Not all pro players are selfish

[Agentbolt]

Nobody knows whether the coaches were actually promised this bonus in any way that's legally enforceable. If they were, then the Sox players refusing to go makes sense (kind of. The coaches filing a grievance would've made more sense) If they weren't, they were being a bunch of whiny babies, and the fact that they were trying to get their coaches some extra money doesn't make it somehow excusable.

Since we DON'T know either way, however, the level of heated argument in here is fairly humorous. Watching two sides fight when both sides are completely ignorant is always a kick.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
Nobody knows whether the coaches were actually promised this bonus in any way that's legally enforceable. If they were, then the Sox players refusing to go makes sense (kind of. The coaches filing a grievance would've made more sense) If they weren't, they were being a bunch of whiny babies, and the fact that they were trying to get their coaches some extra money doesn't make it somehow excusable.

But it does make it unselfish, which was my point all along.

Since we DON'T know either way, however, the level of heated argument in here is fairly humorous. Watching two sides fight when both sides are completely ignorant is always a kick.

I was basing my argument on what was said in the article (that there was, at the very least, an oral contract). I have no idea what anyone else might have been basing their argument on.

MotionMan

 

[Agentbolt]

I was basing my argument on what was said in the article (that there was, at the very least, an oral contract). I have no idea what anyone else might have been basing their argument on.

How do we know there was an oral contract? Because Curt Schilling said so? As a lifelong Sox fan, let me tell you, Schilling hears what he wants to hear sometimes. We don't know what exactly was said, so we don't know if there was an oral contract or not.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

I was basing my argument on what was said in the article (that there was, at the very least, an oral contract). I have no idea what anyone else might have been basing their argument on.

How do we know there was an oral contract? Because Curt Schilling said so? As a lifelong Sox fan, let me tell you, Schilling hears what he wants to hear sometimes. We don't know what exactly was said, so we don't know if there was an oral contract or not.

That does not change the fact that I was basing my argument on what it said in the article. If the article is factually inaccurate, then I guess my argument could be flawed. However, it has not yet been shown that the article is inaccurate.

MotionMan

 

[Agentbolt]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

I was basing my argument on what was said in the article (that there was, at the very least, an oral contract). I have no idea what anyone else might have been basing their argument on.

How do we know there was an oral contract? Because Curt Schilling said so? As a lifelong Sox fan, let me tell you, Schilling hears what he wants to hear sometimes. We don't know what exactly was said, so we don't know if there was an oral contract or not.

That does not change the fact that I was basing my argument on what it said in the article. If the article is factually inaccurate, then I guess my argument could be flawed. However, it has not yet been shown that the article is inaccurate.

MotionMan

You're not basing your opinion on what the ARTICLE said, you're basing it on what CURT SCHILLING said. There's a difference. The rule of thumb with him is that you trust something Schilling says about as far as you can throw his fat ass. The AP article doesn't say anything like "we verified what Schilling said about the deal made with MLB".

 

[Farang]

lol at idiots saying the players should have paid.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

I was basing my argument on what was said in the article (that there was, at the very least, an oral contract). I have no idea what anyone else might have been basing their argument on.

How do we know there was an oral contract? Because Curt Schilling said so? As a lifelong Sox fan, let me tell you, Schilling hears what he wants to hear sometimes. We don't know what exactly was said, so we don't know if there was an oral contract or not.

That does not change the fact that I was basing my argument on what it said in the article. If the article is factually inaccurate, then I guess my argument could be flawed. However, it has not yet been shown that the article is inaccurate.

MotionMan

You're not basing your opinion on what the ARTICLE said, you're basing it on what CURT SCHILLING said. There's a difference. The rule of thumb with him is that you trust something Schilling says about as far as you can throw his fat ass. The AP article doesn't say anything like "we verified what Schilling said about the deal made with MLB".

