Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Ellenberger vs. Sanchez Heats Up, Hughes Talks Retirement

My gripe with the current a's organization

 

Trading Brett Wallace for Michael Taylor- Smart

Signing Coco Crisp when you already have Raj Davis, Ryan Sweeney, and Michael Taylor. What? WHAT!WHATTTTTT!!

Why does Billy Beane have such a knee jerk reaction to every move made in MLB. Why can't he relax for a good week and see what happens. Rajai Davis is a  very very solid centerfielder for us now and the future. Thats gone now because of moves like this.

Instead of getting rid of useless players such as Eric Chavez (sorry, i love him, but this aint 2006 anymore)Scott Hairston,Travis Buck and Daric Barton. He adds another one. Rajai Davis made this team somewhat watchable for the last couple of months to not reward him with being our centerfielder on opening day gives absolutely no vote of confidence to any player in that clubhouse. Now, rajai and hairston or sweeney will be traded obviously..and who knows hopefully we pick someone that fills a need.

Listen, I understand we will never be the yankees and red sox. That's fine. But please be smart with your moves! I'm all  for signing a vet for one year 6 million dollar deal. But not Coco Crisp who is by far not as good as Rajai. I'd rate Ryan Sweeney even better over Coco as well.These types of moves makes me wonder why I even bother every year to follow this team. The failed projects of Travis Buck and Daric Barton got me really riled up!

As a fan of this team for the short time I have been on this planet. I really hope when our new stadium is built in whatever city, state, or country. Lew Wolff  and his net worth of (1 billion +) wakes up and starts paying people who will make the A's relevant again. We deserve better! We're tired of the Scott Hairston's, Coco Crisp's and Esteban Loaiza's of the world! Let's sign some quality players. Is that 3-4 million extra that much more money to sign a player like Hideki Matsui? Get a clue A's front office!

Comment 116 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I stopped at the part where you think Daric Barton is useless.

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Dec 20, 2009 1:50 AM PST reply actions  

o come on..he doesnt hold a candle to the future at 1st base for the a's at all

hitting 269 when you are being projected to be stud first baseman is good for you?
He was supposedly suppose to hit for a good average? where is it?

by Wallace758 on Dec 20, 2009 1:56 AM PST up reply actions  

Because there is a lot more to baseball than batting average.

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Dec 20, 2009 2:09 AM PST up reply actions  

and Barton is still young and his best years are in front of him.

Yes, I’m just as irrationally angry that Barton didn’t hit .340 with 30 dingers last year as the next guy, but let’s not get hasty here.

"Sniff some krazy glue, and start a religion!"- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Dec 20, 2009 12:37 PM PST up reply actions  

Barton to be future all-star

… when hitting .220 with no power is appreciated.

by BlueMoon on Dec 21, 2009 6:02 AM PST up reply actions  

Yes, you've nailed it

The deep appreciation for players who hit .220 is indeed the only possible explanation for why someone would like Daric Barton. It’s not like he could “improve” or something.

O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2009 9:58 AM PST up reply actions  

Same here.

The hyperbole was a bit over the top.

Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson

by UncleLeo on Dec 20, 2009 9:03 AM PST up reply actions  

As is your litote here.

JJ Martin
The best way to catch a knuckleball is to wait until the ball stops rolling and then pick it up. ~Bob Uecker

by JJ Martin on Dec 21, 2009 8:43 PM PST up reply actions  

The singular of litotes,

insofar as it even has a singular, would be litotis. But in English you would only say litotes, as singular or plural. To refer to a “litote” is sort of like offering a singular “kudo”.

(Also, I’d say Uncle Leo’s comment is not so much litotes and meiosis.)

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

by iglew on Dec 21, 2009 8:59 PM PST up reply actions  

...can I carry on my litote or do I have to check it in?

Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM

by Leopold Bloom on Dec 21, 2009 9:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Man, you have a lot of baggage.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Dec 21, 2009 9:37 PM PST up reply actions  

{blinks}

….you’re just now realizing this?

Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM

by Leopold Bloom on Dec 21, 2009 10:08 PM PST up reply actions  

My fault.

{of course}

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Dec 22, 2009 9:00 AM PST up reply actions  

Unnecessary for this to be a separate fanpost

I would politely suggest reposting this as a comment in the existing thread, as it does not contain any original factual content.

O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?

by PaulThomas on Dec 20, 2009 2:01 AM PST reply actions  

your right is there a fan post forum topic page called "being a realist" where I could put this?

Because I’m having alot of fun reading topics about the a’s in 2034 instead of 2010. The post was intended to inform many of us that believe it or not some fans are tired of hearing about useless signings. Having the best farm system is great. But prospects are prospects! Until one of them shows up in a A’s jersey and performs well year in and year out. He means nothing to me. Javier Herrera, Matt Sulentic ring any bells?

by Wallace758 on Dec 20, 2009 2:19 AM PST up reply actions  

Look, the rest of us aren't happy with having the best farm system out there either.

The end goal is hopefully a good major league team—otherwise we’d call ourselves Rivercats fans instead of As fans. The fact of the matter is though that there’s zero chance we compete next year with the major league base we have (Kurt Suzuki is our best power hitter, and Dallas Braden is our closest thing to a sure thing on the mound.) Combine that with the fact that we’re in a division with the Angels who won the division, the Rangers who should be a fine team considering the surprising year they had last year and not really losing any pieces, and a Mariners team that just added Cliff Lee, Milton Bradley and Chone Figgins. So in the meanwhile, we try and hope that when the team has a good enough base we can compete, and work together to understand Beane’s logic in the plan of getting us there. Since we’ve come to the conclusion that attempts at a winning 2009 are futile (outside of ridiculous luck with all our prospects maturing quickly) we look to the future.

Is there something unclear about this?

rebuildingseason.blogspot.com

by Rebuilding Season on Dec 20, 2009 2:26 AM PST up reply actions  

hey man I completely agree. I'm a realist and realize that A's wont be competive next year.

I’m just upset that we have a fat cat owner who doesnt spend the cash like he should. Make a splash show your team’s fans you actually give a crap. If we spend an extra 20-30 million a year. Are we talking about this in a meaningless forum. No. Were talking about making the playoffs with the influx of youth and veterans mixed in. I believe we spent 56 or 62 million last year. Would we be in this predicament if we spent an extra 30 million? Not at all! Lew Wolff could give two sh>> about this team. He’s no different than Peter Angelos, David Glass, Jeffrey loria and Ted Lerner of the world. Give him a good market price for the a’s and he’s gone like a fart in the wind..

by Wallace758 on Dec 20, 2009 2:45 AM PST up reply actions  

Just like any business investment, what is the end goal of owning a MLB team?

