5990870)
schilling is a disgusting person with disgusting opinions, which yes, he does have the right to believe and to say. this said, he is most certainly a HOF pitcher. i can't see how his opinions had anything to do with his on field performance. i am not sympathetic to the HOF excluding roiders/suspected roiders neither.

oh yeah
so far, repub judges and repub state executives and trumps OWN election person have all agreed that there is no election fraud ecept the trumpist who tried to vote in his dead mother's name. guiliani looks as if he is pretty close to not sane. i can't figure out how this guy ever won a court case in his life
   162. ecwcat Posted: November 23, 2020 at 02:42 PM (#5990871)
I don't think Curt is a shoe-in (excuse the pun), regardless of character. I only like the best of the best. He would be an average pitcher in the hall. Nothing to sneeze at, but he's not Bonds.

The talk for Curt started with his post-season heroics. Otherwise, he's basically Kevin Brown.
   163. Ron J Posted: November 23, 2020 at 03:06 PM (#5990877)
#162 The ship's sailed on needing to be better than Schilling to qualify. "Average pitcher in the hall" is a strong case. This isn't a case of redefining the lower level of acceptable.

To be clear, I don't see him as overwhelmingly qualified, merely fully qualified.
   164. base ball chick Posted: November 23, 2020 at 03:51 PM (#5990886)
well, the HOF bar has been lowered bigly by the elections of jack barely average morris and whatshisname the reliever, not to mention harold are you kidding me baines.

so comparing pitchers now to the lowest bar of morris, schilling is more than qualified.

ianal, so i don't know what exactly is the bar for "hate speech" but among american born caucasian ballplayers, about the only non righty i know of is sean doolittle (and probably lucas giolito and gabe kapler) and from what i've seen and heard, schillings opinions are right (hahaha) with most of them. he's just also a total jerk

yknow, i'm really glad i got married before social media started. because i have gone to a couple of the mens rights/gamergate type sites and was absolutely sick about the number of males who absolutely HATE females of any color/religion and wish us, let's say, harm and lots of it. and what really freaks me out is that unless some guy wears a shirt saying something like - if it's female i hate it and it should be raped to death - how do you know by looking at some male whether he WANTS to be wearing a shirt like that or whether he is a normal decent human. (if i was obsessed with war games/gaming i wouldn't NEVER tell the others that i have no youknowwhat or say anything political)

kind of like how i feel absolutely sick knowing that 75 million people are racist/fascist/"religious" freaks. i mean, it's not like i didn't know they existed, but seriously millions of people who really REALLY believe that democrats are selling and eating babies and trump wants to kill all of us/them and rescue the uneaten infants - it just does not compute

the 2016 election, i kind of divided voters into categories:

1- socialist;
2- democrat;
3-anyone who will only vote for someone the same ethnic group/religion whether right or left;
4-the few who would try to vote for the best candidate regardless of party;
5-any candidate who is anti abortion (they don't care about ANY other issue);
6-people of either party who HATE hilary clinton and/or bill and would vote for a dead dog before voting for them;
7- people who hate repubs AND dems and vote libertarian (people like DMN are pretty rare, most so called "libertarians" sure seem to always agree with trump) or any other candidate who is either independent or green party or some such
8- george hw bush repubs who feel they have to vote for any repub candidate and can't stand trump;
9- trump luvvers who LIKE, no, LOVE the fact that he is a cheat, liar, thief, bully, total bigot, serial adulterer and sexual assaulter - he does whatever he happens to want to without consequences and that is a lure like heroin to an addict. as far as i am concerned, anyone who holds up trump as the ideal "christian" or says he is the "christian" candidate is about as Christian as the dirt under mah feet

this election, i guess you could combine 1 and 2. still number 3s. no more 5 or 6 - ALL antiabortion candidates are repub and they are now all (best i can tell) anti abortion. a lot fewer 7 and 8.

this leaves a yuge ton of racists out there. bigly sad.




