If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadspin)   With the Home Run Derby boos still ringing in Bud Selig's ear, look for some quiet changes to next year's contest   (deadspin.com) divider line 101
    More: Followup, Bud Selig, Major League Baseball, shoot out tournament, Baseball Writers Association of America, Billy Butler, shuttle, Kansas City Royals, ears  
•       •       •

2929 clicks; posted to Sports » on 11 Jul 2012 at 9:49 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-11 11:52:40 AM

srhp29: That or they can let a guy not actually playing in the All Star game participate?


Put those non All-Stars who can hit batting practice fastballs a mile like Adam Dunn and Mark Reynolds in the HR derby. Disconnect it from the all star game. It's a gimmick anyway, fill it up with the guys who at least might make it entertaining.

That said I don't think they could get me to watch unless they had all those kids in the outfield put metal pots over their head and run around as targets. *Clang*
 
2012-07-11 12:02:00 PM
Put targets all over the field, replace the ads in the outfield with targets, give points values, just call it a hitting derby.

Most points wins

/Or just change the whole thing to a Rock and Jock Softball game (MTV you suck for not having this anymore).
 
2012-07-11 12:21:27 PM

you have pee hands: Put those non All-Stars who can hit batting practice fastballs a mile like Adam Dunn and Mark Reynolds in the HR derby. Disconnect it from the all star game. It's a gimmick anyway, fill it up with the guys who at least might make it entertaining.


I totally agree with this. Disconnect the participants in the Derby from the actual All Stars. Don't make being an All Star required. Like the NBA does with its Dunk and 3Point Contests.

Put the big whiffers who hit the ball a mile participate.
 
2012-07-11 12:27:10 PM

srhp29: you have pee hands: Put those non All-Stars who can hit batting practice fastballs a mile like Adam Dunn and Mark Reynolds in the HR derby. Disconnect it from the all star game. It's a gimmick anyway, fill it up with the guys who at least might make it entertaining.

I totally agree with this. Disconnect the participants in the Derby from the actual All Stars. Don't make being an All Star required. Like the NBA does with its Dunk and 3Point Contests.

Put the big whiffers who hit the ball a mile participate.


I swear they did that one year.
 
2012-07-11 12:32:22 PM

NutznGum: error 303: I'd rather they just replaced the home run derby with Brockian Ultra Cricket, but that's just me.

I'd rather they go with Ski Boxing.


Calvinball FTMFW
 
2012-07-11 12:56:48 PM

Dafatone: Baseball actually does an alright job with parity.


[you're serious let me laugh harder.jpg]
 
2012-07-11 12:59:46 PM

theurge14: Dafatone: Baseball actually does an alright job with parity.

[you're serious let me laugh harder.jpg]


What? I think 14 or 15 teams have ever won in the NBA over about 60 years, with half of those championships going to two teams. Three teams from the AFC have made the Super Bowl in the past decade.

The NHL wins, sure.
 
2012-07-11 01:06:30 PM
ManateeGag: The owners that selected Bud Selig is the worse thing to happen to baseball.

FTFY
 
2012-07-11 01:13:43 PM

Dafatone: theurge14: Dafatone: Baseball actually does an alright job with parity.

[you're serious let me laugh harder.jpg]

What? I think 14 or 15 teams have ever won in the NBA over about 60 years, with half of those championships going to two teams. Three teams from the AFC have made the Super Bowl in the past decade.

The NHL wins, sure.


The occasional solid season from some mid market MLB team is supposed to prove the MLB is competitive? Every single player and coach in the game knows only those that spend more have a chance, and I can provide examples.

Small market teams are done by June, some even in May. Every year. Even those with good farm systems because like clockwork as soon as they are a free agent they're off to a club with more money. To the point where the small market teams fans go to games just to see all their former stars instead of their own team.

But hey, at least we Royals fans had our moment in the sun back in the 1980s back when we were among the top of the league in spending. There are still plenty of those unlucky ones whose teams haven't sniffed a title in 100 years. Who have to sit there and watch the then newly formed Florida farking Marlins assemble a hit squad to win a title and then immediately dismiss everyone the following season. That's about the only chance the rest of we peasants have before we have to run back to our shanties.

I know, David Glass is a cheapskate. But hey, when you can purchase a MLB team for $96 million and then a decade later have it be worth $351 million and STILL make a $10 million profit while the team continues to get their ass beat year after year... then there is a major problem in the system and the league. The owners are all totally cool with this situation, we the fans continue to go along with this because all we want to do is see baseball. And all seems well until a few KC fans boo at a home run derby. Then we're the assholes.
 