Mike Lowell also mentioned it. Funny how you were laughing at people arguing over this. Kettle. :laugh:

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Farang
lol at idiots saying the players should have paid.

Well, they make so much money, and they're so lazy, and it cuts into league and owners profits quite a good bit.

I think instead of whining about more money, the players should just pay each other's salaries. Manny could pay Curt, Alex could pay half the Yankees, and there would be much more left for the owners.

In fact, with a system like this, I'm SURE ticket prices would fall.

 

[poopaskoopa]

I wouldn't call them selfish, but to be called unselfish theyd have to sacrifice something of value. They cried on behalf of someone. That was nice of them to do.

 

[Agentbolt]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

I was basing my argument on what was said in the article (that there was, at the very least, an oral contract). I have no idea what anyone else might have been basing their argument on.

How do we know there was an oral contract? Because Curt Schilling said so? As a lifelong Sox fan, let me tell you, Schilling hears what he wants to hear sometimes. We don't know what exactly was said, so we don't know if there was an oral contract or not.

That does not change the fact that I was basing my argument on what it said in the article. If the article is factually inaccurate, then I guess my argument could be flawed. However, it has not yet been shown that the article is inaccurate.

MotionMan

You're not basing your opinion on what the ARTICLE said, you're basing it on what CURT SCHILLING said. There's a difference. The rule of thumb with him is that you trust something Schilling says about as far as you can throw his fat ass. The AP article doesn't say anything like "we verified what Schilling said about the deal made with MLB".

Mike Lowell also mentioned it. Funny how you were laughing at people arguing over this. Kettle. :laugh:

Ho, sorry! I forgot Mike Lowell also making a comment that MLB backed out of a deal they made proves it was a legal binding agreement!

I'm not arguing about whether the players were right or not, dingus, I'm pointing out that we don't know for sure what got said. Quoting Mike Lowell and Curt Schilling making vague comments about "what we were promised" doesn't prove anything. Congrats on completely, utterly failing to grasp the point though, you're not embarrassing yourself at all.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Farang
lol at idiots saying the players should have paid.

Well, they make so much money, and they're so lazy, and it cuts into league and owners profits quite a good bit.

I think instead of whining about more money, the players should just pay each other's salaries. Manny could pay Curt, Alex could pay half the Yankees, and there would be much more left for the owners.

In fact, with a system like this, I'm SURE ticket prices would fall.

It is a business. They're paid what the owners think they're worth. The owners want them to go halfway around the world, something extra, they get paid extra. The owners want the coaches to go around the world, they pay the coaches, or they should pay the coaches. The players see the coaches not getting paid and are upset, walk out on the owners. The players aren't the ones pushing for the trip, it is the owners. Therefore the owners pay. What incentive is there for the players to pay?

Oh, right, because they afford it they should pay. Just like Bill Gates is a jackass for not buying me a six pack every night.. after all, he can afford it!

Why did everyone suddenly turn so stupid on this issue? Usually people here are somewhat reasonable.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: QED
404 Unselfish players not found.

If the Red Sox players were so unselfish, they should've chipped in and paid bonus for the trainers and coaches themselves. Instead, they refused to honor their own contract to force SOMEONE ELSE to pay the coaches.

How the hell are the Red Sox players self-fish? MLB promised to pay this stipend to the coaches and then reneged after the teams agreed. Call MLB selfish.

The Red Sox and A's are being asked to end their spring training early to fly to Japan, play two games and then fly back to play more exhibition games.

And fwiw - the A's players weren't willing to pay for the coaches nor go on strike about it.

Prove the MLB promised to pay this stipend to coaches, please. If they did, they should pay without the players having to strike. But the fact the players threatened a strike only goes to show their first option (lawsuit) wouldn't have been succesful-- probably because MLB made no such promise (at least, not in writing).

I too am skeptical on this whole thing...something isn't right.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Farang
lol at idiots saying the players should have paid.

Well, they make so much money, and they're so lazy, and it cuts into league and owners profits quite a good bit.