   165. Srul Itza Posted: November 23, 2020 at 07:08 PM (#5990915)
i can't figure out how this guy ever won a court case in his life


The excellent staff that is hired by the US Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York, who do all the heavy lifting.
   166. BrianBrianson Posted: November 24, 2020 at 01:35 AM (#5990942)
Well, and he's 76 and hasn't actually been doing this stuff for like 30 years. When my grandfather was 79, he told me the following story:

"You know Brian, I used to remember things."

So, there's that.
   167. Ron J Posted: November 24, 2020 at 04:06 AM (#5990943)
#165 There's also the rather large issue that he has no background in electoral law. It's certainly plausible that there's a set of skills that could make a person an excellent prosecutor (particularly when supported by excellent staff) and absolutely hopeless at other forms of law.

Pays to hire specialists and the Republican party has plenty of excellent electoral law specialists. Most of whom did not seem very interested in arguing Trump's cases.
   168. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: November 24, 2020 at 10:51 AM (#5990956)
My friend was one of the lead admin for ArenaNet until last year, and the stories he told about the forum harassment and in-game hunting of female gamers and players who professed liberal politics were many, varied, and chilling.


As someone who has played both of the ArenaNet games quite a bit, the communities are generally better than they are for other games, especially online games. Which shows how incredibly awful the gaming community can be.
   169. . Posted: November 24, 2020 at 12:31 PM (#5990961)
Here's an idea: Let's all get together and tell ourselves how much better and purer we are than the right-winger. And then let's see if modern technology and its methods of social control have developed to the point where we can enforce a society-wide shunning of him. Not only shouldn't he be in the Hall of Fame, but there's no real reason he should be able to get a mortgage or a credit card either.

   170. DanG Posted: November 24, 2020 at 01:30 PM (#5990974)
I sense a little snarkasm from the dot.
   171. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: November 24, 2020 at 04:14 PM (#5990995)
Here's an idea: Let's all get together and tell ourselves how much better and purer we are than the right-winger. And then let's see if modern technology and its methods of social control have developed to the point where we can enforce a society-wide shunning of him. Not only shouldn't he be in the Hall of Fame, but there's no real reason he should be able to get a mortgage or a credit card either.


WTF are you going on about? If you read most of the posts, the majority are in favour of election to the HOF for Schilling as he is more then qualified. Yes, he is a pretty unsavoury human. However since he's not in the Pol Pot/peodophile level of disgusting, most of us think his opinions expressed on twitter after his retirement should have no bearing on his ability to be elected to the HOF.
   172. TJ Posted: November 24, 2020 at 04:48 PM (#5991009)
Here's an idea: Let's all get together and tell ourselves how much better and purer we are than the right-winger. And then let's see if modern technology and its methods of social control have developed to the point where we can enforce a society-wide shunning of him. Not only shouldn't he be in the Hall of Fame, but there's no real reason he should be able to get a mortgage or a credit card either.


1. I don’t want Schilling banned from the HOF or be unable to get a mortgage or credit card. I just want his children taken away. Geez, talk about an overreaction....

2. If Schilling can’t get credit or a loan, I would think it would be due to the financial disaster that was 38studios more so than anything posted here.

3. While I am certain that Schilling is a much better pitcher than me, Iam just as certain that I am a much better human being than him, and I’m not that great of a human being...
   173. TJ Posted: November 24, 2020 at 05:34 PM (#5991016)
Latest Ace of Spaeder Update (through 41 ballots):

Bonds and Clemens are the only players above 75%, with both topping 80%. Helton is third at 68% and Surprising Sammy Sosa sits fourth at 63%. No one else is over the 60% mark. Schilling is at 53%, tied with Andruw Jones and one vote behind Omar Vizquel...
   174. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 24, 2020 at 07:14 PM (#5991022)
Not going to read the clickbait article. I’d vote for Schilling but I can understand why some people in the media wouldn’t.
   175. base ball chick Posted: November 24, 2020 at 08:26 PM (#5991032)
. Posted: November 24, 2020 at 12:31 PM (#5990961)
Here's an idea: Let's all get together and tell ourselves how much better and purer we are than the right-winger.


- we don't need to get together for that

And then let's see if modern technology and its methods of social control have developed to the point where we can enforce a society-wide shunning of him.


