gantrules Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 Naah, that's all Steinbrenner's fault. btw, where are you sitting for $35? My friend's season tix for the Mets are almost double that amount for field box. 197058[/snapback] Toronto and Pittsburgh both run around this for baseline seats. He must be really close to backstop for that price.
Tortured Soul Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 yes. It doesn't take a super fan to figure out that .215 isn't great, and being a backup first baseman doesn't qualify him for the hall. Oh, and the fact that he is worried about how to pay for his kid's college makes me think he wasn't one of the top bread winners in the league. But, of course, that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with this conversation. The point is, if he's a AAA scrub, or Mickey Mantle, he should give the ball up. The Red Sox signed him, and like it or not, and no matter for how short a period of time, he was on that TEAM. Obviously, he doesn't care about that. He's a douche. 197060[/snapback] Why does he aspire to send his kids to Florida State?
Fezmid Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 The point is, if he's a AAA scrub, or Mickey Mantle, he should give the ball up. The Red Sox signed him, and like it or not, and no matter for how short a period of time, he was on that TEAM. Obviously, he doesn't care about that. He's a douche. Actually, the Red Sox TRADED for him last season. From Minnesota. So apparantly he's not a scrub, the Sox wanted him. And I'm pretty sure he wasn't a backup at the time; I know he was the starting 1B for the Twins for the past few years. CW
EZC-Boston Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 yes. It doesn't take a super fan to figure out that .215 isn't great, and being a backup first baseman doesn't qualify him for the hall. Oh, and the fact that he is worried about how to pay for his kid's college makes me think he wasn't one of the top bread winners in the league. But, of course, that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with this conversation. The point is, if he's a AAA scrub, or Mickey Mantle, he should give the ball up. The Red Sox signed him, and like it or not, and no matter for how short a period of time, he was on that TEAM. Obviously, he doesn't care about that. He's a douche. 197060[/snapback] It doesn't have anything to do with the arguement yet you felt compelled to attack him. He hit .300 2 out of the last 3 years. My point is check your facts before you make BF'esque comments.
stevestojan Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 Actually, the Red Sox TRADED for him last season. From Minnesota. So apparantly he's not a scrub, the Sox wanted him. And I'm pretty sure he wasn't a backup at the time; I know he was the starting 1B for the Twins for the past few years. CW 197074[/snapback] and again, what the HELL does this have to do with anything? OK, forget I said he was a scrub.. here: HE'S THE GREATEST FIRST BASEMEN OF ALL TIME. Ok, that being said, he is still a prick for keeping the ball.
stevestojan Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 It doesn't have anything to do with the arguement yet you felt compelled to attack him. He hit .300 2 out of the last 3 years. My point is check your facts before you make BF'esque comments. 197077[/snapback] Ok, I'm BF? Listen, like I said, my comment about him sucking doesn't matter in this context. But neither you nor Fez can let that go. The point is: Is the guy a dick for keeping the ball, yes or no? (whether or not he is good). The answer is, all-pro or scrub, his actions in this case are gross.
EZC-Boston Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 Ok, I'm BF? Listen, like I said, my comment about him sucking doesn't matter in this context. But neither you nor Fez can let that go. The point is: Is the guy a dick for keeping the ball, yes or no? (whether or not he is good). The answer is, all-pro or scrub, his actions in this case are gross. 197082[/snapback] NO. Personally I don't think he's a dick. Can't fault the guy he's got the ball
gantrules Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 Ok, that being said, he is still a prick for keeping the ball. 197078[/snapback] Exactly. What if Sam Aiken grabbed the final snapped ball from Drew after we won the SB. Then ol' man Ralph asked Sam for it and Sam basically sad you would have to pay me to get the ball. My response would be that this ass needs to give it up. It's a memorandum of the franchise. Of a team effort. Not of a selfish individual who just wants to profit.
stevestojan Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 NO. Personally I don't think he's a dick. Can't fault the guy he's got the ball 197086[/snapback] Can't fault the guy he's got the ball? WTF? He's holding onto the ball for money. He's a pro athlete. Apparently you have this guys poster in your room or something, because there is nothing OK with what he is doing...