To make a profit. That is simply the end goal of any good businessman, which a baseball owner typically is because he or she has made enough money to get to this point in the first place.
Are the A’s selling enough of their product for Wolff to want to sink $30MM into the team?
No.
It’s a matter of the fact that we play in a run down stadium, in a city that does very little to back our team and average near the lowest attendance in all of baseball. So while I may or may not like Lew Wolff the fact that he isn’t spending millions more on this team is irrelevant.
He has tried harder than anyone to move this team to a new location. If that does happen and he isn’t spending money then I will have a problem with him.

"Did you know you can comment on Athletics Nation from your phone or PDA? SB Nation has launched mobile commenting. Check it out next time you’re at the game or bar and have something to say."

by stranahanahan on Dec 20, 2009 10:56 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Here's where the irrational comes in again

Of course, I want an owner who does not believe in short term profit and spends as much on payroll as he possibly can. I want an owner who is such a big fan of the club that he puts large chunks of his personal fortune into payroll.

But since that owner does not exist, and will not until I win the lottery or the World Series Of Poker a couple of times, we’re not that bad off with the guy we’ve got.

"Sniff some krazy glue, and start a religion!"- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Dec 20, 2009 12:39 PM PST up reply actions  

The goal of any good MLB owner should be WINNING, making a profit, and being a positive entity in the area they represent.

There have been and still are plenty of owners who are actually competitive and want to win, make money, and contribute positively to the community in which they play. Lew Wolff doesn’t understand public relations or marketing and isn’t interested in winning or even being in Oakland under any circumstances. He’s not losing money in Oakland and could make much more if he actually invested in exciting players and put a winning team on the field, didn’t take fans for granted, and embraced Oakland instead of constantly talking shit about the city.

Most Oakland fans and bay area residents are informed consumers – not blind sheep which is what Wolff would prefer. We’re not going to go to as many games when the owner puts an inferior product on the field and constantly babbles about taking the team out of Oakland. Lew Wolff is bad for baseball, the bay area fans, and the A’s. Any owner who wants to move this legendary and storied franchise with a rich tradition of WINNING out of Oakland is an enemy. Sell the team Lew and concentrate on putting new carpets in your hotels which is the only thing you seem to take pride in.

by jdub69 on Dec 20, 2009 6:35 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

We're not going to go to many games period.

The Oakland market has proven time and time again that we do not sell out crowds on a consistent basis, we do not buy a lot of merchandise, and we do not watch a ton of games on the TV. The fact of the matter is that the Giants have the lion’s share of the market around here. Furthermore, hiring big names does not draw in a lot of new fans. Even when the As were a winning team with an exciting playoff race we don’t draw—I had season tickets in 2006 and the only sellouts I remember in that era were either Yankee games, Red Sox games, or Giants games (especially considering Bonds’ Home Run race.)

Compounding the above, we are in a depression with roughly a 10% unemployment rate in California. I know I was affected by this, and only attended 2 games in person because baseball games are expensive. When looking for ways to slash one’s personal budget, I imagine many fans would quickly reduce the amount of professional baseball games they attend first. Is it really wise to go all in on a team, during a depression, that has proven it doesn’t draw during its good times?

As much as I’d like to say “Just commit a bunch of money,” I can’t just rationally tell him to spend his investment firm’s hard earned money on a big name star who has no guarantee to win games, much less draw fans in this market. I mean, we’re talking more money here than the majority of us will ever see in our lifetimes. What happens if Wolff commits another 100 million? Best case scenario is that the As make the playoffs, don’t draw fans, and we fire sale the next year a la Florida Marlins. Wolff probably has to sell the team after that because of all the money he’s lost. I can’t tell him to do that with a good conscience.

rebuildingseason.blogspot.com

by Rebuilding Season on Dec 21, 2009 12:50 AM PST up reply actions  

It doesn't surprise me that jdub69

didn’t reply to your post.

You mentioned 2006, I can take you back to 2002, the playoffs vs the Twins when we didn’t sell out; the game after the ‘20 game’ win streak – we drew 10,000 fans. How’s that for support. I don’t blame Lew for looking outside Oakland. And for the record, the man did try to find a stadium site in Oakland to no avail. Plus, it’s not like the city of Oakland was trying to help in any way to keep the team back then anyway. It’s like his critics conveniently look past all this when they stupidly criticize him. Get a clue.

by sf drift king on Dec 21, 2009 1:46 PM PST up reply actions  

Speak for yourself - you mean that you're not going to go to many games period.

There are very few major league teams that, as you put it, “sell out crowds on a consistent basis”. Furthermore, “we” would buy a lot more merchandise if we knew that the players name on the back of the $200.00 jersey that was just purchased was still going to be with the team the following season.

Your statement that the A’s don’t draw even in the good times is completely false. The A’s were among the top drawing teams in the late 80’s. Why then and not now you ask? Because the Haas family embraced the wonderful city of Oakland, contributed to it and ingrained themselves in it, and put an exciting and winning team on the field. Lew Wolff is interested in none of this.

Sympathizing with this poor old multi-millionaire owner for having to invest some money in developing and actually KEEPING a few players around to compete for a world series is a suckers game. This is the big leagues – not a hotel chain. Quit whining and get to the business of winning. Compete or get out. Lew Wolff is in way over his head.

by jdub69 on Dec 22, 2009 12:54 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

If baseball has structured its economy in such a way that winning games is not the best way to make money,

and it has, then that is not the fault of an individual owner.

O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?

by PaulThomas on Dec 22, 2009 9:40 AM PST up reply actions  

You can not take customers for granted in any business.

If a restaurant opens up in your neighborhood and serves bad food AND treats you like shit – do you go back to that restaurant? The league has greatly lowered his risk of losing money yet Lew Wolff chooses to serve us bad food (or players) and treat the city of Oakland like shit (he’s been talking about leaving Oakland practically since he got here). Then he wonders why “the city doesn’t support him”. He’s making money yet crying poor. I’ll support the Oakland A’s always but will never understand how any true fan would stick up for an owner so disrespectful to the current fans and players of this team.

Oakland has been a baseball city that wins yet he’s content with losing. I don’t want a loser for an owner I want a winner.

by jdub69 on Dec 23, 2009 12:52 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Soem os uf believe he's doing it on purpose...

…precisely so he can say, “See? Oakland is crap. I can’t build a good team here. You need to let me move to San Jose.”.

Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson

by UncleLeo on Dec 23, 2009 1:08 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

The Bay Area is much different than it was in the late 80s.

The Coliseum wasn’t ruined yet, the Giants were still in a shithole, and they were farther away. The A’s had the better of the two stadiums. Where is the average person/family going to see a game? They can choose between a football stadium to watch games next to some warehouses close to Hagenberger, or go out for the day in SF, go to some restaurants, see some sights, do some shopping, and then go to the jewel of a ballpark with stunning views of the bay. And when the game ends, you can get donuts at that little shop across the street. What are they going to choose? Most of the time…Donuts.

And something people don’t realize about the A’s in that era….They didn’t make any money. Good luck finding owners that aren’t looking to make a profit.

"The A's get some action but they do not score..." -Glen Kuiper

"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles

by Cheezombie on Dec 22, 2009 6:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Even though the great Walter Haas

chose to run the team as an Oakland community asset and wasn’t as interested in making money as he was in giving back to the community – the A’s did make money in the late 80’s and early nineties. To state otherwise is untrue.

Who cares about a family who only goes to one or two games a year and spends the “day” (and only a weekend day at that) shopping, dining, and sightseeing as well as going to a game. I’ve never met a family who shops, dines, and goes sightseeing and then goes to a game – that’s an awful lot to get done in one day. What a bunch of dip-shits that family would be – I hope I never do meet them. Even if these fictional families you talk about existed – 98% of them couldn’t afford to do all that more than once or twice a year anyway. Wolff should be more interested in attracting season ticket holders and creating an environment for “average” fans to be able to attend 20 to 40 games a season like my family and friends did for years than a geeky family that goes to 1 or 2 games a year.

The better “family” tradition and the one that actually exists is in Oakland. Park in the lot, throw the ball around, have some drinks, eat some food, then get in the park and enjoy the game.

Yes, we need a new stadium in Oakland – no brainer. Lew Wolff barely made a half-assed attempt at making that happen. It can still get done though. Let’s hope Wolff puts his ego aside, gets wise, builds a stadium and keeps the team in Oakland.

by jdub69 on Dec 23, 2009 12:38 AM PST up reply actions  

Isn't that the point of many new stadium developments?

So that, as you so eloquently put it, “dipshit family” can do all those things. After all, isn’t that what stadium villages are built to take advantage of and indeed the entire thesis behind the stadium=economic development argument? The casual fan that would like to see a game or two or three a year, who can also plunk a few dollars down at some local stores and tourist traps?

I think you’re conflating what you think it means to be a sports fan and a significant majority of who actually visit sports games. You may not like or acknowledge them but I’d wager that they make up a majority of most major league team’s revenue by virtue of sheer numbers.

by eastbayexpat on Dec 23, 2009 5:27 AM PST up reply actions  

I'd take that bet.

I’d wager that most owners want fans to spend money at the stadium. Not at local restaurants, stores, and tourist traps outside of the stadium.

by jdub69 on Dec 23, 2009 9:15 AM PST up reply actions  

Of course owners want fans to spend money at the stadium

That’s not what we’re arguing.

Stadiums have economic effects on the area outside them, regardless of owner wishes. Likewise, the area outside a stadium has an effect on attendance which I don’t think you’re acknowledging (leaving aside the moral argument of whether or not it should have an effect).

by eastbayexpat on Dec 23, 2009 9:59 AM PST up reply actions  

"Wise"

The notion that it is “wise” to pursue building a stadium in Oakland, over one in San Jose (a city with twice the population and probably four or five times the wealth) is, frankly, delusional.

O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?

by PaulThomas on Dec 23, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions  

There have been good arguments recently

on how (building a stadium) in Oakland can work well. Alienating your current fan base in the East Bay and completely cutting off your fan base in the North Bay by moving to San Jose for a fan base that doesn’t exist there is delusional and so is your acceptance that this owner moving this team out of Oakland is the right thing to do.

by jdub69 on Dec 23, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Yes, you're right

No team has ever acquired fans by moving. The Ravens would totally have been better off staying in Cleveland. Look how well the Browns are doing by comparison!

I want the A’s to win baseball games, and I think they have a vastly better chance of winning baseball games in San Jose. I have no attachment whatsoever to the city of Oakland.

O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?

by PaulThomas on Dec 23, 2009 7:00 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm so fucking tired of hearing this.

WHICH players was he supposed to keep around, exactly? Aside from Miguel Tejada, all that’s ever heard is that OMG THE A’S DON’T KEEP THEIR PLAYERS but nobody will point out which ones, and which ones left and weren’t replaced with other good players.

Start following the Yankees if you don’t want to root for a team that has to face financial constraints, whether real or enforced by ownership. EVERY TEAM has this, not just the A’s.

They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick

by mikev on Dec 23, 2009 12:50 PM PST up reply actions  

Hudson, Giambi, Tejada, etc.,

There are others that many people get upset about, but I agree with your main point. Fact is, we do have a history of keeping some players, i.e. Chavez, Dye, and so on. Plus, others that we offered market-rate contracts, yet they chose to leave anyway. The complaint that we “never” keep anybody is hyperbole.

Much of that, though, was early in the decade. I’m more concerned with recent years where we’re more prone to trade players of any value before they ever reach full maturity. I’m starting to sense that we’re finally on the verge of keeping most of them so we can finally mature into a competitive team again, but I’m cautiously reserved in that regard.

Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson

by UncleLeo on Dec 23, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions  

I've voiced my opinion before

that I believed, rightly or wrongly, in recent years we got rid of Thomas, Bradley, Scutaro, Gonzalez, Haren, Harden, Blanton, and Gaudin too soon but that could spark a whole other debate which would be getting off point..

I never said I didn’t want to vote for a team with financial restraints – I like the underdog. I’ll never vote for the Yankees. I want to vote for the team that has repeatedly won with financial restraints (the A’s) and I want them to remain right here where they belong and have had so much success – in Oakland. Financial restraints doesn’t mean you can’t keep a core of guys around long enough to reach their prime and go for the world series.

by jdub69 on Dec 23, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions  

Had we kept all of those players, we would have a mediocre team, with no payroll flexibility,

and a bone dry farm system. It was time to start over. The team would have ended up in a worse situation than they’re in now.

