Sad Opening

> rbbomber.TakeThisOut@netzero.com wrote:
> On Mar 29, 11:32 pm, The Dave© <n....TakeThisOut@no.com> wrote:
> > > rbbom....TakeThisOut@netzero.com wrote:
> > > Dear  Dave and Sux,
> > >          What do you have against paying market-value salaries for
> > > talent? The A's don't and won't until there's a change of
> > > ownership. What system would you support other than markets?
> > > With the lone exception of Eric Chavez, note that as an A's
> > > player approaches the ability to test the market for his talent
> > > he's gone,           --as ever, Russ
> >
> > Russ, I gave you three specific examples... Chavez, Dye, and Giambi
> > (they met his offer and Giambi was the one who renegged).  I'll give
> > you another one... Kotsay.
>
> Thanks, Dave, for once again making my point for me. Dye, Giambi, and
> Kotsay are gone; Chavez is the exception the A's cheap ownership now
> regrets,
> --as ever, Russ

What the hell are you talking about? Dye and Kotsay are gone for other
reasons, NOT because the team wouldn't pay market money at the time.
Giambi is gone because he was a liar to begin with, which is hardly the
team's fault.

Dye: Signed 'market money' contract, then proceeded to spend much of
said contract on disabled list. Contract was up, team offered less, he
refused. He did sign, however, with another team for approximately the
same money the A's offered, so don't kid yourself that it was the money
that drove him away. Even *if* it was, after the previous three years
of getting virtually nothing in return, the team was justified in being
skeptical.

Kotsay: Still under 'market money' contract that he signed while with
the A's. Traded due to health reasons, not because they didn't want to
pay it. If they didn't want to pay it they never would have signed the
contract to begin with. That's the whole presmise of your assertions,
that they won't sign people and pay any money, but the facts speak
otherwise.

Giambi: Liar. Period. He made demands. The team eventually met his
demands... then he added more. He never really wanted to stay no
matter how much money he was offered and anybody with even an ounce of
objectivity sees this. The only thing the A's offer did was cost the
Yankees more money than they would have had to pay otherwise.

Do you deny any of this? If so, please be specific. I don't
necessarily need to see links to newspaper articles from years ago, but
you will have to do better than random vague "cheap ownership"
one-liners and reading facial expressions.
 >> Stay informed about: Sad Opening 

On Mar 30, 11:31 am, "rbbom...@netzero.com" <rbbom....TakeThisOut@netzero.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 29, 4:47 pm, "Shooty Canseco" <shootycans....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <rbbom....TakeThisOut@netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:751aede6-503c-44f4-9956-5c9ba18ecf34@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >Dear Dave, Sux, and Shooty,
> > >Didn't you see Joe Blanton's face on opening night in Tokyo?
> > >--as ever, Russ
>
> > I did, but what you interpreted as "Gee, I wish I was playing for the Mets!"
> > looked more to me like "Gosh, I sure could go for a half dozen Meximelts!".
>
> > I'm not going to say you were on Kardex's lengthy, unending crazy train, but
> > I do think there's not much point in trying to discern Joe Blanton's career
> > aspirations by looking at his face.
>
> > Shooty
>
> Shooty, you know at least as well as I do that facial expression and
> body language say as much or more than words,

I dunno Russ. I'm usually stumped trying to figure out what someone is
thinking just by lookin' at 'em. Words work well though. Here, for
example, are some plain old words from The Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

crackpot - \ˈkrak-ˌpät\ - noun, one given to eccentric or lunatic
notions
 >> Stay informed about: Sad Opening 

On Mar 30, 7:41 pm, thisplanetsux <thisplanet... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 11:31 am, "rbbom...@netzero.com" <rbbom... DeleteThis @netzero.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 4:47 pm, "Shooty Canseco" <shootycans... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > <rbbom... DeleteThis @netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:751aede6-503c-44f4-9956-5c9ba18ecf34@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > >Dear Dave, Sux, and Shooty,
> > > >Didn't you see Joe Blanton's face on opening night in Tokyo?
> > > >--as ever, Russ
>
> > > I did, but what you interpreted as "Gee, I wish I was playing for the Mets!"
> > > looked more to me like "Gosh, I sure could go for a half dozen Meximelts!".
>
> > > I'm not going to say you were on Kardex's lengthy, unending crazy train, but
> > > I do think there's not much point in trying to discern Joe Blanton's career
> > > aspirations by looking at his face.
>
> > > Shooty
>
> > Shooty, you know at least as well as I do that facial expression and
> > body language say as much or more than words,
>
> I dunno Russ. I'm usually stumped trying to figure out what someone is
> thinking just by lookin' at 'em.  Words work well though.  Here, for
> example, are some plain old words from The Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
>
> crackpot - \ˈkrak-ˌpät\  - noun,  one given to eccentric or lunatic
> notions- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Yes, Sux, it's much easier to suggest that a critic of the A's cheap
ownership is a crackpot than to note the facts. Is it an accident that
the last time the A's had a World Series winner was when they had an
ownership that encompassed the whole Bay area and put talent on the
field?
The ownership since Shott (who's still on the payroll somehow) has had
one guiding principle: Be cheap. Currently they're protecting
themselves from paying out anything while they wait to use a new
ballpark to pull businesses and home-buyers into a real estate scam
near Fremont. Want to buy a home, Sux?
--As ever, Russ
 >> Stay informed about: Sad Opening 