I think instead of whining about more money, the players should just pay each other's salaries. Manny could pay Curt, Alex could pay half the Yankees, and there would be much more left for the owners.

In fact, with a system like this, I'm SURE ticket prices would fall.

It is a business. They're paid what the owners think they're worth. The owners want them to go halfway around the world, something extra, they get paid extra. The owners want the coaches to go around the world, they pay the coaches, or they should pay the coaches. The players see the coaches not getting paid and are upset, walk out on the owners. The players aren't the ones pushing for the trip, it is the owners. Therefore the owners pay. What incentive is there for the players to pay?

Oh, right, because they afford it they should pay. Just like Bill Gates is a jackass for not buying me a six pack every night.. after all, he can afford it!

Why did everyone suddenly turn so stupid on this issue? Usually people here are somewhat reasonable.

*Offers Farang some batteries*

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

I was basing my argument on what was said in the article (that there was, at the very least, an oral contract). I have no idea what anyone else might have been basing their argument on.

How do we know there was an oral contract? Because Curt Schilling said so? As a lifelong Sox fan, let me tell you, Schilling hears what he wants to hear sometimes. We don't know what exactly was said, so we don't know if there was an oral contract or not.

That does not change the fact that I was basing my argument on what it said in the article. If the article is factually inaccurate, then I guess my argument could be flawed. However, it has not yet been shown that the article is inaccurate.

MotionMan

You're not basing your opinion on what the ARTICLE said, you're basing it on what CURT SCHILLING said. There's a difference. The rule of thumb with him is that you trust something Schilling says about as far as you can throw his fat ass. The AP article doesn't say anything like "we verified what Schilling said about the deal made with MLB".

Mike Lowell also mentioned it. Funny how you were laughing at people arguing over this. Kettle. :laugh:

Ho, sorry! I forgot Mike Lowell also making a comment that MLB backed out of a deal they made proves it was a legal binding agreement!

I'm not arguing about whether the players were right or not, dingus, I'm pointing out that we don't know for sure what got said. Quoting Mike Lowell and Curt Schilling making vague comments about "what we were promised" doesn't prove anything. Congrats on completely, utterly failing to grasp the point though, you're not embarrassing yourself at all.

No, you're the one embarrassing yourself. You make a comment laughing at everyone arguing about this and looks who's in the middle b/c he always has to make his point b/c he thinks he knows everything. Right, Mr. Kettle? :laugh:

You asked and I verified what Schilling said with Mike Lowell. Sorry, Mr. Kettle, not everything in life is crystal clear in an iron-clad contract. Obviously, after the conference call was made and the players believed what was agreed upon was going to be placed in the agreement, especially since it's the same stipend paid to coaches the last two trips to Japan in previous years. But between then and now, things changed.

Keep on failing, you're good at it. :laugh:

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Farang
lol at idiots saying the players should have paid.

Well, they make so much money, and they're so lazy, and it cuts into league and owners profits quite a good bit.

I think instead of whining about more money, the players should just pay each other's salaries. Manny could pay Curt, Alex could pay half the Yankees, and there would be much more left for the owners.

In fact, with a system like this, I'm SURE ticket prices would fall.

It is a business. They're paid what the owners think they're worth. The owners want them to go halfway around the world, something extra, they get paid extra. The owners want the coaches to go around the world, they pay the coaches, or they should pay the coaches. The players see the coaches not getting paid and are upset, walk out on the owners. The players aren't the ones pushing for the trip, it is the owners. Therefore the owners pay. What incentive is there for the players to pay?

Oh, right, because they afford it they should pay. Just like Bill Gates is a jackass for not buying me a six pack every night.. after all, he can afford it!

Why did everyone suddenly turn so stupid on this issue? Usually people here are somewhat reasonable.