"The A's get some action but they do not score..." -Glen Kuiper

"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles

by Cheezombie on Dec 23, 2009 4:09 PM PST up reply actions  

"influx of youth and veterans mixed in"

didn’t we try that experiment last season? Oh, I bet you forgot we added Holliday, Ocab, Giambi, and Nomar to the mix of talented youth? I believe their total contracts equaled $22.5M give or take. So don’t go spreading that garbage about the owners /Beane not spending any money.

by sf drift king on Dec 21, 2009 2:06 PM PST up reply actions  

Who are you quoting?

The problem is that Beane didn’t spend any money smartly. Any time you have 5 rookie starting pitchers going in your rotation you haven’t spent money smartly.

by jdub69 on Dec 22, 2009 7:21 AM PST up reply actions  

Don't play dumb

This is a response to the Crisp signing. It should be on the Crisp thread.

O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?

by PaulThomas on Dec 20, 2009 2:37 AM PST up reply actions  

Polite's a pain in the ass anyway.

Stewart: "What really needs to be clear is it wouldn't have mattered if there was an earthquake or not. We were going to beat the Giants.

by Elvez on Dec 20, 2009 9:22 PM PST up reply actions  

Polite requires 200 comments to get the point across

Blunt requires just one.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Dec 21, 2009 12:05 AM PST up reply actions  

(Followed by a 199 comment flame war)

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Dec 21, 2009 8:55 AM PST up reply actions  

and,

what the hell—it’s the off-season. And this is all Nico’s fault anyway, so what the hell.

Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM

by Leopold Bloom on Dec 21, 2009 10:48 AM PST up reply actions  

I have no problem with this being a fanpost.

It may be inspired by the Crisp signing, but that doesn’t mean it has to be attached to the main Crisp post.

It’s not necessary that every fanpost be a lengthy treatise, nor have “original factual content”.

"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat

by iglew on Dec 20, 2009 6:17 AM PST up reply actions  

Agreed.

Yes, it was prompted by Crisp, but it is really more generic in nature. It’s worthy of stand-alone status. Too bad it’s “knee-jerk” in it’s own right. We can’t just “get rid of” Chavez, for example.

Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson

by UncleLeo on Dec 20, 2009 9:08 AM PST up reply actions  

Irrational point #3

As a fan, I don’t like guaranteed contracts. They hurt the club when the club is forced to pay injured players.

Then again, if it were up to me, professional sports teams would be considered non-profit religious organizations and run as such.

"Sniff some krazy glue, and start a religion!"- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Dec 20, 2009 12:42 PM PST up reply actions  

The Packers are a non-profit and they're run just fine

I think all sports teams should be modeled on that baseline. Their fans literally have a stake in the success of the team.

O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?

by PaulThomas on Dec 20, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions  

How feasible would it be

to organize a non-profit to purchase the next team that comes up for sale?

"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat

by iglew on Dec 21, 2009 7:59 AM PST up reply actions  

Not sure

Some cities are starting to insert language into contracts (for new stadiums, eg) which allows the city the right to buy the team if the owners ever attempt to move it or sell to someone who will. That may be an empty threat, or merely the threat may be enough to keep teams from exploring the option of moving. But if the city did buy the team, they’d then actually have to run the thing, and at that point I think you might see something like a nonprofit spun off to handle the actual operation of the franchise.

In terms of organizing mass populations to buy a team, though (the grassroots type of nonprofit) I don’t really see it.

O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2009 9:56 AM PST up reply actions  

I think the NFL charter

forbids this practice now. Precisely because of the Packers.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Dec 26, 2009 9:13 AM PST up reply actions  

As a fan, I agree... I don't like guaranteed contracts, either.

Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson

by UncleLeo on Dec 20, 2009 9:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Keep in mind that if your Fanpost contains only one point or idea that is not developed, expanded on, or supported with arguments or data, it is really not a Fanpost—it is a comment that should be posted in an existing thread or Fanpost.

O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?

by PaulThomas on Dec 20, 2009 9:22 AM PST up reply actions  

Irrational point #4

Yeah, this shouldn’t have been a FanPost, but there has to be some outlet for irrational anger on AN, and mediocre fanposts seem to be it.

"Sniff some krazy glue, and start a religion!"- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Dec 20, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions  

*cough*

Then develop and expand on your irrational anger.

CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."

by DMOAS on Dec 21, 2009 12:06 AM PST up reply actions  

We can't just get rid of Chavez

There’s no reason to just release him. If he’s healthy he is typically rather good—and will fill a rather big void for us. If he’s injured like he always is, he’s on our 60 day DL not taking up a roster spot, which is still better than another team having him for free, which is what getting rid of him would mean. We’d have to release him, since I think the only way we trade him would be…trading him and his entire salary for a marginal single A prospect.

rebuildingseason.blogspot.com

by Rebuilding Season on Dec 20, 2009 2:02 AM PST reply actions  

I'm not a fan of posts like this one

1. “Kneejerk reaction” Disagree

2. Who the hell is going to take an expensive, always injured player? And Billy can’t force Chavez to retire.

3. Rajai WILL be starting if he’s still with us. I’d imagine Crisp is our starting LF, at least until June or a trade.

4. “Get a clue front office”? Now who’s knee jerking?

Please no more THE SKY IS FALLING posts. Me no likey.

Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-

by Daniel777 on Dec 20, 2009 3:55 AM PST reply actions  

I don't see why they can "never" be as good as the Yankees or Red Sox.

They have been as good as or better than them in the past many times.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 20, 2009 4:03 AM PST reply actions  

that's not what he said.

He was referring to the notion that the A’s won’t freely splash the FA market every off season.

Nick Swisher is handsome.

by ChrisCEIT on Dec 20, 2009 4:21 AM PST up reply actions  

My complaint about Billy Beane

In this letter I intend to express my views about Mr. Billy Beane with gentleness and respect. For the sake of review, Billy’s demands are designed to wreck our country, derail our civilization, and threaten the human race with extinction. And they’re working; they’re having the desired effect. The poisonous wine of denominationalism had been distilled long before he entered the scene. Billy is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. Even by Billy’s own account, he insists that anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed. In the long run, however, he’s only fooling himself. Billy would be better off if he just admitted to himself that we ought to fix our sights on eternity. That’ll make Billy think once—I would have said “twice” but I don’t see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter—before trying to defy the rules of logic.

If one accepts the framework I’ve laid out here, it follows that no one likes being attacked by hotheaded spoilsports. Even worse, Billy exploits our fear of those attacks—which he claims will evolve by next weekend into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks—as a pretext to implement an unregenerate parody of justice called “Billy-ism”. If you think that’s scary, then you should remember that I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that I once told him that I find his lack of depth and insight mind-boggling. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that if Billy were to use more accessible language then a larger number of people would be able to understand what he’s saying. The downside for Billy, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that he is typical of pestiferous individuals in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his publications.