2012-07-11 01:19:26 PM

theurge14: The occasional solid season from some mid market MLB team is supposed to prove the MLB is competitive? Every single player and coach in the game knows only those that spend more have a chance, and I can provide examples.


In the last 30 years the MLB has had more different champions than any other league by a significant margin.

I've done the stats before, i don't feel like recalculating... but look it up yourself.
 
2012-07-11 01:19:58 PM

Dafatone: theurge14: Dafatone: ***snip***



Seasons Team Last pennant
66 Chicago Cubs 1945
43 Washington Nationals (Montreal Expos) never (franchise started in 1969)
35 Seattle Mariners never (franchise started in 1977)
32 Pittsburgh Pirates 1979
29 Milwaukee Brewers 1982 (never since joining NL in 1998)
28 Baltimore Orioles 1983
26 Kansas City Royals 1985
23 Los Angeles Dodgers 1988
21 Cincinnati Reds 1990
21 Oakland Athletics 1990
20 Minnesota Twins 1991

37% of the league has not been to a WS in 20 or more years.


Team Last Super Bowl appearance (1966-present) Seasons
New York Jets Super Bowl III 43
Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl IV 42
Minnesota Vikings Super Bowl XI 35
Miami Dolphins Super Bowl XIX 27
Cincinnati Bengals Super Bowl XXIII 23
Washington Redskins Super Bowl XXVI 20

19% of the NFL has not been to a SB in over 20 years
 
2012-07-11 01:23:18 PM
And were any of those a team that didn't decide to splurge and spend like New York for one season just to get that ring? I already mentioned the Florida Marlins.

The other leagues have to actually compete which means the ones that are good at competing win consistently.
 
2012-07-11 01:27:33 PM

roc6783: Team Last Super Bowl appearance (1966-present) Seasons
New York Jets Super Bowl III 43
Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl IV 42
Minnesota Vikings Super Bowl XI 35
Miami Dolphins Super Bowl XIX 27
Cincinnati Bengals Super Bowl XXIII 23
Washington Redskins Super Bowl XXVI 20


Browns
Texans
Jags
Lions
 
2012-07-11 01:27:57 PM

roc6783: 37% of the league has not been to a WS in 20 or more years.


roc6783: 19% of the NFL has not been to a SB in over 20 years


Houston hasn't, Cleveland hasn't, Detroit hasn't (off the top of my head and not on your list.

So that's at least 28%.

Also, it's much easier to make it into the playoffs and further in the playoffs when you have 12 teams making the playoffs, rather than 4 and 8 and have single-elimination playoffs (oh, and there's been one less WS in the last 20 years than number of SBs).
 
2012-07-11 01:28:22 PM

roc6783: Dafatone: theurge14: Dafatone: ***snip***


Sustained success with a similar monetary investment is much more likely in the NFL. You can have teams that go "all-in" on a season in July because they are doing well and hit the playoffs, but the players, fans, and front offices all know it won't last. The down teams stay down, and the up teams stay up. There may be some churn at the top, but outside of the Cubs, Nationals, and Dodgers, I do not see anyone leaving that list in the next 10 years.

//The Brewers had their shot last year and now will undergo 5+ "rebuilding" years, attendance and profit will plummet, and 2011 will seem like a distant dream that I tell my kids about.
 
2012-07-11 01:30:55 PM
And don't forget when comparing NFL to MLB, with MLB they play so many games that the "outliers" work themselves out. With the NFL, one amazing game from an upstart or one injury to a QB changes everything.
 
2012-07-11 01:30:56 PM

theurge14: The occasional solid season from some mid market MLB team is supposed to prove the MLB is competitive? Every single player and coach in the game knows only those that spend more have a chance, and I can provide examples.

Small market teams are done by June, some even in May. Every year. Even those with good farm systems because like clockwork as soon as they are a free agent they're off to a club with more money. To the point where the small market teams fans go to games just to see all their former stars instead of their own team.

But hey, at least we Royals fans had our moment in the sun back in the 1980s back when we were among the top of the league in spending. There are still plenty of those unlucky ones whose teams haven't sniffed a title in 100 years. Who have to sit there and watch the then newly formed Florida farking Marlins assemble a hit squad to win a title and then immediately dismiss everyone the following season. That's about the only chance the rest of we peasants have before we have to run back to our shanties.


