Dump not closed on weekends, 01 12+3 08
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 12, 2008 1:01 PM PST
Email
PrintDump closed on Thanksgiving, maybe, but not on weekends. hward86 relays the breaking rumor that Troy Glaus and Scott Rolen will be birds of a new feather next year. Here’s the mlbtraderumors.com link.
Other bits to fill the space:
The van of a Canadian HS basketball team crashed last night, killing eight.
The oh-so-chatty Brian McNamee says that Roger Clemens developed an ass abscess in 1998. That’s apparently not very likely from B-12 and pain killing shots, much more so from steroid injections.
And if you’ve been waiting all winter to find out what sort of coif Travis Buck’s sporting these days, here’s a glimpse:
77 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm with you there
But mostly I'm just delighted that it's snowing in Green Bay. I love watching football played in the falling snow (New England's 2002 Heist on Ice excepted).
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 12, 2008 1:58 PM PST up reply actions
Enough snow for a hockey game? n/t
"developed"?
I always thought that Clemens was an ass abscess.
Jose Canseco, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds
I'm starting to become convinced that steroids only work on assholes.
Stop me if you've heard this before
Team says they're committed to Oakland. Says early stadium conversations are positive. Are working in good faith.
Then team shows up at big attractive empty swath of land in the suburbs. Uh oh.
Raiders surprise attendees at event for developers in Dublin. California.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 12, 2008 2:52 PM PST reply actions
I can't wait to see ...
... what sort of further "improvements" the City preemptively makes to the Coliseum to entice the Raiders to stay.
Please God no....
Isn't the reason
that a baseball stadium can't be built in the Coliseum parking lot that the Raiders lease stipulates that there will be a minimum of X number of parking spaces available?
Seems to me that if the Raiders would go away, a new privately-financed 40,000 seat baseball park in the Coliseum parking lot would become an option again. Of course this would put the whole issue in limbo for 3 more years, but if we get well into 2009 and there's still no dirt being pushed around in Fremont, maybe this idea shows up on the radar again. (Wishful thinking, I know.)
Raiders parking was never a deal-breaker
It was a problem, but a resolvable one. Way back when Lew was still VP of Venue Dev't, and not an owner, his report said the lot was the best place to build a new ballpark. And he hinted that the A's would do a "you give land, we pay for ballpark" deal...hinted so much, in fact, that it became a "Saddam planned 9/11" sort of untruth which many people believed.
But Oakland wasn't deeding any land for villages to surround parks, was the problem, and when Wolffish hit upon that far more lucrative development-funded scheme, Oakland was out of the running in all but the pretenses. Rest assured that all 29 other MLB owners are watching closely to see if this works.
In my estimation, even in the unlikely event that Oakland said it'd not only give the land but would fund most of the stadium, Lew would still say no...
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 12, 2008 9:36 PM PST up reply actions
as a loyal FOX News viewer ...
... I know in my gut that it was Saddam who torpedoed Jack London Square.
Yo FSU,
As you know I read all your Coliseum-related posts with interest. You've said before (I think) that Wolffish's development-funded scheme is rather unprecedented--one that the rest of baseball "is watching closely" because it could represent a lucrative new source of ... lucrative-ness.
I think you've also said that you think Wolffish's new ballpark scheme WILL succeed, despite its inherent ... evil.
So my question to you is--given that these developers are about to go into this scheme that could net them a lot of money, and given that they are probably going to succeed ... is there any way that WE can invest in said developers to make ourselves some money? Invest in Gap stock? Is that NYSE or Nasdaq?
by rubin sierra on Jan 12, 2008 11:32 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think the plan is evil
Actually, as compared to the raid-the-public-coffers traditional model of stadium extortion, the Wolffish development funding plot seems preferable. It's a big reason I don't oppose the Fremont move per se, though I still mourn the loss to Oakland and working class fans throughout the East Bay, and curse the owners who'd take it from us.
As for making money off Lew's success, sorry, I'm much better at critiquing others' wealth building schemes than I am hatching my own, as my "portfolio" would sadly attest.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 13, 2008 9:36 AM PST up reply actions
"evil"
I always get the feeling that you do semantic gymnastics in order to keep straddling two nearly-conflicting positions: Like Alanis, you've got one hand in your pocket (no problems, just chilling, approving of the move to Fremont) and the other one's flipping the bird at Lew (for engineering the Fremont move). All the same, I like to think I understand where you're coming from. Sort of.