That’s a very important point; I want to live my life as I see fit. I can’t do that while Billy still has the ability to mollycoddle gutless champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine. You might think that anyone who doesn’t know that Billy is ornery must be inhabiting a different world. Well, if that’s the case, then I’m afraid Billy’s surrogates must have spent the past month on Mars.

Some people have compared evil ranters to pigheaded vagrants. I would like to take the comparison one step further: Billy’s barbs are evil. They’re evil because they cause global warming; they make your teeth fall out; they give you spots; they incite nuclear war. And, as if that weren’t enough, I unmistakably feel that Billy has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. He obviously has none or he wouldn’t ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women.

As a dying tree drops its leaves and is attacked by fungus and worms of decay, so too is a nation set upon by Billy Beane. He thinks I’m trying to say that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it’s just the sound of the point zooming way over Billy’s head.

Please don’t misinterpret that last statement to mean that Billy can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime. That’s not at all what it means. Rather, it means that Billy once tried convincing me that people prefer “cultural integrity” and “multicultural sensitivity” to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life. Does he think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that Billy says that his objectives are not worth getting outraged about. Such verbal gems teach us that Billy’s claim that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity but an assault on the human mind. Some of my acquaintances express the view that this is betrayal of the many by the few. Others express the view that Billy should just face the facts. I am prepared to offer a cheer and a half for each view; together, they paint a sufficiently complete picture of Billy to warrant a full three cheers.

Let us now join hands, hearts, and minds to stand as a witness in the divine court of the Eternal Judge and proclaim that ignorant and highly emotional persons are frequently swayed by Billy’s bombast and fustian. Billy wants to shift blame from those who benefit from oppression to those who suffer from it. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. The foregoing analysis is self-evident even if it is sometimes overlooked. Less evident are the specific ways in which we should take a no-nonsense approach to dealing with domineering, villainous insurrectionists. Your guess is as good as mine as to why he wants to precipitate riots. Maybe it’s because he plans to usher in the rule of the Antichrist and the apocalyptic end times. There is one crucial fact that we must not overlook if we are to perceive our current situation as it is, rather than in the anamorphosis of some “ideology” such as alcoholism or animalism. Specifically, I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to foster mutual understanding. And just let him try and stop me.

You have my word that Billy’s agitprop machine is running at full throttle. End of story. Actually, I should add that all the deals he makes are strictly one-way. Billy gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. While I don’t know his secret plans, I do know that you don’t have to say anything specifically about him for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should redefine in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning.

Billy would have us believe that nihilism resonates with the body’s natural alpha waves. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do? The fact of the matter is that I have never read anything he has written that I would consider wise, logical, pertinent, reasonable, or scientific. Billy’s statement that his jokes are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture’s toxic cloud of chaos is no exception. What’s more, he argues that every word that leaves his mouth is teeming with useful information. To maintain this thesis, Billy naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is.

I will not quibble with Billy as to whether or not he is a sore loser. Instead, I’ll simply state that “cankered” is the least offensive adjective that accurately describes Billy and leave it at that. He insists that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. That lie is a transparent and strained effort to keep us from noticing that someone has been giving his brain a very thorough washing, and now Billy is trying to do the same to us. I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of his hypocrisy or crookedness. It’s what I’ve come to expect by now. So, sorry for being so long-winded in this letter, but it is not possible fully to understand the present except as a projection of the past.

"You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."

-Charles Manson

by kaweahkaweah on Dec 20, 2009 8:22 AM PST reply actions   4 recs

For those unfamiliar with the acronym,

it stands for “I’m an ignorant lout, AND I want everyone to know about it.”

(I assume Wader meant it facetiously.)

"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat

by iglew on Dec 20, 2009 9:10 AM PST up reply actions  

TL...DR

m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!

by JediLeroy on Dec 21, 2009 1:46 PM PST up reply actions  

I'd say the holding of that particular opinion definitely qualifies you for "ignorant lout" status

O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?

by PaulThomas on Dec 21, 2009 10:58 PM PST up reply actions  

In order to win a battle one must know who the real enemy is. Otherwise, one is shooting in the dark and often hitting those not the least bit responsible for the mayhem. In our current battle the real enemy is Mr. Iglew. I want to share this with you because contrary to my personal preferences, I’m thinking about what’s best for all of us. My conclusion is that what’s best for all of us is for me to provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity’s future and our role in it. He is driving me nuts. I can’t take it anymore! Throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to take a strong position on Iglew’s zingers, which, after all, subordinate principles of fairness to less admirable criteria, and those who wish to mute the voice of anyone who dares to speak out against him. Naturally, Iglew belongs to the latter category.

My message is clear: If we take Iglew’s personal attacks to their logical conclusion, we see that some day, Iglew will encourage the acceptance of scapegoating and demonization. He may stretch credulity beyond the breaking point right after he reads this letter. Let him. In the coming days, I will throw down the gauntlet and challenge Iglew’s cat’s-paws to encourage our spirits to soar. I must admit that I’ve read only a small fraction of Iglew’s writings. (As a well-known aphorism states, it is not necessary to eat all of an apple to learn that it is rotten.) Nevertheless, I’ve read enough of Iglew’s writings to know that Iglew justifies his rotten sound bites with fallacious logical arguments based on argumentum ad baculum. In case you’re unfamiliar with the term, it means that if we don’t accept Iglew’s claim that we should all bear the brunt of his actions then he will make a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs.

I would not have thought it possible that unravelling the Gordian Knot that is Iglew is not difficult when you realize the multifaceted nature of Iglew and his mercenaries, but it’s absolutely true. With this in mind, I must subject his paroxysms to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant. This state of affairs demands the direct assault on those lackadaisical ultimata that seek to traduce and discredit everyone but uncompromising, huffy enemies of the people.

Iglew has come up with proven methods to fortify a social correctness that restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries. All you have to do is let your guard down. All of the bad things that are currently going on are a symptom of his contemptuous fibs. They are not a cause; they are an effect.