*Offers Farang some batteries*

leave [as inheritance] these: a box of mint-condition 1918 liberty-head silver dollars. You see, back in those days, rich men would ride around in Zeppelins, dropping coins on people, and one day I seen J. D. Rockefeller flying by. So I run of the house with a big washtub and? hey! Where are you going?
... Anyway, about my washtub. I?d just used it that morning to wash my turkey, which in those days was known as... a walking bird. We'd always have walking bird on Thanksgiving with all the trimmings: cranberries, beloved patriot eyes, yams stuffed with gunpowder. Then we'd all watch football, which in those days was called "baseball"...
... Eh, why didn't you get something useful, like storm windows, or a nice pipe organ? I'm thirsty! Ew, what smells like mustard? There're sure a lot of ugly people in your neighborhood. Oh! Look at that one. Ow, my glaucoma just got worse. The president isn?t Democrat! Hello? I can't unbuckle my seat belt. Hello? [honks car horn] There are too many leaves in your walkway...

We can?t bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell ?em stories that don?t go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on ?em. ?Give me five bees for a quarter,? you?d say.
Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn?t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

Ah, there's an interesting story behind this nickel. In 1957, I remember it was, I got up in the morning and made myself a piece of toast. I set the toaster to three - medium brown...

I first took a fancy to Mrs. Bouvier because her raspy voice reminded me of my old Victrola. Oh, it was a fine machine with a vulcanized rubber listening tube which you crammed in your ear. The tube would go in easier with some sort of lubricant like linseed oil or Dr.

Not many people know this, but I own the first radio in Springfield. Not much on the air then, just Edison reciting the alphabet over and over. 'A' he'd say. Then 'B'. 'C' would usually follow...

My story begins in Nineteen dickety two. We had to say "dickety" because the Kaiser had stolen our word for "twenty." I chased him down the road but gave up after dickety-six miles...

Well you?re really asking two questions there. The first one takes me back to 1934. Admiral Burn had just reached the pole, only hours ahead of the Three Stooges...
... and I guess he won the argument, but I walked away with the turnips. The following morning I resigned my commission with the coastguard. The next thing I knew there was civil war in Spain...
... and, that?s everything which happened in my life right up to the time I got this phone call...

Three wars back we called Sauerkraut "liberty cabbage" and we called liberty cabbage "super slaw" and back then a suitcase was known as a "Swedish lunch box." Of course, nobody knew that but me. Anyway, long story short... is a phrase whose origins are complicated and rambling...

Then after World War Two, it got kinda quiet, 'till Superman challenged FDR to a race around the world. FDR beat him by a furlong, or so the comic books would have you believe. The truth lies somewhere in between...

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

I was basing my argument on what was said in the article (that there was, at the very least, an oral contract). I have no idea what anyone else might have been basing their argument on.

How do we know there was an oral contract? Because Curt Schilling said so? As a lifelong Sox fan, let me tell you, Schilling hears what he wants to hear sometimes. We don't know what exactly was said, so we don't know if there was an oral contract or not.

That does not change the fact that I was basing my argument on what it said in the article. If the article is factually inaccurate, then I guess my argument could be flawed. However, it has not yet been shown that the article is inaccurate.

MotionMan

You're not basing your opinion on what the ARTICLE said, you're basing it on what CURT SCHILLING said. There's a difference. The rule of thumb with him is that you trust something Schilling says about as far as you can throw his fat ass. The AP article doesn't say anything like "we verified what Schilling said about the deal made with MLB".

Mike Lowell also mentioned it. Funny how you were laughing at people arguing over this. Kettle. :laugh:

Ho, sorry! I forgot Mike Lowell also making a comment that MLB backed out of a deal they made proves it was a legal binding agreement!

Actually, it does. If a jury were to believe one party over another regarding the existence of an oral contract, then the statements of the believed party can define the terms of the contract.