As for your portfolio (and mine), my research tells me that Gap is traded on the NYSE, but--not so fast. This, from wikipedia:
by rubin sierra on Jan 13, 2008 1:01 PM PST up reply actions
You've got it right
My position in a nutshell:
The A's can no longer contend by just outsmarting 29 other GMs--they're catching up. The park-based revenue gaps are too big a handicap over the long haul. The City of Oakland is quick to make horrible deals and slow to make good ones. Fremont appears to be doable without raiding the public coffers. So I grudgingly support the new park.
At the same time, I feel an owner with patience and virtue could have made a new park in Oakland work. He would have had to wait longer, work harder, and profited less, though still substantially. But it could have worked. Oak-to-9th, Broadway Auto Row, and the Oakland Army Base are all, right now, still up for grabs...the latter two are in fact totally wide open, with proposals being solicited for nearly anything.
The move to Fremont will exclude a huge segment of the fan base which has loyally supported Oakland for decades, including me. Lack of transit, lack of capacity, and pricier tickets are all working towards the higher end audience to which Wolffish want to cater, as most other teams already do. For my part, I'm willing to accept these losses in the name of the chance to see my team win championships.
I am not willing to accept the loss of any of those things in the name of profits and franchise value. So I feel comfortable straddling the nuances of these positions, which allow me to accept the losses in a grown-up way while still telling Lew he's a butthead.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 13, 2008 3:14 PM PST up reply actions
And the Monkey has stamina
And here you all were thinking that I confined my japery to domestic settings.
Kotsay for Devine a done deal
According to Buster Olney, via mlbtraderumors.com
A's will eat $5.325 million, leaving Braves the remaining $2 million.
Nico/Blez/Admins
I've got a diary on Chavvy all set and ready to go, but everytime I click, "publish" nothing happens. The page just reloads.
See, things ARE different in the new AN
Does it look OK when you preview it? Some problems (like certain forbidden html attributes) preview OK but then get blocked when you try to publish.
Do you have text in each of the Intro, Extended, and Tags boxes?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 12, 2008 10:08 PM PST up reply actions
When I hit "preview"
it briefly (like, 1.5 seconds) shows the screen then reloads and shows no changes. I hit "edit diary" at the top, and it takes me to the preview screen. When I then hit publish, nothing happens.
There's text in all necessary spaces.
Wow, I just got an ad for the RNC
I wonder what bit of text triggered Google Ads (or whatever Blez subscribes to) to produce that one. "lucrative development-funded scheme"? "loyal FOX News viewer"? "ass abscess"?
rude, crude and totally Lew'd
Lew Wolff ruminates on the upcoming season, Barry Bonds and not staying in the Bay Area if the Fremont project falls through, in this John Shea interview.
"I think we would have to leave the Bay Area, but I want to make sure you know I have not spent any time threatening that."
Right. Thanks for mentioning that, Lew.
No threats, just offers we can't refuse
Of course, Lew also says he thinks the 2008 A's will be above .500 and competitive. So his commitment to honest public evaluation may leave something to be desired.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 13, 2008 9:28 AM PST up reply actions
April, 2012.
Your meal is reserved.
by The Dogfather on Jan 13, 2008 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
Who is claiming that they aren't actually
going to Fremont?
me, sorta-kinda
I think there's a decent (>10%) chance Fremont doesn't happen.
More likely, I think the project does happen, but gets scaled back significantly and without Fisher as an owner (and perhaps without Wolff, with the "village" being disarticulated somewhat [i.e., even more so than it would be from the franchise per se, to avoid reporting income a la Steinbrenner's cable deal and the Cubs' self-scalping operation] from the ballpark proper). The hotel, in particular, I don't see happening.
But certainly you think that
they want it to happen, rather than it being some elaborate pretext for skipping town.
oh, absolutely
No, I don't think there's any desire to stretch the whole thing out as a pretext to skip town. I think their #1 desire is a baseball-only park (though I'm sure they'd aggressively pursue offseason events same as the Giants have [after the Giants FO promised repeatedly they wouldn't, remember]) as an anchor for a multiuse development. That goal wasn't going to be achieved in Oakland; and if it doesn't look like it'll happen in Fremont, as Lew didn't threaten, they'll go elsewhere where it will happen.
He may have threatened without spending any time
on the threats. Anyway, my point was that it's not clear why you two would be served the above meal when the Fremont move happens.
Call it "hyperbole" -- then it gets an ...
... intentional walk.
Or, you could call it "raillery" (yesterday's dictionary.com Word of the Day).
Ask PT.
by The Dogfather on Jan 13, 2008 1:38 PM PST up reply actions
I thought it was
the Fremont transportation plan, i.e. "No, no, we didn't say there'd be 'rail', we said there'd be 'raillery.'"
