Re: What Did You Watch? November 6th (Friday)
David
<ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>In article <ftbaf5lb6441c1pbe...@4ax.com>,
> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:32:48 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >What did you watch?
>>
>> The Yankees parade. Then the Yankee rally at City Hall. Then the '96
>> World Series on ESPN Classic. Yankees! Ah ha ha ha ha.
>
>Who?
Here, leezard leezard...
Ian J. Ball
web...@polaris.net (Ubiquitous) wrote:
> In article <j87af51ehn18icq94...@4ax.com>, da...@block.net
> wrote:
>
> >What did you watch?
>
> TMC UNDERGROUND:
> "Putney Swope". My gawd, I have NO clue what was going on!
I always forget that this is on. I really wish they'd move it to late
Saturday/early Sunday instead of late Friday/early Saturday - if they'd
do that, I'd remember about it a lot more often... :/
--
"There's no business, like Cho business."
- Patrick Jane, "The Mentalist", 02/11/09
steve march
"Frank Swarbrick" <fswar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7lp8hoF...@mid.individual.net...
> steve march wrote:
>> The only characters that seem weak to me are the two younger boys.
>> Though
> Are you including Manny in the "two younger boys"? I disagree. Manny
> rules! He's been excellent from the beginning. Best of all of the kids.
I'm not saying they are bad. They just don't stand out for me. For the kids
I like the two older giral, one going barbie, the other smart and dark.
Ian J. Ball
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ijball-NO_SPAM-9C5...@nntp.aioe.org...
> > In article <hd7sbp$db1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, mostly, I am a Steelers fan...
> >
> > This explains *so much*!... >:/
> >
> >> but I do like the Giants and Jets as well
> >> since they both come from New Jersey.
> >
> > And it gets WORSE!!!1!
>
> You are just upset because that 'North Tijuana' comment hit home.
'Talk to the hand', Steelers punk!!
--
"There's no business, like Cho business."
- Patrick Jane, "The Mentalist", 02/11/09
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:06ahf5hvq2aqt1fgr...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:19:05 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Um...ok...so let's review:
>>
>>There are 4 major sports: Football, baseball, Basketball, and Hockey.
>>New York has 2 baseball teams, two hockey teams, a basketball team and two
>>(zero) football teams.
>>In the last 9 years your city has won 2 Championships out of the potential
>>of 36 chances...and one of those two 'wins' came from a team that really
>>isn't from New York, but New Jersey instead?
>
> Devils and Nets are local teams who just happen to have a stadium
> right over the bridge,
Here we go, more of the New Yorkers can't win anything so they try to claim
New Jersey's teams as theirs. The Devils, Nets, and Giants are all New
Jersey teams.
> I count Yankees (2000, 2009),
Why are you counting 2000? I said last nine years: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009.
- 1 point.
> Giants (2008) and Devils (2000, 2003).
All belong to New Jersey.
- 3 points.
> And 7 of the 9 local teams have
> been competitive for most of this decade,
True. The Yankeees have spent far more to lock in all those not the best
'almosts' than any other team.
>>What is it you were saying about the wise spending of money?
>
> I didn't say anything on that topic except that the Cubs have a high
> payroll.
You didn;'t claim that the Yankees spend their money wisely?
> In fact I pointed out that every sport has competitive
> balance, and thus NY teams' performances this decade are about right,
> and the baseball and football wins in two consecutive years are
> something impressive.
...but...but...New York City doesn't have any football teams.
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:12:14 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Not really. Sometimes teams spend a whole bunch of money one year trying
>>to
>>secure themseves a championship, then cut the payroll to near nothing
>>thereafter. Remember the Florida Marlins run to the World series and the
>>team selloff right after it?
>
> Yes, that happened once last decade.
You think that teams making 'financial runs' at the title is something that
only happened once? It happens with every playoff potemntial team every
year when it gets close to the signing deadline to add/trade players.
Certainly, some teams are more obvious about it than others, but team
payrolls do not remain constant from year to year.
>>There is a big difference in New York City (and in America) between 50
>>years
>>ago and now. You cannot seriously use the events from a half century ago
>>as
>>some sort of misguided 'proof' that New York City couldn't financially
>>support more basball teams. Just look at the 2009 payroll numbers and it
>>is
>>pretty clear that the funds for Yankees/Mets could be spread over 4 still
>>well funded teams.
>
> I didn't say anything in regards to the market financially supporting
> more teams. I said that Steinbrenner may have created the market, or
> at least helped it grow, probably at personal financial loss.
Um...sure...poor old Steinbrenner is losing money, just like every
pro-sports team owner. wink wink.
>>> The other teams can't equal that, but on the other hand many of them
>>> don't use the assets they have and aren't willing to invest in their
>>> teams, even with the money from luxury tax and shared merchandise/tv
>>> deals that rightfully belongs to the Yankees
>>
>>Rightfully belong to the Yankees? That right there is the mentality that
>>causes me to say that the only real solution to this unfair advantage is
>>to
>>open up New York City to adding on a couple more professional baseball
>>teams.
>
> How is that wrong? If someone buys a Yankees baseball cap it's because
> they like the Yankees. What claim do the Marlins have to a percentage
> of that money? You could say that the Yankees don't exist in a bubble
> and need other teams but I don't think the Yankees would sell fewer
> caps if the Marlins didn't exist.
> That doesn't mean I have the mentality that everything should go to
> the Yankees, I'm just pointing out the reality of it.
The reality is: without the unfair advantage in market size that the
Yankees get in NYC, they wouldn't be able to fork out those huge payrolls.
Baseball continues to hand that unfair advantage to the Yankees, even with
the 'luxury tax' attemtp to deter their spending their way to every title.
The better solution is to add more teams to that market. Then, and only
then, will there be some 'equal opportunity' for the smaller market teams to
compete.
>>> Sure it's there if you're only looking at a chart, but nothing bears
>>> it out in real life or in comparison to other sports leagues.
>>
>>Now you are back to using the Yankees amazing ability to lose when it
>>counts
>>as a claim that they don't have an unfair financial advantage.
>
> I think the evidence I've provided is overwhelming, while all you've
> provided are exceptions to the rule (ie. money buys the best teams but
> their management is inept; money bought the best team but they can't
> win when it counts).
What evidence? You plopped out a chart showing that the Yankees nearly
double any other teams payroll. that supports my argument, not your. You
plopped out a list of the last 9 World Series winners (the one stat where
the Yankees have come up short with their purchasing power), but
conveniently ignored the issue of wins/playoff appearances because you know
that those two lists would support the very clear fact that increased
payroll can buy increased performance.