Irrespective of one’s feelings on the subject, if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to identify, challenge, defy, disrupt, and, finally, destroy the institutions that silence any criticism of the brainwashing and double standards that Iglew has increasingly been practicing. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth’s population that Iglew claims to have data supporting his assertion that he never engages in insensate, vengeful, or uncontrollable politics. Naturally, he insists that he can’t actually show us that data—for some unspecified reason, of course. My guess is that he’s hiding something. Maybe he’s hiding the fact that one does not have to destabilize society in order to condemn—without hesitation, without remorse—all those who tour the country promoting dotty Stalinism in lectures and radio talk-show interviews. It is a grotty person who believes otherwise. Need I point out that Iglew’s plan is to impose a Luciferian ideology upon whatever remains of the human race after the final cataclysm brought about by his nutty, bookish insinuations? I have a scientist’s respect for objective truth. That’s why I’m telling you that if Iglew can one day create a new cottage industry around Iglew’s stingy form of propagandism then the long descent into night is sure to follow.

Over the years, I’ve enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that Iglew’s exegeses are indistinguishable from the ones he condemns. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that what Iglew is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly materialistic activity.

There is little question that it is almost funny (but is actually rather scary) to see how far Iglew will go to prevent the real problems from being solved. Although others may disagree with that claim, few would dispute that if he makes fun of me or insults me I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to call your attention to the problem of benighted cozeners. He has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, Iglew’s vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, his vows of equality did little more than convince people that he repeats the term “phenomenalistic” over and over again in everything he writes. Is this repetition part of some new drinking game, or is Iglew merely trying to confuse us into believing that he is God’s representative on Earth? Whatever the answer, Iglew is full of angst and passion and venom. And I can say that with a clear conscience because what we’re seeing is a domino effect of events that started with Iglew stating that his brown-nosing terrorist organization is a respected civil-rights organization. That prevarication incited his disciples to mold your mind and have you see the world not as it is but as Iglew wants you to see it. What I call unruly smart alecks reacted, in turn, by turning the trickle of Lysenkoism into a tidal wave. The next domino to fall, not surprisingly, was a widespread increase in radicalism, and that’s the event that galvanized me to tell everyone that Iglew says that he wants to make life better for everyone. Lacking a coherent ideology, however, Iglew always ends up insulting my intelligence.

My goal is to get Iglew to realize that his fairy tales are not just retroactively ineffective but proactively inert. Of course, if he insists on remaining an ignorant, uninformed, and ill-informed loan shark, that’s his prerogative. It is true that I am appalled by the vast generalizations in his claim that he has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring himself to help disseminate the True Faith of Marxism, but Iglew is a human leech dedicated to sucking the life out of our doomed corpses. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that our battle with Iglew is a battle between spiritualism and academicism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear that Iglew says that everyone would be a lot safer if he were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions—even our library records. Why on Earth does Iglew need to monitor our library records? I have searched numerous sources for answers to that question. No two sources seem to agree on any given point except for one: that Iglew’s traducements are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk"—an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well—because when I hear Iglew say that he values our perspectives, I have to wonder about him. Is he entirely horny? Is he simply being stroppy? Or is he merely embracing a delusion in which he must believe in order to continue believing in himself? The answer is quite simple. I already listed several possibilities, but because Iglew lacks the ability to remember beyond the last two seconds of his life I will restate what I said before for his sake: I welcome his comments. However, he needs to realize that there’s a chance that he will paralyze any serious or firm decision and thereby become responsible for the weak and half-hearted execution of even the most necessary measures in the near future. Well, that’s extremely speculative but it is clear today that anyone—you or I or a Martian just arrived in a flying saucer—who wants to encourage the ethos of exchange value over use value should realize that respect for the law is not enhanced by setting the bad example of breaking the law. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, if Iglew manages to take control of a nation and suck it dry, our nation will not endure as a civilization, as a geopolitical entity, or even as a society. Rather, it will exist only as a prison, a prison in which mingy half-wits dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities.

Iglew, serving as judge, jury, and executioner, has decreed that my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. You don’t need to be the smartest guy on the planet to figure that out. Heck, even the lowliest Joe Six-Pack knows that while Iglew is out turning positions of leadership into positions of complacency, the general public is shouldering the bill. Sadly, this is a bill of shattered minds, broken hearts and homes, depression and all its attendant miseries, and a despondency about Iglew’s attempts to evade responsibility.

Life isn’t fair. We’ve all known this since the beginning of time, so why is Iglew so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? The answer is obvious if you understand that if you’ve read this far then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. For what it’s worth, he focuses on feelings rather than facts. Sure, Iglew attempts to twist and distort facts to justify his feelings, but that just goes to show that no one has a higher opinion of him than I, and I think he’s a logorrheic con artist. Mr. Iglew’s bunco games are an integument of feudalism. And that’s the honest truth.

Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM

by Leopold Bloom on Dec 20, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions  

I have to know Bloom

how do we stop the coming storm? Oh wait let me start over.

I have to know Bloom how long did it take you to type that post?

by sirbed on Dec 20, 2009 6:27 PM PST up reply actions  

um.

here.

Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM

by Leopold Bloom on Dec 21, 2009 2:09 PM PST up reply actions  

That's great

I’m going to use that to write posts to Denver Broncos fans everywhere.

by sirbed on Dec 21, 2009 6:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Well, there's one in particular who needs his mailbox full of these.

Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM

by Leopold Bloom on Dec 21, 2009 9:33 PM PST up reply actions  

TL...DR

"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat

by iglew on Dec 21, 2009 8:02 AM PST up reply actions  

And that goes for Ulysses, too.

"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat

by iglew on Dec 21, 2009 8:03 AM PST up reply actions  

damn your eyes!

Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM

by Leopold Bloom on Dec 21, 2009 10:49 AM PST up reply actions  

If it makes you feel any better,

I am currently on a homeward journey which will take more time than it might, due to multiple delays. (But unlike last year, the delays are pleasant and voluntary ones.)

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

by iglew on Dec 21, 2009 9:01 PM PST up reply actions  

yay!

I love leisurely travel.

Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM

by Leopold Bloom on Dec 21, 2009 9:33 PM PST up reply actions  

+1

"You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."

-Charles Manson

by kaweahkaweah on Dec 21, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions  

I wonder

Is there a character limit to comments?

They say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing all the time!

by muffinpryde on Dec 21, 2009 8:37 PM PST up reply actions  

did you mean maximum or minimum?

because sometimes it seems commenters don’t need any at all…

don't care if i ever get back.

by AV on Dec 26, 2009 3:30 PM PST up reply actions  

Why is it that some people are so devoid of a sense of humor?