"raillery"?
Wow. Even I've never heard that one. It sounds like some legal term... like "persons" (that "word" has irritated me for years).
My most vivid memory of "raillery"
was reading -- in multiple places -- that Momus is "the god of raillery". The cafe in La Boheme is named after Momus, but no one seems to know who Momus is, except that he's the "god of raillery".
I had a heck of a time tracking down this alleged god. Turns out he gets a very tiny mention in Hesiod, where he's just a personification and not really a god, but then Lucian took that one mention and made a major character out of him in his dialogues.
That was in the olden days before the Internet. Now you can just Google. Ah, good times.
Yeah, I don't get that either
I'll cop to thinking early on that Fremont was a ploy en route to San Jose. But since before Lew actually inked a deal for Fremont land two years ago I've said that Fremont was a serious effort, that I in fact grudgingly supported the idea (because the City of Oakland wasn't going to get it done), and that Fremont was now the actual linchpin of the Wolffish plan towards asset enrichment by way of mallpark. I also, as noted to Rubin above, feel Lew knew he wanted out of Oakland before he bought the team, and he manipulated the process to be free of Oakland's clutches accordingly. In short, mourn the loss of the past and accept the future, though it will include a lot fewer ballgames for me. How DF contorts this into me needing to eat crow when the things I said would happen actually do happen makes no sense to me.
The whole thing's grown tiresome (if I may borrow his motif) and since he rarely lays it out in more than vague sound bites I remain unenlightened. Is it that anyone who feels a loss should be made to eat crow besides? If that's it, then rubbing salt in the wounds would be a more apt metaphor. Though no less tiresome.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 13, 2008 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
I've already said that I do not intend to ...
... go back and document these various writings -- however, I will say that they have left a very clear impression, despite various later revisionistic restatements, excuses and back-offs, that you do believe Fremont to have been an artifice from the inception.
Your other statements regarding ownership have consistently suggested dark, clandestine motivations and, I believe, an ultimate goal of departure from the Bay Area. As stated before, this has been true even when it represented a dramatic leap from quite benign known facts.
The rebuild for example, is really being done to kite short-term financial profits, and the 3rd deck is really just an attempt to extract the last filthy dollar from customers who are not gonna be you, anyway. That was just (yet another) gratuitous dump. Despite contrary protestations, your writings do reflect a pining for the public trust ownership philosophies of an earlier era. And the drumbeat of snideness has seemed, to this observer, to be quite unnecessary, and, frankly, beneath you.
When asked on occasion to underwrite your negativity with a quantified bet, you've crawfished away amid inapposite Latin phrases and, I believe, intentional mischaracterizations of my posts. It's not an unusual tactic, to create confusion when the facts are ag'in' you, but to then claim long-suffering persecution is attempting to have it several ways too many.
The crow offer was another attempt, albeit facetious, to get you to lay it on the line about your view of the A's' ultimate destination. Your current renunciation of the Fremont artifice makes it, for now, unnecessary.
by The Dogfather on Jan 13, 2008 4:26 PM PST up reply actions
You seem to prefer
caricaturing to understanding. You won't even look into the record. So I'm not sure why I'm bothering. But:
--When someone learns things and modifies opinions, that's not revisionism excuses or back-offs, it's being a sentient adult. I once, briefly, thought Fremont was a feint towards SJ. I once, briefly, thought Wolffish might be aiming towards leaving the Bay Area. I revised those views a couple years ago...to the extent you want to argue with old news, I can't help you.
--Actually, I feel there just aren't other relocation markets which are doable and lucrative. Try searching the site for comments including "relocation;" you'll find a lot by me including "the myth of relocation," "the relocation canard," and "I'm going to keep beating the no-relocation drum."
--I've never said rebuilding was done because of the financial gain. I've repeatedly said the roster needed rebuilding, way earlier than most here did. I also observe that no businessman anywhere, least of all Lew, would be unaware that it also gives them the chance to enjoy maybe $15 million or more in 2008 operating profits. You're taking my comments on effect to represent cause.
--You proposed a sucker bet which only an idiot would have taken. Not doing so doesn't constitute crawfishing away (and BTW, every lawyer ought to know what reductio ad absurdum means...it was quite apposite). If you want to force me into betting about how badly my favorite team will suck in 2008 I'll listen to actual reasonable wagers. You've yet to offer one.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 13, 2008 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
Here's what I know.
1—as an AN reader, I know that this disagreement boils down to me thinking you’re a waffler and you thinking I don’t read so good.