EZC-Boston Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 Can't fault the guy he's got the ball? WTF? He's holding onto the ball for money. He's a pro athlete. Apparently you have this guys poster in your room or something, because there is nothing OK with what he is doing... 197091[/snapback] I won't feel bad for a team that makes it impossible to see a baseball game at a reasonable price.
stevestojan Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 I won't feel bad for a team that makes it impossible to see a baseball game at a reasonable price. 197095[/snapback] fair enough... but then again, at least they put a quality product on the field every year. The real travesty was paying $50+ for a regular season ticket to watch the Sabres.
gantrules Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 I won't feel bad for a team that makes it impossible to see a baseball game at a reasonable price. 197095[/snapback] so support the downward spiral....
KD in CA Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 Toronto and Pittsburgh both run around this for baseline seats. He must be really close to backstop for that price. 197067[/snapback] Nope. Actually in the back half of the field box. Welcome to New York!
Like A Mofo Posted January 7, 2005 Author Posted January 7, 2005 If this guy was a Yankee, and this happened..he would be commeneded for keeping the ball...especially by E$PN.
Fezmid Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 Can't fault the guy he's got the ball? WTF? He's holding onto the ball for money. He's a pro athlete. Apparently you have this guys poster in your room or something, because there is nothing OK with what he is doing... 197091[/snapback] There's nothing wrong with what he is doing IN YOUR OPINION. Doug was the player involved in winning the last game of the world series (ie: drop the ball and they may not have won). If (as in your example) Aiken had caught the game winning TD in Drew's last game, shouldn't he be allowed to keep it if he wants to? How is that any different than what Doug's doing? He was involved in the game-winning play and he wants to keep it. If you read the article, he said that he'd prefer to keep it in the family, but that he could be bought (and who amongst us doens't have a price?). I just fail to see the problem. CW
stevestojan Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 There's nothing wrong with what he is doing IN YOUR OPINION. Doug was the player involved in winning the last game of the world series (ie: drop the ball and they may not have won). If (as in your example) Aiken had caught the game winning TD in Drew's last game, shouldn't he be allowed to keep it if he wants to? How is that any different than what Doug's doing? He was involved in the game-winning play and he wants to keep it. If you read the article, he said that he'd prefer to keep it in the family, but that he could be bought (and who amongst us doens't have a price?). I just fail to see the problem. CW 197116[/snapback] I can guaren-damn-tee if the Eagles win the SuperBowl, and TO, after not playing for the entire playoffs, picked up the football after a game winning FG and kept it, people would take issue. But why? He had something to do with the win! HE should be able to keep it. This is almost like Mientkiewicz is saying "finder's keepers!" ..
Fezmid Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 I can guaren-damn-tee if the Eagles win the SuperBowl, and TO, after not playing for the entire playoffs, picked up the football after a game winning FG and kept it, people would take issue. But why? He had something to do with the win! HE should be able to keep it. This is almost like Mientkiewicz is saying "finder's keepers!" .. 197123[/snapback] If Owens CAUGHT the game winning TD, then keep it. If it was a game-winning fieldgoal that he just picked up because it was there, that's completely different. Mientkiewicz CAUGHT the game-winning out. Therefore he keeps the ball. He wasn't a bystander on the play who just happened to find it. He was the guy who caught the game-winning out. CW
stevestojan Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 If Owens CAUGHT the game winning TD, then keep it. If it was a game-winning fieldgoal that he just picked up because it was there, that's completely different. Mientkiewicz CAUGHT the game-winning out. Therefore he keeps the ball. He wasn't a bystander on the play who just happened to find it. He was the guy who caught the game-winning out. CW 197140[/snapback] So, because he made the most routine play in all of sports, he gets to keep it? Wow. Honestly, and this isn't a bash to him, or any baseball player, but my 88 year old grandfather could have made that particular play. Why shouldn't Manny Ramírez get to keep it for the catch he made in the 3rd inning? Seriously, this argument is weak. The ball belongs in a museum. And if the ball somehow had ended up in the hands of a fan, i could ALMOST see them wanting $$$ for it... but one of the players??? really, that's just wrong.
Guffalo Posted January 7, 2005 Posted January 7, 2005 So, because he made the most routine play in all of sports, he gets to keep it? Wow. 197147[/snapback] Ask Buckner how routine the play was.....
Recommended Posts