Sad Opening

> rbbomber.DeleteThis@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.

On Mar 31, 4:40 pm, The Dave© <n... DeleteThis @no.com> wrote:
> > rbbom... DeleteThis @netzero.com wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 12:29 pm, thisplanetsux <thisplanet... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 31, 11:52 am, "rbbom...@netzero.com" <rbbom... DeleteThis @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
>
> You're cherry-picking, Russ, and you've avoided almost every single
> direct question put forth to you in this thread all the while
> reiterating the "cheap ownership" mantra... and not even being able to
> adequately back that up.  Basically, you won't see the facts because
> you don't want to see the facts.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Cherry-picking what Dave? Evading what? I've posted that a 76-86
record is less than mediocre. You don't need MBA papers to show
"reasons" for a bad record. The A's ownership has no reasons; it's
just cheap,
--as ever, Russ