I'm not arguing about whether the players were right or not, dingus, I'm pointing out that we don't know for sure what got said. Quoting Mike Lowell and Curt Schilling making vague comments about "what we were promised" doesn't prove anything. Congrats on completely, utterly failing to grasp the point though, you're not embarrassing yourself at all.

I did not ever say that their statements proved anything. All I said was that I was basing my argument on the four corners of the article. Of course, GIGO applies, but, until there is an opposing statement, such as MLB saying that they did not agree to pay the coaches, Lowell's and Schilling's statements are undisputed.

MotionMan

 

[Agentbolt]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

I was basing my argument on what was said in the article (that there was, at the very least, an oral contract). I have no idea what anyone else might have been basing their argument on.

How do we know there was an oral contract? Because Curt Schilling said so? As a lifelong Sox fan, let me tell you, Schilling hears what he wants to hear sometimes. We don't know what exactly was said, so we don't know if there was an oral contract or not.

That does not change the fact that I was basing my argument on what it said in the article. If the article is factually inaccurate, then I guess my argument could be flawed. However, it has not yet been shown that the article is inaccurate.

MotionMan

You're not basing your opinion on what the ARTICLE said, you're basing it on what CURT SCHILLING said. There's a difference. The rule of thumb with him is that you trust something Schilling says about as far as you can throw his fat ass. The AP article doesn't say anything like "we verified what Schilling said about the deal made with MLB".

Mike Lowell also mentioned it. Funny how you were laughing at people arguing over this. Kettle. :laugh:

Ho, sorry! I forgot Mike Lowell also making a comment that MLB backed out of a deal they made proves it was a legal binding agreement!

I'm not arguing about whether the players were right or not, dingus, I'm pointing out that we don't know for sure what got said. Quoting Mike Lowell and Curt Schilling making vague comments about "what we were promised" doesn't prove anything. Congrats on completely, utterly failing to grasp the point though, you're not embarrassing yourself at all.

No, you're the one embarrassing yourself. You make a comment laughing at everyone arguing about this and looks who's in the middle b/c he always has to make his point b/c he thinks he knows everything. Right, Mr. Kettle? :laugh:

You asked and I verified what Schilling said with Mike Lowell. Sorry, Mr. Kettle, not everything in life is crystal clear in an iron-clad contract. Obviously, after the conference call was made and the players believed what was agreed upon was going to be placed in the agreement, especially since it's the same stipend paid to coaches the last two trips to Japan in previous years. But between then and now, things changed.

Keep on failing, you're good at it. :laugh:

Dude, you are beyond stupid. I'm not making fun of other people for arguing. I've tried explaining that, and you're not able to comprehend it. I'm making fun of other people for taking sides in an argument they lack the facts regarding.

I don't care how much you like Mike Lowell and Curt Schilling, because they don't think MLB lived up to their side of the bargain does not mean they didn't. We don't even know sure what the bargain WAS. A lot of the people saying the players were stupid for not going seem to think MLB had no obligation to pay the coaches, and the people who think the Sox did a good thing seem to think the MLB is in breach of some sort of contract. They're taking these positions assuming they know one way or the other, and they don't.

You = epic, epic failure. I'm done trying to teach you remedial debating skills.

 

[Jschmuck2]

My GOD this thread is full of Douchebags.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
My GOD this thread is full of Douchebags.

Dark Helmet: I knew it. I'm surrounded by a$$holes!

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

I was basing my argument on what was said in the article (that there was, at the very least, an oral contract). I have no idea what anyone else might have been basing their argument on.

How do we know there was an oral contract? Because Curt Schilling said so? As a lifelong Sox fan, let me tell you, Schilling hears what he wants to hear sometimes. We don't know what exactly was said, so we don't know if there was an oral contract or not.

That does not change the fact that I was basing my argument on what it said in the article. If the article is factually inaccurate, then I guess my argument could be flawed. However, it has not yet been shown that the article is inaccurate.