Naturally, I’m referring to Mr. Billy L Beane’s latest precepts. If you disagree with my claim that debate with Billy or a search for common ground is both a fruitless exercise and a suicidal strategy, then read no further. To what consequences this leads can be seen from a few simple considerations. First of all, he intends to create a new social class. Obnoxious slanderers, perfidious, grotesque discourteous-types, and detestable dirty-types will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their rank-and-file followers.

Even Billy’s followers couldn’t deal with the full impact of Billy’s generalizations. That’s why they created “Billy-ism,” which is just a neurotic excuse to envelop us in a nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror. If the country were overrun by the most resentful braggadocios you’ll ever see, we could expect to observe widespread discrimination in our daily lives—stares from sales clerks, taxis that don’t stop, and unwarranted license and registration checks by police. I recently heard him tell a bunch of people that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. I can’t adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don’t know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text.

Let us postulate that Billy wallows in his basest behavior. In that case, if Billy feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that’s just too darn bad. His arrogance has brought this upon himself. The law of parsimony suggests that he equates non-cooperation and solitariness with individuality. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion. The most sobering aspect of his shell games is that there isn’t a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids, so let’s toss out that ridiculous argument of Billy’s from the get-go. I’m convinced that Billy will subordinate principles of fairness to less admirable criteria one of these days. No, I’m not in tinfoil-hat land; I have abundant evidence from reliable sources that this is the case. For instance, there is a problem here. A large, rotten, dangerous problem.

I can’t help but wonder: Why does everyone hate Billy? Is it because of his business practices, exclusivity, disloyalty, disrespect, or because Billy keeps trying to undermine liberty in the name of liberty? I have asked God for answers, but it appears that this is a closed-book test. Let me simply suggest, therefore, that Billy’s press releases manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: help mephitic fugitives evade capture by the authorities. Phase two: worsen an already unstable situation.

As far as I can tell, if we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of Billy’s testy allocutions rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into his world. Why do we want to do that? Because Billy’s disquisitions will have consequences—very serious consequences. We ought to begin doing something about that. We ought to establish beyond a shred of doubt that Billy’s allegations are as phlegmatic as they are an insult to human intelligence. We ought to spread the word that if you think that his theatrics prevent smallpox then you’re suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You’re focusing too much on what Billy wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance such as that conclaves of his shills have all the dissent found in a North Korean communist party meeting. That’s why no one there will ever admit that Billy’s emissaries have tried repeatedly to assure me that Billy will eventually tire of his plan to pit people against each other and will then step aside and let us bring him to justice. When that will happen is unclear—probably sometime between “don’t hold your breath” and “beware of flying pigs”.

If nothing else, from the perspective of those inside Billy’s brownshirt brigade, representative government is an outmoded system that should be replaced by a system of overt heathenism. The reality, however, is that he wants to prohibit any discussion of her attempts to commit all sorts of mortal sins—not to mention an uncountable number of venial ones. While it is clear why he wants that to be a taboo subject, Billy hates you—yes, you, because you, like me, want to shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas. I guess what I really mean to say is that Billy appears to have found a new tool to use to help him destabilize society. That tool is boosterism, and if you watch him wield it you’ll doubtlessly see why some people believe that one day his comrades will resolve our disputes without violence. Such people are doomed to disappointment, especially when one considers that it’s unquestionably a tragedy that Billy’s goal in life is apparently to hurt people’s feelings. Here, I use the word “tragedy” as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that “the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things,” which I interpret as saying that Billy has somehow made up his mind that his possession-obsessed little empire is a benign and charitable agency. It seems to me that what he is doing is jumping to a hasty conclusion in the absence of adequate data. A more reasoned analysis would reveal that I wouldn’t put it past Billy to put a clog on all attempts to limit his power. In fact, I have said that to Billy on many occasions, and I will keep on saying it until he stops trying to condone universal oppression.

Billy is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his mind games. He is on some sort of thesaurus-fueled rampage. Every sentence Billy writes is filled with needlessly long words like “microcrystallography” and “counterrevolutionist”. Either he is deliberately trying to confuse us or else he’s secretly scheming to insist that our society be infested with onanism, antagonism, particularism, and an impressive swarm of other “isms”. I am worried about a new physiognomy of servitude, a compliant citizenry relieved of its burdens by a “compassionate” Billy L Beane. It’s hard to spot the compassion when you notice that he has been trying to convince us that hanging out with daft, uncouth gutter-dwellers is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. This pathetic attempt to engage in the trafficking of human beings deserves no comment other than to say that the last time I heard Billy ramble on in his characteristically bibulous blather he said something about wanting to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people. I feel sorry for the human race when I hear stuff like that.

If there is one thing I have learned, it is this: Billy is a yellow-bellied, refractory persona non grata. I use that label only when it’s true. If you don’t believe it is, then consider that Billy’s jackals are brainwashed automatons programmed to spout line after line of pro-Billy propaganda. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that Billy knows 100% of everything 100% of the time, then there is sincerely no hope for you. Do you really want him to break up society’s solidarity and cohesiveness? I think not.

In theory, Billy’s unedifying preoccupation with metagrobolism will create an ideological climate that will enable Billy to dress up his profit motive in the cloak of selfless altruism any day now. But in reality, some people apparently believe that if we don’t bother him, he won’t bother us. The fallacy of that belief is that our desires and his are not merely different; they are opposed in mortal enmity. Billy wants to promote the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group. We, in contrast, want to alert people that there is a tortured quality to his reasoning, a careful avoidance of obvious conclusions, and a painstaking circumnavigation of embarrassing facts. To top that off, it would be charitable of me not to mention that feelings of inferiority are characteristic of deplorable, infernal election-year also-rans. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity so I will instead maintain that anyone willing to study and ponder my position on most current matters will certainly find that many lives have been lost to fanaticism. That’s too big of a subject to get into here so let me instead discuss how we must reach out to people with the message that Billy uses words like “transubstantiationalist” to give his false-flag operations an air of culture and elegance. We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to set the record straight.

Billy has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and prime the pump of obstructionism—all by trumping up a phony emergency. He once tried convincing me that causing doctrinaire subversion to gather momentum on college campuses is essential for the safety and welfare of the public. Does he think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that my goal is to get Billy to realize that widespread cynicism is the price we’d pay for making “semiprofessionalized” a dirty word. Of course, if he insists on remaining an ignorant, uninformed, and ill-informed clod, that’s his prerogative. While he puts on a good dog-and-pony show, we must follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought. This call to action begins with you. You must be the first to place a high value on honor and self-respect. You must be the one to confront and reject all manifestations of masochism. And you must inform your fellow man that some anti-democratic blowhards actually maintain that Billy is a martyr for freedom and a victim of charlatanism. This is the kind of muddled thinking that Billy is encouraging with his bunco games. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as brassbound, froward champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine. My goal for this letter was to establish a supportive—rather than an intimidating—atmosphere for offering public comment. Know that I have done my best while trying always to tell Mr. Billy L Beane what we all think of him—and boy, do I have some choice words I’d like to use. Let an honest history judge.

by oblique on Dec 20, 2009 8:48 AM PST up reply actions  

All that, yeah,

and the gold standard.