On Mar 30, 12:19 pm, The Dave© <n....RemoveThis@no.com> wrote:
> > rbbom....RemoveThis@netzero.com wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 11:32 pm, The Dave© <n....RemoveThis@no.com> wrote:
> > > > rbbom....RemoveThis@netzero.com wrote:
> > > > Dear  Dave and Sux,
> > > >          What do you have against paying market-value salaries for
> > > > talent? The A's don't and won't until there's a change of
> > > > ownership.  What system would you support other than markets?
> > > > With the lone exception of Eric Chavez, note that as an A's
> > > > player approaches the ability to test the market for his talent
> > > > he's gone,           --as ever, Russ
>
> > > Russ, I gave you three specific examples... Chavez, Dye, and Giambi
> > > (they met his offer and Giambi was the one who renegged).  I'll give
> > > you another one... Kotsay.
>
> > Thanks, Dave, for once again making my point for me. Dye, Giambi, and
> > Kotsay are gone; Chavez is the exception the A's cheap ownership now
> > regrets,
> >        --as ever, Russ
>
> What the hell are you talking about?  Dye and Kotsay are gone for other
> reasons, NOT because the team wouldn't pay market money at the time.
> Giambi is gone because he was a liar to begin with, which is hardly the
> team's fault.
>
> Dye: Signed 'market money' contract, then proceeded to spend much of
> said contract on disabled list.  Contract was up, team offered less, he
> refused.  He did sign, however, with another team for approximately the
> same money the A's offered, so don't kid yourself that it was the money
> that drove him away.  Even *if* it was, after the previous three years
> of getting virtually nothing in return, the team was justified in being
> skeptical.
>
> Kotsay:  Still under 'market money' contract that he signed while with
> the A's.  Traded due to health reasons, not because they didn't want to
> pay it.  If they didn't want to pay it they never would have signed the
> contract to begin with.  That's the whole presmise of your assertions,
> that they won't sign people and pay any money, but the facts speak
> otherwise.
>
> Giambi:  Liar.  Period.  He made demands.  The team eventually met his
> demands... then he added more.  He never really wanted to stay no
> matter how much money he was offered and anybody with even an ounce of
> objectivity sees this.  The only thing the A's offer did was cost the
> Yankees more money than they would have had to pay otherwise.
>
> Do you deny any of this?  If so, please be specific.  I don't
> necessarily need to see links to newspaper articles from years ago, but
> you will have to do better than random vague "cheap ownership"
> one-liners and reading facial expressions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Dave, you know better than this. The Giambi matter was discussed at
considerable length here in the Newsgroup; you don't need links to
find it. The crux of the matter was that Jason wanted to stay with the
A's, and was williing to sign for less than open-market value provided
the A's wouldn't trade him for a period of years. That was the oral
agreement, but somehow the no-trade clause disappeared from the typed-
draft, and Giambi of course refused to sign it. You know all that.
All we know about Kotsay and Dye is that they are also gone. You keep
making my point: the A's ownership won't pay for talent.
 >> Stay informed about: Sad Opening 