You said examples. I'm not seeing examples. The Marlins are one, but that's a special case. The Marlins immediately dismissed everyone because they're owned by an asshole and were playing in a terrible city and terrible park. If you get 30 million a year from revenue sharing, you should be able to have a payroll over 30 million.

The Rays have been playing well. The Rangers have stepped up their payroll significantly, but they're not exactly a known powerhouse historically or anything, and had a pretty low payroll for a long time. The Orioles are looking good right now. The Nationals are worldbeaters. The Pirates were in 1st last I checked, and they're currently duking it out with the middle-of-the-pack-in-payroll Reds. The Athletics are quietly a .500 team with no payroll at all. Arizona is competitive, or at least in striking distance.

On the other hand, the Phillies have the 2nd highest payroll and aren't any good so far. The Red Sox and suddenly-rich Marlins are underperforming. The Cubs are middle of the pack and suck, and were higher up and sucked in the past couple years. The Twins went out and spent and are still terrible.

Small market, low payroll teams can compete. Plenty of them do. The Royals suck because they've only recently started trying to win. Before that, there was a lot of spending some money in order to look like they gave a crap and bring out fans, while cheaping out on draft picks and actually developing a team. Their owner sucks, and there's not much to be done about that, which is a terrible situation. But it's a lot more than "big market bad!"
 
2012-07-11 01:33:44 PM

roc6783: roc6783: Dafatone: theurge14: Dafatone: ***snip***

Sustained success with a similar monetary investment is much more likely in the NFL. You can have teams that go "all-in" on a season in July because they are doing well and hit the playoffs, but the players, fans, and front offices all know it won't last. The down teams stay down, and the up teams stay up. There may be some churn at the top, but outside of the Cubs, Nationals, and Dodgers, I do not see anyone leaving that list in the next 10 years.

//The Brewers had their shot last year and now will undergo 5+ "rebuilding" years, attendance and profit will plummet, and 2011 will seem like a distant dream that I tell my kids about.


it's a shame too. I'd personally like to see a hard cap along with a salary floor.
 
2012-07-11 01:34:49 PM

jayhawk88: up to and including going with the Grand Slam over the Rooty Tooty Fresh and Frooty at Denny's.


The RTF&F is only at IHOP, you charlatan!
 
2012-07-11 01:35:10 PM

MugzyBrown: roc6783: Team Last Super Bowl appearance (1966-present) Seasons
New York Jets Super Bowl III 43
Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl IV 42
Minnesota Vikings Super Bowl XI 35
Miami Dolphins Super Bowl XIX 27
Cincinnati Bengals Super Bowl XXIII 23
Washington Redskins Super Bowl XXVI 20

Browns
Texans
Jags
Lions


I missed the Lions and Browns due to the way the Wiki list was setup, my bad. Which means that the percentage is actually 25%.

Texans and Jags do not count as they have not been in existence for more than 20 years. Jags will likely be added in 2015.
 
2012-07-11 01:35:16 PM
If MLB cut off 50 games from the regular season and added another 8 playoff teams then a lot more teams would have titles - has little to do with economics and more to do with the system working in conjunction with economics.

This is why relegation would be an especially stupid idea - that just increases the amount of damage the system does to teams outside of the top few.
 
2012-07-11 01:36:33 PM

roc6783: Texans and Jags do not count as they have not been in existence for more than 20 years. Jags will likely be added in 2015.


If they haven't made a Super Bowl in the last 20 years, they belong on the list. Now, have they made the Super Bowl in the last 20 years?
 
2012-07-11 01:45:55 PM

IAmRight: roc6783: Texans and Jags do not count as they have not been in existence for more than 20 years. Jags will likely be added in 2015.

If they haven't made a Super Bowl in the last 20 years, they belong on the list. Now, have they made the Super Bowl in the last 20 years?


Ya, that makes no sense, but ok. Do you also think Ichiro'shiats in Japan should be counted in his MLB stat line so he could be the all-time hits leader over Pete Rose?
 
2012-07-11 01:46:43 PM

SuperT: roc6783: roc6783: Dafatone: theurge14: Dafatone: ***snip***

Sustained success with a similar monetary investment is much more likely in the NFL. You can have teams that go "all-in" on a season in July because they are doing well and hit the playoffs, but the players, fans, and front offices all know it won't last. The down teams stay down, and the up teams stay up. There may be some churn at the top, but outside of the Cubs, Nationals, and Dodgers, I do not see anyone leaving that list in the next 10 years.