2—as a poster, I know that it’s not absurd to call someone out on his statement that current management "has brought minor league ball to Oakland," and ask him to risk a few bucks on that claim. I believe the Latin goes something like this: dico vos in vestry excrementum or "calling you on your shit."
3—as a lawyer, I know when a conversation has exceeded its useful life. Like this one has. Time and your future postings will tell the tale soon enough. Per the zen master in Charlie Wilson’s War: "We’ll see."
by The Dogfather on Jan 14, 2008 1:31 PM PST up reply actions
"contend"? No. .500/better than '07? Sure.
I don't really disagree with anything Wolff says.
Shea, on the other hand ...
Wolff was in a mood to vent. He read the columnists and peeked at the fan posts on general manager Billy Beane's rebuilding binge, which were more negative than positive.
I haven't looked at EiO or the sfgate or espn boards, but my guess from reading all of AN's coverage of the trades is that we've collectively been somewhere north of 60/40 in favor of the trades.
Columnists, on the other hand, have been about 90-10 negative.
So, John, if you happen to "peek" at AN, you might wanna disarticulate those audiences. In particular, since there's only one Chron writer who pays any close attention to the A's at all (hint: it ain't you, John), you might wanna think about why people who pay close attention to the A's have favored the trades, and why those who ignore the A's except on slow news days were quick to condemn the trades.
I think if he "peeked"
at the main trade posts here (or especially the sfgate comments) it would be reasonable to come away with something a lot worse than 60-40. A lot of people in those diaries don't ever comment except to express anger. I really doubt that left him "in a mood to vent" though, as opposed to "in a mood to act all hurt about fan reaction when called up by an easily-spun reporter."
I'm not attributing the negative-reaction spin
... to Lew, but to Shea.
Of course, in favor of his math, if 90% of columnists are opposed and 40% of bloggers are opposed -- why, that's 130% opposition!
It's funny how many people make this mistake
It's like looking at a self-selected "poll," of the internet question-of-the-day variety, and putting any stock in the results as an indicator of true public opinion. Columnists do it, blog moderators do it, and posters do it: the thought that "I saw a lot of immediate negative reaction, therefore the fan body reaction is negative."
However, the reverse can also be true. If I were to gauge the rebuild reaction among what I'd call the established and informed poster body on AN, I'd call it like 75-25 favorable. But that's not very similar to the ticket-buying public at large. I often think we on AN (myself very much included) confuse our collective voice for that of the A's fanbase, when in fact probably 90% of the fans in the Coli have never posted or even read an A's-themed website, ever.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 13, 2008 2:37 PM PST up reply actions
"I don't really disagree w/anything Wolff says"?
--how about the use of "at the end of the day"?
Wait, you think the '08 A's are a >.500 team?
Or you think Lew really thinks that? Because both of those seem crazy wild-eyed true believer optimistic to me. I can picture a wager on wins +/- 81 which one could make.
If by "don't really disagree" you mean that it's appropriate for an owner to always believe victory is nigh, facts notwithstanding, well, I suppose no one can really argue with that.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 13, 2008 2:31 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think it's guaranteed, no
My guess, right now, without Bonds and presuming that Blanton, Ellis, and Street (and possibly Chavez) will not be on the roster for most/all of '08, I think the A's have a pretty wide range of potential wins. I could see us winning as many as 85 (that's an absolute limit, everything-goes-right/we-outperform-our-Pythagoreans) and as few as 62.
I'd say it's probably likelier than not that we finish south of .500, but not by much. A few expected or unexpected breakout perfs by youngsters, a few breaks turns of fortunes in the right direction, Beane ponying up for Bonds, and .500 or above is easily attainable, though.
(There's also the state of the AL West, where the Angels really haven't improved themselves and could still fall prey to disastrous health, the Mariners are treading water, and the Rangers may be further away from "contention" both in the near- and far-term than the A's.)
Within margin of error, yeah, I'd call the '08 A's, even in their exsanguinated state, a .500 club.
I hate to break this to you
but the reaction among AN-goers is nothing like the reaction among the average fan. Most people have never heard of the prospects Oakland got back, wouldn't know how to investigate their abilities even if they had, and (bless 'em) have only the vaguest understanding of the byzantine machinations that baseball teams go through in an effort to build a winning club. What they see is "Swisher gone, single-A guys back."
Urban said that the mail he was getting was 80-20 against the Swisher trade, and I'm inclined to believe him on that.
When do pitchers and catchers report?
That game sucked (well, for me, anyway). Although really, so long as someone beats New England, I'm happy.