MotionMan

You're not basing your opinion on what the ARTICLE said, you're basing it on what CURT SCHILLING said. There's a difference. The rule of thumb with him is that you trust something Schilling says about as far as you can throw his fat ass. The AP article doesn't say anything like "we verified what Schilling said about the deal made with MLB".

Mike Lowell also mentioned it. Funny how you were laughing at people arguing over this. Kettle. :laugh:

Ho, sorry! I forgot Mike Lowell also making a comment that MLB backed out of a deal they made proves it was a legal binding agreement!

I'm not arguing about whether the players were right or not, dingus, I'm pointing out that we don't know for sure what got said. Quoting Mike Lowell and Curt Schilling making vague comments about "what we were promised" doesn't prove anything. Congrats on completely, utterly failing to grasp the point though, you're not embarrassing yourself at all.

No, you're the one embarrassing yourself. You make a comment laughing at everyone arguing about this and looks who's in the middle b/c he always has to make his point b/c he thinks he knows everything. Right, Mr. Kettle? :laugh:

You asked and I verified what Schilling said with Mike Lowell. Sorry, Mr. Kettle, not everything in life is crystal clear in an iron-clad contract. Obviously, after the conference call was made and the players believed what was agreed upon was going to be placed in the agreement, especially since it's the same stipend paid to coaches the last two trips to Japan in previous years. But between then and now, things changed.

Keep on failing, you're good at it. :laugh:

Dude, you are beyond stupid. I'm not making fun of other people for arguing. I've tried explaining that, and you're not able to comprehend it. I'm making fun of other people for taking sides in an argument they lack the facts regarding.

I don't care how much you like Mike Lowell and Curt Schilling, because they don't think MLB lived up to their side of the bargain< does not mean they didn't. We don't even know sure what the bargain WAS. A lot of the people saying the players were stupid for not going seem to think MLB had no obligation to pay the coaches, and the people who think the Sox did a good thing seem to think the MLB is in breach of some sort of contract. They're taking these positions assuming they know one way or the other, and they don't.

You = epic, epic failure. I'm done trying to teach you remedial debating skills.

But, whether there was a contract or not, wasn't what the players did an unselfish act?

MotionMan

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Farang
lol at idiots saying the players should have paid.

Well, they make so much money, and they're so lazy, and it cuts into league and owners profits quite a good bit.

I think instead of whining about more money, the players should just pay each other's salaries. Manny could pay Curt, Alex could pay half the Yankees, and there would be much more left for the owners.

In fact, with a system like this, I'm SURE ticket prices would fall.

It is a business. They're paid what the owners think they're worth. The owners want them to go halfway around the world, something extra, they get paid extra. The owners want the coaches to go around the world, they pay the coaches, or they should pay the coaches. The players see the coaches not getting paid and are upset, walk out on the owners. The players aren't the ones pushing for the trip, it is the owners. Therefore the owners pay. What incentive is there for the players to pay?

Oh, right, because they afford it they should pay. Just like Bill Gates is a jackass for not buying me a six pack every night.. after all, he can afford it!

Why did everyone suddenly turn so stupid on this issue? Usually people here are somewhat reasonable.

*Offers Farang some batteries*

leave [as inheritance] these: a box of mint-condition 1918 liberty-head silver dollars. You see, back in those days, rich men would ride around in Zeppelins, dropping coins on people, and one day I seen J. D. Rockefeller flying by. So I run of the house with a big washtub and? hey! Where are you going?
... Anyway, about my washtub. I?d just used it that morning to wash my turkey, which in those days was known as... a walking bird. We'd always have walking bird on Thanksgiving with all the trimmings: cranberries, beloved patriot eyes, yams stuffed with gunpowder. Then we'd all watch football, which in those days was called "baseball"...
... Eh, why didn't you get something useful, like storm windows, or a nice pipe organ? I'm thirsty! Ew, what smells like mustard? There're sure a lot of ugly people in your neighborhood. Oh! Look at that one. Ow, my glaucoma just got worse. The president isn?t Democrat! Hello? I can't unbuckle my seat belt. Hello? [honks car horn] There are too many leaves in your walkway...