On Mar 31, 10:13 am, The Dave� <n....RemoveThis@no.com> wrote:
> > rbbom....RemoveThis@netzero.com wrote:
> > Yes, Sux, it's much easier to suggest that a critic of the A's cheap
> > ownership is a crackpot than to note the facts.
>
> Russ... you are the one who refuses to acknowledge facts.
>
> > Is it an accident that
> > the last time the A's had a World Series winner was when they had an
> > ownership that encompassed the whole Bay area and put talent on the
> > field?
>
> Is it an accident that they have put together a good and relatively
> consistent team that could have won it all were it not for some serious
> gaffes that were the fault of the players on the field?  The same
> players that you advocate they throw money at and keep, btw.
>
> If your erroneous theory were true, you'd be rooting for the west coast
> version of the Pittsburgh Pirates or Milwaukee Brewers (under Selig).
> You're not, are you?
>
> > The ownership since Shott (who's still on the payroll somehow) has had
> > one guiding principle: Be cheap.
>
> No, "don't lose money".  Significant difference.  Have you ever owned a
> business?
>
> Besides, you like rooting for this, remember?
>
> > Currently they're protecting
> > themselves from paying out anything while they wait to use a new
> > ballpark to pull businesses and home-buyers into a real estate scam
> > near Fremont. Want to buy a home, Sux?
> >       --As ever, Russ
>
> How is it a scam?  Doesn't the bay area need housing?  Would a
> stadium-only deal be any less of a "scam"?
>
> Anyway, I'm done.  I like you, Russ, I really do, but on this issue
> you're being subborn and/or naive, and there's nothing else I can add
> that I haven't said already.


Dave, we both said all that was needed years ago on the Giambi matter,
when the Shott-Hoffmman ownership showed its colors. Recognize it;
ownership is cheap,
--as ever, Russ
 >> Stay informed about: Sad Opening 

On Mar 31, 9:31 am, "rbbom...@netzero.com" <rbbom....RemoveThis@netzero.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 30, 7:41 pm, thisplanetsux <thisplanet....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30, 11:31 am, "rbbom...@netzero.com" <rbbom....RemoveThis@netzero.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 4:47 pm, "Shooty Canseco" <shootycans....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > <rbbom....RemoveThis@netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:751aede6-503c-44f4-9956-5c9ba18ecf34@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > >Dear Dave, Sux, and Shooty,
> > > > >Didn't you see Joe Blanton's face on opening night in Tokyo?
> > > > >--as ever, Russ
>
> > > > I did, but what you interpreted as "Gee, I wish I was playing for the Mets!"
> > > > looked more to me like "Gosh, I sure could go for a half dozen Meximelts!".
>
> > > > I'm not going to say you were on Kardex's lengthy, unending crazy train, but
> > > > I do think there's not much point in trying to discern Joe Blanton's career
> > > > aspirations by looking at his face.
>
> > > > Shooty
>
> > > Shooty, you know at least as well as I do that facial expression and
> > > body language say as much or more than words,
>
> > I dunno Russ. I'm usually stumped trying to figure out what someone is
> > thinking just by lookin' at 'em. Words work well though. Here, for
> > example, are some plain old words from The Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
>
> > crackpot - \ˈkrak-ˌpät\ - noun, one given to eccentric or lunatic
> > notions- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, Sux, it's much easier to suggest that a critic of the A's cheap
> ownership is a crackpot than to note the facts.

But you avoid facts like the plague. The first FACT you keep ignoring
is that the A's are a talented and successful team. Let's ignore the
payroll for a second. What exactly bothers you about this team?
Which old, washed-up veterans do you think should be playing in place
of the exciting young guys in their prime that we're watching now?
Name names. Do you want Giambi at first? Do you want Ray Durham at
2nd? Do you want Tejada at SS? Mulder, Zito, Hudson in the
rotation? Hernandez or Kendall behind the plate?

> Is it an accident that
> the last time the A's had a World Series winner was when they had an
> ownership that encompassed the whole Bay area and put talent on the
> field?

Is it an accident that The A's have won more games the past decade
than every team in baseball except the Yankees? Would you care to try
and calculate the odds of that occurring when a team is actually not
even TRYING to win games, but is focused solely on cutting costs?

> The ownership since Shott (who's still on the payroll somehow) has had
> one guiding principle: Be cheap.

And win more games than everyone else.

> Currently they're protecting
> themselves from paying out anything while they wait to use a new
> ballpark to pull businesses and home-buyers into a real estate scam
> near Fremont. Want to buy a home, Sux?

Erm, you called it a scam, most people call it real estate
development. It's a cornerstone of capitalism. Fremont has doubled in
size since I live there in the late-70s because it has a dynamic, pro-
growth attitude. It wants the new ballpark for exactly the reasons
you're suggesting are evil: new jobs, new facilities, new residents...
 >> Stay informed about: Sad Opening 

On Mar 31, 9:39 am, "rbbom...@netzero.com" <rbbom....RemoveThis@netzero.com>
wrote:

> All we know about Kotsay and Dye is that they are also gone. You keep
> making my point: the A's ownership won't pay for talent.