//The Brewers had their shot last year and now will undergo 5+ "rebuilding" years, attendance and profit will plummet, and 2011 will seem like a distant dream that I tell my kids about.

it's a shame too. I'd personally like to see a hard cap along with a salary floor.


So would I. We aren't going to get New York to stop pushing the envelope on the top end so we might as well have to start pushing the David Glasses of the world to pay up or get out.
 
2012-07-11 01:53:38 PM

roc6783: IAmRight: roc6783: Texans and Jags do not count as they have not been in existence for more than 20 years. Jags will likely be added in 2015.

If they haven't made a Super Bowl in the last 20 years, they belong on the list. Now, have they made the Super Bowl in the last 20 years?

Ya, that makes no sense, but ok. Do you also think Ichiro'shiats in Japan should be counted in his MLB stat line so he could be the all-time hits leader over Pete Rose?


If the Jags have only been around like 17 years, maybe we don't want to lump them into the list of "teams that haven't made the Super Bowl in 20 years." But we can put a * next to that stat, and point out that the Jags haven't made it in 17, so they're even more evidence to the point that's being made.
 
2012-07-11 01:56:43 PM

roc6783: Ya, that makes no sense, but ok.


It makes perfect sense. You can't say "this is a list of teams that haven't made a championship game in the last 20 years" and not include teams based on them not having participated in all 20 years.

Technically, no MLB team should qualify since there was no 1994 World Series, so no team has had 20 playoff opportunities in the last 20 years.

And all of these are explained by the fact that the NFL has more playoff slots and a single-elimination tournament.
 
2012-07-11 01:58:48 PM

Dafatone: If the Jags have only been around like 17 years, maybe we don't want to lump them into the list of "teams that haven't made the Super Bowl in 20 years." But we can put a * next to that stat, and point out that the Jags haven't made it in 17, so they're even more evidence to the point that's being made.


Though realistically, since the Browns had an interim period in that same span, they've had fewer years than the Jags. So they get an asterisk too.

I guess it's a good thing all the baseball expansion teams have made a title game already...wait, doesn't that kinda show that it's easier to build a team from scratch and put it in a title game in MLB?
 
2012-07-11 02:01:57 PM

IAmRight: Dafatone: If the Jags have only been around like 17 years, maybe we don't want to lump them into the list of "teams that haven't made the Super Bowl in 20 years." But we can put a * next to that stat, and point out that the Jags haven't made it in 17, so they're even more evidence to the point that's being made.

Though realistically, since the Browns had an interim period in that same span, they've had fewer years than the Jags. So they get an asterisk too.

I guess it's a good thing all the baseball expansion teams have made a title game already...wait, doesn't that kinda show that it's easier to build a team from scratch and put it in a title game in MLB?


...Because it IS easier. Or at least, not much harder. It's not the "OMG only rich teams win" that everyone thinks it is.
 
2012-07-11 02:05:14 PM
Who do I have to boo to get half the umps fired, comprehensive instant replay, and the DH in both leagues?
 
2012-07-11 02:05:30 PM

roc6783: Dafatone: theurge14: Dafatone: ***snip***


Seasons Team Last pennant
66 Chicago Cubs 1945
43 Washington Nationals (Montreal Expos) never (franchise started in 1969)
35 Seattle Mariners never (franchise started in 1977)
32 Pittsburgh Pirates 1979
29 Milwaukee Brewers 1982 (never since joining NL in 1998)
28 Baltimore Orioles 1983
26 Kansas City Royals 1985
23 Los Angeles Dodgers 1988
21 Cincinnati Reds 1990
21 Oakland Athletics 1990
20 Minnesota Twins 1991

37% of the league has not been to a WS in 20 or more years.


Team Last Super Bowl appearance (1966-present) Seasons
New York Jets Super Bowl III 43
Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl IV 42
Minnesota Vikings Super Bowl XI 35
Miami Dolphins Super Bowl XIX 27
Cincinnati Bengals Super Bowl XXIII 23
Washington Redskins Super Bowl XXVI 20

19% of the NFL has not been to a SB in over 20 years


In the 17 World Series since the strike, 10 different teams have WON the World Series.
In the last 17 Superbowls, 11 different team have WON the Superbowl
While the number of teams in both MLB and NFL have changed in that time, of the number of teams currently exist, 33.3% have won a World Series in the last 17 championships, while 34.3% have won a Superbowl in the last 17 Superbowls. I'd say during this cycle, both leagues are pretty equal in parity.
 