I can’t believe you didn’t bring up the gold standard.

"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat

by iglew on Dec 20, 2009 9:08 AM PST up reply actions  

Barton has been an above average hitter for his major league career

and has developed into a good defender at 1st. He is a long way from being useless.

Also you criticise Beane for not getting rid of Chavez – how many teams do you know that would be willing to take on Chavez’s salary, or even part of it, given his recent injury history? The only other thing to do would be to outright release him, which might not be a bad thing as it would force us to look for other alternatives and not cling onto the faint hope that he might contribute something, but while there is that faint hope the A’s are not likely to do that.

by DeJay on Dec 20, 2009 9:04 AM PST reply actions  

Not to mention that he owns a career minors OBP mark of .408

And he was never older than the his average competition, on any level.

by Manstein on Dec 20, 2009 9:35 AM PST up reply actions  

and he'd better hit .340 with 40 dingers this year,

or I’m gonna hold my breath until I turn green & gold!

"Sniff some krazy glue, and start a religion!"- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Dec 20, 2009 12:45 PM PST up reply actions  

That goes for everybody!

You too, Pennington!

"Sniff some krazy glue, and start a religion!"- The Reverend Billy Lard

by Gaijin_Suketto on Dec 20, 2009 12:46 PM PST up reply actions  

Quick Rebuttals

1. Daric Barton not being useless. I understand this one. He had a decent year last year. So naturally fans will overreact and say he turned the corner. Daric Barton was one of the best prospects in all of baseball a few short years ago.But what has he showed us in 3 years to show us that he is the future at 1b? 70 games of good or decent games? What about his 2008 year?

2. I understand Chavez contract details. But I’m sick and tired of hearing every minute that Eric has tweaked his back and he’s out for the next game. Make a buyout and get rid of him. Cut your losses.

Gotta run..I dont have anytime to write “The Great Gatsby” as written above. That dude is an awesome writer.

by Wallace758 on Dec 20, 2009 2:10 PM PST reply actions  

What's amusing about this is that Gatsby is one of the shortest of all classic novels

You should’ve gone Moby Dick, War and Peace or even The Grapes of Wrath.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Dec 20, 2009 2:13 PM PST up reply actions  

too long ... didn't watch

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

by iglew on Dec 22, 2009 8:36 AM PST up reply actions  

How do you make a buyout? Regardless of whether he plays or sits on the DL, he’s getting his $12 million, or however much it is. What incentive would he have to take less money than what he has guaranteed?

by speckops on Dec 21, 2009 11:57 PM PST up reply actions  

I thoroughly enjoyed this line:

“The failed projects of Travis Buck and Daric Barton got me really riled up!”

I’m not sure why, but it just amuses me. The phrase “riled up,” the exclamation point. I halfway expected a “Rah!” after it.

www.zekeishungry.com

by thejd44 on Dec 20, 2009 2:12 PM PST reply actions  

i know it's not your point, but this is a good spot to make my point...

i don’t blame Beane if guys fail to develop or get hurt when it wasn’t a prior problem.

what i mind is the love for players that haven’t substantiated that love. i haven’t lost faith in barton though i’m getting close. i’ve lost all faith in buck.

by stm72 on Dec 21, 2009 11:31 AM PST up reply actions  

no kidding

I couldn’t believe someone was dumb enough to invest $30M on Milton Bradley with his questionable past and injury history. So trading an 6x oft-injured GG isn’t completely out of the question.

by sf drift king on Dec 21, 2009 1:58 PM PST up reply actions  

Cliff Notes summary of analysis in and about this fanpost:

“This shouldn’t be a fanpost!”
“Yes it should!”

Ultimately, society will decide (and will be overruled by the tyrant, Billy Beane).

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Dec 20, 2009 3:31 PM PST reply actions  

(don't forget iglew)

Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM

by Leopold Bloom on Dec 20, 2009 4:54 PM PST up reply actions  

His bunco games are an integument of feudalism.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

by iglew on Dec 21, 2009 9:03 PM PST up reply actions  

And that's the honest truth.

Sock puppets have never been able to successfully attack castles. -NM

by Leopold Bloom on Dec 21, 2009 9:34 PM PST up reply actions  

Sac Area Resident

Beane keeps improving our local team — the RiverCats. We’ve got the best stadium and best players in the A’s organization. Sad really.

by BlueMoon on Dec 22, 2009 5:31 AM PST reply actions  

Don't let them compromise your beliefs

Dan Johnson Jr., I mean Daric Barton sucks. If he hits .275 and 18 homers this year then I willl gladly take what I said back but there are plenty of guys out there who can do what he does. If you guys think he’s worth another year of development then fine, but unless he’s breaksthrough let’s try again.

by Boss Playa on Jan 3, 2010 3:07 AM PST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Aperture_logo_small
Community Prospect List #4
Img_2672_small
Long-Term Outlook

Recent FanPosts

Fubarcloud_small
Wolf being told to spend money
Small
The wRC+ Challenge
Pumpkin_small
Maybe this is a stupid stats question
Small
A's reportedly sign Cespedes
Unknown_small
Is It Really Worth It: Three Veterans Who May Be Playing Oakland Next Year, But Shouldn't Be
Small
Manny's Contract
Small
fantasy baseball league for A's fans!
Small
NYY Proposal
Small
Roy Oswalt = opportunity

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Front Page Writers

Maya_papi_small Tyler Bleszinski

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Josefav2_small danmerqury

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

Img_0653_small dwishinsky

Front Page Writers

Smiley_face_small gigglingone

Venasfans_small OaklandSi

60-minutes-clock_small cuppingmaster

Patpicturebucky2_small YonYonson

Img_3830_small David Fung

Moderators

Photofunia-5c770b_small coffee roaster

Denver_small Colorado Fan

Ls_logo100_small LoneStranger

Thumbs_up_small LongTimeFan

Marty_profile_in_green_small mrod

Img_1877_small Billy Frijoles

Babycomputergeek_small paris7

Img_0115_small Tutu-late