Well, we also know the cheapskate A's are paying Kotsay 5 million
dollars to play for the Atlanta Braves this year. Technically
speaking, he's tied for the 2nd highest paid guy on the A's this year.
 >> Stay informed about: Sad Opening 

On Mar 31, 11:34 am, thisplanetsux <thisplanet....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 9:31 am, "rbbom...@netzero.com" <rbbom....DeleteThis@netzero.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 7:41 pm, thisplanetsux <thisplanet....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 30, 11:31 am, "rbbom...@netzero.com" <rbbom....DeleteThis@netzero.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 4:47 pm, "Shooty Canseco" <shootycans....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > <rbbom....DeleteThis@netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:751aede6-503c-44f4-9956-5c9ba18ecf34@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > >Dear Dave, Sux, and Shooty,
> > > > > >Didn't you see Joe Blanton's face on opening night in Tokyo?
> > > > > >--as ever, Russ
>
> > > > > I did, but what you interpreted as "Gee, I wish I was playing for the Mets!"
> > > > > looked more to me like "Gosh, I sure could go for a half dozen Meximelts!".
>
> > > > > I'm not going to say you were on Kardex's lengthy, unending crazy train, but
> > > > > I do think there's not much point in trying to discern Joe Blanton's career
> > > > > aspirations by looking at his face.
>
> > > > > Shooty
>
> > > > Shooty, you know at least as well as I do that facial expression and
> > > > body language say as much or more than words,
>
> > > I dunno Russ. I'm usually stumped trying to figure out what someone is
> > > thinking just by lookin' at 'em.  Words work well though.  Here, for
> > > example, are some plain old words from The Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
>
> > > crackpot - \ˈkrak-ˌpät\  - noun,  one given to eccentric or lunatic
> > > notions- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yes, Sux, it's much easier to suggest that a critic of the A's cheap
> > ownership is a crackpot than to note the facts.
>
> But you avoid facts like the plague.  The first FACT you keep ignoring
> is that the A's are a talented and successful team.   Let's ignore the
> payroll for a second.  What exactly bothers you about this team?
> Which old, washed-up veterans do you think should be playing in place
> of the exciting young guys in their prime that we're watching now?
> Name names.  Do you want Giambi at first?  Do you want Ray Durham at
> 2nd?  Do you want Tejada at SS?  Mulder, Zito, Hudson in the
> rotation?  Hernandez or Kendall behind the plate?
>
> > Is it an accident that
> > the last time the A's had a World Series winner was when they had an
> > ownership that encompassed the whole Bay area and put talent on the
> > field?
>
> Is it an accident that The A's have won more games the past decade
> than every team in baseball except the Yankees?  Would you care to try
> and calculate the odds of that occurring when a team is actually not
> even TRYING to win games, but is focused solely on cutting costs?
>
> > The ownership since Shott (who's still on the payroll somehow) has had
> > one guiding principle: Be cheap.
>
> And win more games than everyone else.
>
> > Currently they're protecting
> > themselves from paying out anything while they wait to use a new
> > ballpark to pull businesses and home-buyers into a real estate scam
> > near Fremont. Want to buy a home, Sux?
>
> Erm, you called it a scam, most people call it real estate
> development. It's a cornerstone of capitalism. Fremont has doubled in
> size since I live there in the late-70s because it has a dynamic, pro-
> growth attitude.  It wants the new ballpark for exactly the reasons
> you're suggesting are evil: new jobs, new facilities, new residents...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sux, do you really think 76-86, one game out of the AL West cellar,
is a sign of a "talented and successfful team"? Others might call it
mediocre or worse. I think it's a sign of the decline that comes from
a refusal to pay for talent,
--as ever, Russ
 >> Stay informed about: Sad Opening 

On Mar 31, 11:41 am, thisplanetsux <thisplanet... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 9:39 am, "rbbom...@netzero.com" <rbbom... RemoveThis @netzero.com>
> wrote:
>
> > All we know about Kotsay and Dye is that they are also gone. You keep
> > making my point: the A's ownership won't pay for talent.
>
> Well, we also know the cheapskate A's are paying Kotsay 5 million
> dollars to play for the Atlanta Braves this year.   Technically
> speaking, he's tied for the 2nd highest paid guy on the A's this year.