We can?t bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell ?em stories that don?t go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on ?em. ?Give me five bees for a quarter,? you?d say.
Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn?t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

Ah, there's an interesting story behind this nickel. In 1957, I remember it was, I got up in the morning and made myself a piece of toast. I set the toaster to three - medium brown...

I first took a fancy to Mrs. Bouvier because her raspy voice reminded me of my old Victrola. Oh, it was a fine machine with a vulcanized rubber listening tube which you crammed in your ear. The tube would go in easier with some sort of lubricant like linseed oil or Dr.

Not many people know this, but I own the first radio in Springfield. Not much on the air then, just Edison reciting the alphabet over and over. 'A' he'd say. Then 'B'. 'C' would usually follow...

My story begins in Nineteen dickety two. We had to say "dickety" because the Kaiser had stolen our word for "twenty." I chased him down the road but gave up after dickety-six miles...

Well you?re really asking two questions there. The first one takes me back to 1934. Admiral Burn had just reached the pole, only hours ahead of the Three Stooges...
... and I guess he won the argument, but I walked away with the turnips. The following morning I resigned my commission with the coastguard. The next thing I knew there was civil war in Spain...
... and, that?s everything which happened in my life right up to the time I got this phone call...

Three wars back we called Sauerkraut "liberty cabbage" and we called liberty cabbage "super slaw" and back then a suitcase was known as a "Swedish lunch box." Of course, nobody knew that but me. Anyway, long story short... is a phrase whose origins are complicated and rambling...

Then after World War Two, it got kinda quiet, 'till Superman challenged FDR to a race around the world. FDR beat him by a furlong, or so the comic books would have you believe. The truth lies somewhere in between...

Post of the Year, I'd say

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

I was basing my argument on what was said in the article (that there was, at the very least, an oral contract). I have no idea what anyone else might have been basing their argument on.

How do we know there was an oral contract? Because Curt Schilling said so? As a lifelong Sox fan, let me tell you, Schilling hears what he wants to hear sometimes. We don't know what exactly was said, so we don't know if there was an oral contract or not.

That does not change the fact that I was basing my argument on what it said in the article. If the article is factually inaccurate, then I guess my argument could be flawed. However, it has not yet been shown that the article is inaccurate.

MotionMan

You're not basing your opinion on what the ARTICLE said, you're basing it on what CURT SCHILLING said. There's a difference. The rule of thumb with him is that you trust something Schilling says about as far as you can throw his fat ass. The AP article doesn't say anything like "we verified what Schilling said about the deal made with MLB".

Mike Lowell also mentioned it. Funny how you were laughing at people arguing over this. Kettle. :laugh:

Ho, sorry! I forgot Mike Lowell also making a comment that MLB backed out of a deal they made proves it was a legal binding agreement!

I'm not arguing about whether the players were right or not, dingus, I'm pointing out that we don't know for sure what got said. Quoting Mike Lowell and Curt Schilling making vague comments about "what we were promised" doesn't prove anything. Congrats on completely, utterly failing to grasp the point though, you're not embarrassing yourself at all.

No, you're the one embarrassing yourself. You make a comment laughing at everyone arguing about this and looks who's in the middle b/c he always has to make his point b/c he thinks he knows everything. Right, Mr. Kettle? :laugh:

You asked and I verified what Schilling said with Mike Lowell. Sorry, Mr. Kettle, not everything in life is crystal clear in an iron-clad contract. Obviously, after the conference call was made and the players believed what was agreed upon was going to be placed in the agreement, especially since it's the same stipend paid to coaches the last two trips to Japan in previous years. But between then and now, things changed.

Keep on failing, you're good at it. :laugh:

Dude, you are beyond stupid. I'm not making fun of other people for arguing. I've tried explaining that, and you're not able to comprehend it. I'm making fun of other people for taking sides in an argument they lack the facts regarding.