- wouldn't do no good. theres 75 million more where he came from

Not only shouldn't he be in the Hall of Fame, but there's no real reason he should be able to get a mortgage or a credit card either


- as you might could have learned from your HEro donnie poo, the rich and in-debt "rich" can get all the mortgages and credit cards they want whether or not they are in or out of any sort of hall.
   176. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 25, 2020 at 07:33 AM (#5991062)
and it's now pretty obvious to all which posters know what they are talking about regarding politics - and which just throw around insults like caged monkeys tossing their feces,

So I guess accusing people of throwing around insults "like caged monkeys tossing their feces" would qualify as an insult only if Howie had substituted "shit" for "feces". I'm glad we have Wise Men like Howie around to explain these important distinctions.
   177. . Posted: November 25, 2020 at 07:52 AM (#5991063)
Putting aside the fact that "based on my standards for good human beings, I adjudge myself a good human being" isn't exactly the stuff of Aristotle, one is hard-pressed to find a trait more definitive of the good human being than spending half their waking hours or more in consort with other good human beings propping up their self-images by denominating other people terrible human beings. Which is probably why this site, like many others in recent years, has become more akin to a needy support group than anything else -- "I'm Andy, and I'm a good human being."
   178. TJ Posted: November 25, 2020 at 10:30 AM (#5991074)
Ryan Thibs just posted an anonymous HOF ballot with votes for both Aramis Ramirez and Torii Hunter, but not Curt Schilling. I will leave it up to others to decide if that voter is a good human being or a bad one...
   179. Booey Posted: November 25, 2020 at 12:24 PM (#5991100)
#178 - That ballot also has Manny Ramirez but not Bonds or Clemens. That makes no sense from the POV of voters who are penalizing for PED's, or from the ones who aren't. His selections seem completely random.
   180. Zach Posted: November 25, 2020 at 04:57 PM (#5991171)
What, seriously, has nobody in this thread ever voted for a losing political candidate? Would you be willing to submit to a "political character clause" for anything you found important in your own life? (administered by a frothing partisan of the other side, naturally)

You protect your own free speech by drawing a very, very large boundary around the speech you are willing to tolerate from others.

"Voting for the other guy" or "being a jerk on Twitter" is not anywhere close to being something where we should invoke the character clause.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dingbat_Charlie
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRockies, Reds Swap Jeff Hoffman For Robert Stephenson
(7 - 5:17pm, Nov 25)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogWhy everybody should vote Andy Pettitte into the Hall of Fame
(38 - 5:15pm, Nov 25)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogNBA Post-Bubble offseason thread
(1882 - 5:10pm, Nov 25)
Last: aberg

NewsblogLet's Rethink the Playoffs
(1 - 4:59pm, Nov 25)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogWhy Curt Schilling Has No Place In Cooperstown
(180 - 4:57pm, Nov 25)
Last: Zach

NewsblogBrian Vikander on Steve Dalkowski and the 110-MPH Fastball
(8 - 4:47pm, Nov 25)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - Winter Is Here
(114 - 4:41pm, Nov 25)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

NewsblogRandy Arozarena filmed in domestic dispute over daughter in Mexico
(10 - 3:53pm, Nov 25)
Last: Tin Angel

NewsblogMLB During COVID-19 Behind The Scenes
(1 - 3:03pm, Nov 25)
Last: Mayor Blomberg

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(10593 - 1:08pm, Nov 25)
Last: Mayor Blomberg

NewsblogSources: Atlanta Braves, RHP Charlie Morton agree to 1-year, $15 million deal
(16 - 12:43pm, Nov 25)
Last: Crispix Attacksel Rios

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-25-2020
(4 - 11:57am, Nov 25)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogAstros Gauging Trade Interest In Carlos Correa
(14 - 11:50am, Nov 25)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2020 Ballot
(2 - 9:44am, Nov 25)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogMLB announces tentative plans for 2021 MLB at Field of Dreams presented by GEICO
(4 - 8:42am, Nov 25)
Last: .

Page rendered in 0.7436 seconds
48 querie(s) executed