Which should tell us something of what the third highest and lesser
field hands on the 2008 A's are getting, and about how cheap ownership
operates,
--as ever, Russ
 >> Stay informed about: Sad Opening 

On Mar 31, 11:52 am, "rbbom...@netzero.com" <rbbom... RemoveThis @netzero.com>
wrote:

> Sux, do you really think 76-86, one game out of the AL West cellar,
> is a sign of a "talented and successfful team"? Others might call it
> mediocre or worse. I think it's a sign of the decline that comes from
> a refusal to pay for talent,

Erm, with your starting Shortstop, 3rd Baseman, Centerfielder,
Rightfielder, Closer, No. 2 Starter, No. 3 Starter, and several key
short relief guys all spending more than half the season out with
injuries, I'd say 76-86 is a miraculous achievement. I'm sure no
other team, including the Boston Red Sox, would have made the post-
season with such a decimated lineup. Before the injury plague, the
A's were largely the same team as the year before, which won the
division and swept the Twins in the playoffs. Yeah, Frank Thomas was
gone, but as it turned out, Jack Cust had a better season than Frank
Thomas had... Just looking at this years team, I'm comfortable with
the talent level. It remains to be seen if they'll be successful this
year. But I see no reason for pessimism.
 >> Stay informed about: Sad Opening 

On Mar 31, 12:00 pm, "rbbom...@netzero.com" <rbbom....RemoveThis@netzero.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 31, 11:41 am, thisplanetsux <thisplanet....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 31, 9:39 am, "rbbom...@netzero.com" <rbbom....RemoveThis@netzero.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > All we know about Kotsay and Dye is that they are also gone. You keep
> > > making my point: the A's ownership won't pay for talent.
>
> > Well, we also know the cheapskate A's are paying Kotsay 5 million
> > dollars to play for the Atlanta Braves this year. Technically
> > speaking, he's tied for the 2nd highest paid guy on the A's this year.
>
> Which should tell us something of what the third highest and lesser
> field hands on the 2008 A's are getting, and about how cheap ownership
> operates,
> --as ever, Russ

It tells us that they are willing to pay a worn out veteran player 5
million dollars to go away and make room for younger, healthier, and
(presumably) more productive players. Is there something else I'm
missing? Am I supposed to be looking into Bobby Crosby or Rich
Harden's eyes to understand the secret conspiracy explanation?
 >> Stay informed about: Sad Opening 

On Mar 31, 12:29 pm, thisplanetsux <thisplanet....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 11:52 am, "rbbom...@netzero.com" <rbbom....TakeThisOut@netzero.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sux, do you really think 76-86, one game out of the  AL West cellar,
> > is a sign of a "talented and successfful team"? Others might call it
> > mediocre or worse. I think it's a sign of the decline that comes from
> > a refusal to pay for talent,
>
> Erm, with your starting Shortstop, 3rd Baseman, Centerfielder,
> Rightfielder, Closer, No. 2 Starter, No. 3 Starter, and several key
> short relief guys all spending more than half the season out with
> injuries, I'd say 76-86 is a miraculous achievement.  I'm sure no
> other team, including the Boston Red Sox, would have made the post-
> season with such a decimated lineup.  Before the injury plague, the
> A's were largely the same team as the year before, which won the
> division and swept the Twins in the playoffs.  Yeah, Frank Thomas was
> gone, but as it turned out, Jack Cust had a better season than Frank
> Thomas had... Just looking at this years team, I'm comfortable with
> the talent level.  It remains to be seen if they'll be successful this
> year.  But I see no reason for pessimism.


76-86 "is a miraculous achievement?"
--as ever, Russ
 >> Stay informed about: Sad Opening 

On Mar 31, 1:29 pm, thisplanetsux <thisplanet....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 12:00 pm, "rbbom...@netzero.com" <rbbom....DeleteThis@netzero.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 11:41 am, thisplanetsux <thisplanet....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 31, 9:39 am, "rbbom...@netzero.com" <rbbom....DeleteThis@netzero.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > All we know about Kotsay and Dye is that they are also gone. You keep
> > > > making my point: the A's ownership won't pay for talent.
>
> > > Well, we also know the cheapskate A's are paying Kotsay 5 million
> > > dollars to play for the Atlanta Braves this year.   Technically
> > > speaking, he's tied for the 2nd highest paid guy on the A's this year.
>
> > Which should tell us something of what the third highest and lesser
> > field hands on the 2008 A's are getting, and about how cheap ownership
> > operates,
> >        --as ever, Russ
>
> It tells us that they are willing to pay a worn out veteran player 5
> million dollars to go away and make room for younger, healthier, and
> (presumably) more productive players.  Is there something else I'm
> missing?  Am I supposed to be looking into Bobby Crosby or Rich
> Harden's eyes to understand the secret conspiracy explanation?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


What conspiracy? The A's ownership is transparent. They just won't
pay,
--as ever, Russ
 >> Stay informed about: Sad Opening