2012-07-11 02:08:46 PM

roc6783:
Ya, that makes no sense, but ok. Do you also think Ichiro'shiats in Japan should be counted in his MLB stat line so he could be the all-time hits leader over Pete Rose?


I mean it depends on if he was regular or taking Ex-lax, I guess. You'll definiately get more shiats when using a PED.

/That was an awesome filter pwn
 
2012-07-11 02:08:50 PM
In the last 5 championships, 7 different NFL teams (21.8% of teams) have MADE the Superbowl
In the last 5 championships, 8 different MLB teams (26.6% of teams) have MADE the World Series

So I'd say in the last 5 years, MLB has had more parity than the NFL
 
2012-07-11 02:10:45 PM
Parity is not about who won the titles. Parity is not about small market teams having one year wonders. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies are playing the same game when it comes to player acquisition, development, and retention as the Pirates, Royals, and Rays.

THAT'S where baseball is fundamentally broken.
 
2012-07-11 02:12:05 PM

ElwoodCuse: Parity is not about who won the titles. Parity is not about small market teams having one year wonders. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies are playing the same game when it comes to player acquisition, development, and retention as the Pirates, Royals, and Rays.

THAT'S where baseball is fundamentally broken.


This. Thank you.
 
2012-07-11 02:12:12 PM

ElwoodCuse: You cannot tell me with a straight face that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies are playing the same game when it comes to player acquisition, development, and retention as the Pirates, Royals, and Rays.


They're playing the same game. Some teams CHOOSE to play more than others
 
2012-07-11 02:15:24 PM

ElwoodCuse: Parity is not about who won the titles. Parity is not about small market teams having one year wonders. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies are playing the same game when it comes to player acquisition, development, and retention as the Pirates, Royals, and Rays.

THAT'S where baseball is fundamentally broken.


The Phillies have the most losses of any team, in any sport, in any league, in any country, ever. That's not terribly relevant but I wanted to start off with that.

They've had a good run, and look to be on their way down. Before this good run (starting in 2007), they had been terrible for a while.

The Pirates and Royals were too cheap to draft players that would require more of a signing bonus. We're talking about a few million dollars, maybe 10 or so over the whole draft (and probably a lot less). That's on them.
 
2012-07-11 02:17:26 PM

ElwoodCuse: Parity is not about who won the titles. Parity is not about small market teams having one year wonders. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies are playing the same game when it comes to player acquisition, development, and retention as the Pirates, Royals, and Rays.

THAT'S where baseball is fundamentally broken.


I wasn't aware that there was a rule saying the Pirates, Royals, and Rays weren't allowed to pay players what they want to.

If they don't want to because they can't make enough money, maybe they should've put their business somewhere where they can draw enough customers to afford their product.
 
2012-07-11 02:17:57 PM

MugzyBrown: ElwoodCuse: You cannot tell me with a straight face that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies are playing the same game when it comes to player acquisition, development, and retention as the Pirates, Royals, and Rays.

They're playing the same game. Some teams CHOOSE to play more than others


Some teams CHOOSE to spend near a quarter billion dollars on their team, pushing way beyond the rest of the league. Then pay some lip service to revenue sharing welfare while their friends buy up the small market teams and sit on them taking their checks. Some fans wish they could choose to say fark YOU to those teams and let them go play in their little 5 or 6 team league where are free to spend a country's GDP on Scott Boras' little band of prima donnas so the rest of us can stop being held hostage by paying taxes for stadiums for owners and having to stomach another ESPN Baseball Tonight 3 hours discussion of the Yanks and Red Sox and actually have some fun watching baseball.
 
2012-07-11 02:22:08 PM

IAmRight: ElwoodCuse: Parity is not about who won the titles. Parity is not about small market teams having one year wonders. You cannot tell me with a straight face that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies are playing the same game when it comes to player acquisition, development, and retention as the Pirates, Royals, and Rays.

THAT'S where baseball is fundamentally broken.

I wasn't aware that there was a rule saying the Pirates, Royals, and Rays weren't allowed to pay players what they want to.

If they don't want to because they can't make enough money, maybe they should've put their business somewhere where they can draw enough customers to afford their product.