I don't care how much you like Mike Lowell and Curt Schilling, because they don't think MLB lived up to their side of the bargain<< does not mean they didn't. We don't even know sure what the bargain WAS. A lot of the people saying the players were stupid for not going seem to think MLB had no obligation to pay the coaches, and the people who think the Sox did a good thing seem to think the MLB is in breach of some sort of contract. They're taking these positions assuming they know one way or the other, and they don't.

You = epic, epic failure. I'm done trying to teach you remedial debating skills.

:laugh: Mr. Kettle keeping on failing! If you only could comprehend what you write and look in the mirror and see that big fat kettle. Seriously, I can't stop laughing. Stop

Funny how MLB has paid the coaches every time teams have gone to Japan and how it only took an hour for MLB to update the agreement to pay the coaches.

And you obviously have taken a position since you don't believe the players. Now, you can laugh at yourself like the rest of us. :laugh:

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: rivan
There's entirely too much money in pro sports. I'm no communist, but I think how some of the money in this country gets distributed is really fsk'd up.

Convince millions to stop paying for tickets. Problem solved.

aye, there's the rub. I have to agree on both counts.

1. athletes are payed way too much for doing what they do
2. go back to the old-day salaries of 40-60k per year (what...150-180k in today's cash?), then all of those companies making billions off of their names are just exploiting them.

As soon as Gatorade, Nike, Reebok, Lexus, Budweiser, etc stop using their names and images to make wads of cash, then we should roll back salaries. They actually do earn what is appropriate, considering these entities make a good bit more then they do just using their names.


....before that happens, though, we can go ahead and send the sports agents to the bottom of the sea. no need to wait around to get rid of the leeches.

As long as there are billions in sports, athletes will make millions. It's really simple - just go watch a second-tier league, and try to convince yourself that 'the machine' would function without the best players.

It wouldn't, thus, the large salaries.

If the popularity of sports fails, the salaries will roll back themselves.

College basketball is arguably more interesting than professional basketball. More people seem interested (at least, I can't recall the last time we had an office pool for the NBA. In fact, I don't even have a clue what month the NBA championships are.) And, college football rivals the NFL in popularity.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
My GOD this thread is full of Douchebags.

Just a few vocal douchebags.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: rivan
There's entirely too much money in pro sports. I'm no communist, but I think how some of the money in this country gets distributed is really fsk'd up.

Convince millions to stop paying for tickets. Problem solved.

aye, there's the rub. I have to agree on both counts.

1. athletes are payed way too much for doing what they do
2. go back to the old-day salaries of 40-60k per year (what...150-180k in today's cash?), then all of those companies making billions off of their names are just exploiting them.

As soon as Gatorade, Nike, Reebok, Lexus, Budweiser, etc stop using their names and images to make wads of cash, then we should roll back salaries. They actually do earn what is appropriate, considering these entities make a good bit more then they do just using their names.


....before that happens, though, we can go ahead and send the sports agents to the bottom of the sea. no need to wait around to get rid of the leeches.

As long as there are billions in sports, athletes will make millions. It's really simple - just go watch a second-tier league, and try to convince yourself that 'the machine' would function without the best players.

It wouldn't, thus, the large salaries.

If the popularity of sports fails, the salaries will roll back themselves.

College basketball is arguably more interesting than professional basketball. More people seem interested (at least, I can't recall the last time we had an office pool for the NBA. In fact, I don't even have a clue what month the NBA championships are.) And, college football rivals the NFL in popularity.

College basketball has better rules, period. It's a better game than what is in the NBA, though it is played by lesser athletes.

College football is quite simply not that good. A little bit of tradition, regional rivalries, etc, but although the spectacle is there, the product on the field does not measure up, in my opinion.

College sports make so much money, maybe those athletes should demand to be paid, too