None of the teams are cooperating
as far as I'm concerned. Well, except I did want Green Bay to win. As much as I'm not a Colts fan I did want them to wipe that smack talking smirk off of Phillip Rivers' face. Ah well, so much for that. The only team left I have a positive feeling for is Green Bay, so I guess that's where I'll be putting all of my rooting interest.
San Diego is contemptible
Rivers looks more and more like a prick every day (earth to Phil: studying game film might possibly be a better use of your time than exchanging words with hostile fans)... and, well, any baseball fan worth his/her salt ought to loathe Shawne Merriman and what he represents (to wit: the complete pass on steroid issues that the NFL gets).
Added to the fact that Turner leaving basically stuck a wrench in the gears of the Niners' offense this year.
I'll absolutely be rooting for New England in that game.
Yeah
I'll probably root for San Diego because I live here, but Rivers and Merriman are deplorable. Merriman not just for steroids but that stupid little dance he does. And Rivers yelling at Indy fans while his backup secured the game was funny.
But I just can't go for New England.
does anyone still buy CDs?
IN 2006 EMI, the world's fourth-biggest recorded-music company, invited some teenagers into its headquarters in London to talk to its top managers about their listening habits. At the end of the session the EMI bosses thanked them for their comments and told them to help themselves to a big pile of CDs sitting on a table. But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free. "That was the moment we realised the game was completely up," says a person who was there.
celebrities using steroids
The Times Union today revealed that several big names outside the world of professional sports, which has already been rocked by steroids scandals, have emerged in an Albany-based investigation of steroids trafficking. Amongst the names revealed were rap artists 50 Cent, Timbaland, and Wyclef Jean; R&B artist Mary J. Blige; and author/producer Tyler Perry.
that's it!
I'm never watching another Tyler Perry movie again so long as I live.
What a RACIST list, all those stars are black.
Where are the names like Timberlake, and Fatone, look at those bodies they must be juicing.
by theblackpearl on Jan 13, 2008 8:32 PM PST up reply actions
teixeira
"When Mark Kotsay is healthy, he's just as good as Andruw Jones. So we're really not missing a beat."
Please help clueless middle-aged guy
OK, I may be a whiz with matters encyclopedic, but I'm totally stupid when it comes to popular culture.
Can someone please explain to me what the heck "teh awesome" means? When I first saw it, I assumed the "teh" was a typo (though I still wasn't totally clear about "the awesome" either).
But now I've seen "teh awesome" several times, and I guess it's some sort of Internet slang, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it means.
Typo turned meme
74mk's quite correct; The Urban Dictionary is always your friend in cases like these. It's easy to type teh instead of the when going quickly. This common typo became accepted practice with young internet types, especially gamers. The popular antonym for "teh awesome" is "teh suck."
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 14, 2008 8:17 AM PST up reply actions
and now (at least in some quarters) ...
... used almost exclusively ironically/disdainfully, to implicitly disparage the object being described as "teh awesome"; often, it will be used when briefly summarizing someone else's (misguided/naive/irrationally exuberant) reaction to an object, and thereby to implicitly disparage both the object being described and the person doing the positive describing (to wit).
Thanks, all
That Washington Monthly one is one of the ones I saw, but I didn't think to read the comments. (I try to avoid the comments on political blogs, since they're usually ... well, you know.)
I'm still not sure I understand, but at least now I have some idea what it is I don't understand. (Sort of like "pwned".)
Next question: What in tarn-ation does any of this have to do with "arete"? I actually know what an arête is, though I'm starting to suspect you mean something different.
I *thought* that was the item in question!
There was another one somewhere else
Sullivan, maybe?
braves blogs on the kotsay trade
http://www.talkingchop.com/story/200...
http://www.bravesjournal.com/?p=3388
http://velcroblog.com/?p=188
I think the lesson of this (tentative) trade
is that if you can't sell high and buy low, selling low and buying low is the next best thing.
well, *this* sounds promising
"Devy! Our first round draft pick, winner of the 2007 Southeastern Something or Other Award for Excellent Pitchmanship! And for what? The outfielder version of Mike Hampton, most notable only for having an especially hot wife!"
uh, whoops ... never mind
MIsread that, thought they were saying Devine also had a hot wife.
I do like "the outfielder version of Mike Hampton," tho.
yeah i almost quoted that part...
"Which also makes him the outfielder version of Kris Benson! Which is also not good!"
and from braves journal (who call him "Rotsay"):
"We’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that his abhorrent, nay Langerhansine, .214/.279/.296 line (a 57 OPS+) was entirely due to injury."
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