Huh. I was about to get all "it's not really attendance, I'm sure the Pirates have drawn well back when they were good." But they didn't. Still, they're up 5k a game over where they were a couple years ago. It's amazing what winning does.

theurge14: MugzyBrown: ElwoodCuse: You cannot tell me with a straight face that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies are playing the same game when it comes to player acquisition, development, and retention as the Pirates, Royals, and Rays.

They're playing the same game. Some teams CHOOSE to play more than others

Some teams CHOOSE to spend near a quarter billion dollars on their team, pushing way beyond the rest of the league. Then pay some lip service to revenue sharing welfare while their friends buy up the small market teams and sit on them taking their checks. Some fans wish they could choose to say fark YOU to those teams and let them go play in their little 5 or 6 team league where are free to spend a country's GDP on Scott Boras' little band of prima donnas so the rest of us can stop being held hostage by paying taxes for stadiums for owners and having to stomach another ESPN Baseball Tonight 3 hours discussion of the Yanks and Red Sox and actually have some fun watching baseball.


The problem is the cheap owners of these "small-market" teams. They're crazy rich, you know. They have the money to spend more on payroll. Actually fielding a good team draws more fans to the park, too. So blame the owners.
 
2012-07-11 02:26:51 PM

theurge14: Some teams CHOOSE to spend near a quarter billion dollars on their team, pushing way beyond the rest of the league. Then pay some lip service to revenue sharing welfare while their friends buy up the small market teams and sit on them taking their checks. Some fans wish they could choose to say fark YOU to those teams and let them go play in their little 5 or 6 team league where are free to spend a country's GDP on Scott Boras' little band of prima donnas so the rest of us can stop being held hostage by paying taxes for stadiums for owners and having to stomach another ESPN Baseball Tonight 3 hours discussion of the Yanks and Red Sox and actually have some fun watching baseball.


Why do you want your billionare owner to pocket more of the money and not spend it on the team?
 
2012-07-11 02:30:18 PM

you have pee hands: srhp29: That or they can let a guy not actually playing in the All Star game participate?

Put those non All-Stars who can hit batting practice fastballs a mile like Adam Dunn and Mark Reynolds in the HR derby. Disconnect it from the all star game. It's a gimmick anyway, fill it up with the guys who at least might make it entertaining.

That said I don't think they could get me to watch unless they had all those kids in the outfield put metal pots over their head and run around as targets. *Clang*


Adam Dunn was an All-Star this year.
 
2012-07-11 02:33:16 PM
Alright, I'm done biatching and moaning. I still love baseball.

All-Star Parade through KC's Plaza

Wish I had been there.
 
2012-07-11 02:45:51 PM
They could just make it so players can't be in more than 1 Home Run Derby per 3 years, and 5 for a winner. Spread it out a little.
 
2012-07-11 02:49:38 PM
It would be funny if Selig was just saying he'd add the home town player, and then changes his mind at the last minute. You know, pulling a Cano.
 
2012-07-11 03:14:22 PM

skrame: It would be funny if Selig was just saying he'd add the home town player, and then changes his mind at the last minute. You know, pulling a Cano.


Has Bud ever made a good decision? Because that would be more like Cano - not hitting a single one out of the park.
 
2012-07-11 03:52:45 PM

zarberg: skrame: It would be funny if Selig was just saying he'd add the home town player, and then changes his mind at the last minute. You know, pulling a Cano.

Has Bud ever made a good decision? Because that would be more like Cano - not hitting a single one out of the park.


Wildcard. has been great for the game.
 
2012-07-12 01:06:32 AM
Why wasn't a fuss made last year when Arizona fans booed Prince Fielder all weekend because he didn't pick Upton?
 
2012-07-12 10:23:59 AM

SharkTrager: Why wasn't a fuss made last year when Arizona fans booed Prince Fielder all weekend because he didn't pick Upton?


Because its the Royals fans booing a Yankee. The nerve of backwoods ( backpairie?) fans booing the greatest team in world player
 
2012-07-12 12:03:03 PM

Mid_mo_mad_man: SharkTrager: Why wasn't a fuss made last year when Arizona fans booed Prince Fielder all weekend because he didn't pick Upton?

Because its the Royals fans booing a Yankee. The nerve of backwoods ( backpairie?) fans booing the greatest team in world player


Your inferiority complex is showing.
 
2012-07-12 12:16:54 PM
Media always going defend NY. No matter the dbag move
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report