Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(NHL)   Gary Bettman is a shape shifting lizard leprechaun who needs to be punched in the throat   (nhl.com) divider line 73
    More: Sad, shape-shifter, NHLPA, NHL Commissioner, Donald Fehr  
•       •       •

2315 clicks; posted to Sports » on 01 Sep 2012 at 10:03 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-01 07:13:55 AM  
He is doing a fine job of killing hockey in the US. No one, I repeat, NO ONE, could do better.
 
2012-09-01 09:07:07 AM  

Steve Zodiac: He is doing a fine job of killing hockey in the US. No one, I repeat, NO ONE, could do better.


He and Mr. Fehr must be getting cheques from the NBA.
 
2012-09-01 09:28:13 AM  
I will never vote for lizard leprechaun people
 
2012-09-01 10:09:58 AM  
Goodnight, NHL. It was fun while it lasted.
 
2012-09-01 10:28:24 AM  
Don't entirely blame Bettman for this debacle, the owners themselves deserve plenty of blame as well... and the players didn't help their own case by bending over and taking it in 2004 on every part of the deal except that ludicrous 57% share of revenue they got (which may have well been the owner's idea from the start... get every last concession they could from the players, give them the bone of a big chunk of the revenue, then take back that revenue share during the next negotiating cycle while insisting that the players keep the rest of the old deal in place, and let Bettman carry the torch and catch all the heat from fans and players alike).
 
2012-09-01 10:49:47 AM  
I was reading this story on TSN and all the top comments blamed the players for refusing to take a pay cut. Sometimes I don't get you, Canada.
 
2012-09-01 10:59:16 AM  
Honestly, Gary Bettmann is why people who claim Bud Selig is a horrible commissioner* crack me up.

*Yes, yes, I know Selig isn't perfect. He could have forced the NL to adopt the DH and end that boondoggle and also been much stronger on steroids, but besides that he's been a pretty damn good commissioner.
 
2012-09-01 11:02:02 AM  

JosephFinn: but besides that he's been a pretty damn good commissioner.


All-Star game still determines home field advantage for the World Series. Your argument is invalid.
 
2012-09-01 11:07:37 AM  
3 strikes and you're out right?

What's farked up is that all of the deals I've seen offered would get the owners right back into the same problem in 4-5 years again. Why they keep upping the salary cap as years go on is beyond me.

Then we always get to a point where we are now, the owners feel they are paying out too much and want to roll the cap back, but those pesky contracts they offered are all going to hamper them under the new cap, so they think they can just up and roll back salaries?? It's farking insane that it's even being considered- what's the goddamned point of signing a contract in the first place??
 
2012-09-01 11:11:43 AM  
Lots of disparity between owners... If the players push revenue sharing to help the smaller markets out, it is a bad situation where none of the owners will agree to terms. How do you properly value revenue for each team? Seems very difficult to pinpoint to me.

Oh, and Gary Bettman is making 10 million a year.
 
2012-09-01 11:16:32 AM  

Gonz: JosephFinn: but besides that he's been a pretty damn good commissioner.

All-Star game still determines home field advantage for the World Series. Your argument is invalid.


I'd blame that more on the American obsession with winning than anything else. Who really gives a crap if an exhibition game ends in a tie?
 
2012-09-01 11:23:45 AM  

onecanshort: 3 strikes and you're out right?

What's farked up is that all of the deals I've seen offered would get the owners right back into the same problem in 4-5 years again. Why they keep upping the salary cap as years go on is beyond me.

Then we always get to a point where we are now, the owners feel they are paying out too much and want to roll the cap back, but those pesky contracts they offered are all going to hamper them under the new cap, so they think they can just up and roll back salaries?? It's farking insane that it's even being considered- what's the goddamned point of signing a contract in the first place??



They could, you know, not find ways to actively loophole their way around their own CBA. Some of the contracts that have been given out have been pretty ridiculous. The owners are looking to save themselves off of the backs of the players. Yet again.
 
2012-09-01 11:25:39 AM  
I'm an Oilers fan, and this sucks on toast for me. I mean, we're right on the cusp of making or breaking it...and we're going to lose the season, because....honestly, I don't know why. Don't they owners get that if the league and franchise fold, that even if another pro league appears, they're going to have less value than they had before? A Premier League style system just isn't going to magically appear here, which is the only thing that makes the slightest bit of sense with this negotiating style.

At least I live in a place with hockey again. SJHL, here I come! Take my (extremely reasonably amount of) money!
 
2012-09-01 11:26:57 AM  

MFAWG: I'd blame that more on the American obsession with winning than anything else. Who really gives a crap if an exhibition game ends in a tie?


You're preaching to the choir there. I'm a soccer fan. I have no problem with a game ending in a draw. If a team doesn't play well enough to win, and yet not poorly enough to lose, you tie. Don't like it? Play better.
 
2012-09-01 11:32:25 AM  

Gonz: MFAWG: I'd blame that more on the American obsession with winning than anything else. Who really gives a crap if an exhibition game ends in a tie?

You're preaching to the choir there. I'm a soccer fan. I have no problem with a game ending in a draw. If a team doesn't play well enough to win, and yet not poorly enough to lose, you tie. Don't like it? Play better.


Baseball is slightly different, at least this side of the pond. The Japanese play to a tie.
 
2012-09-01 11:56:32 AM  

AKTurkey: I was reading this story on TSN and all the top comments blamed the players for refusing to take a pay cut. Sometimes I don't get you, Canada.


I think you will find that most people have a lack of sympathy when it comes to the salary woes of pro athletes. How ever can they survive on their measly $600k per year?! Combine that with the sad but true fact that many Canadians live for hockey and what you get is the attitude of "just shut up and play". Until I hear about an NHL player needing to hit the food bank on the way to his cot at the men's shelter I'm going to be part of the "just shut up and play" camp myself.
 
2012-09-01 12:41:50 PM  
If I were a player I'd be pushing to take whatever deal the NHL puts forward. I'm serious. If the last two lockouts taught us anything it's that as soon as the ink is dry on the CBA some owner/GM is going to sit down and figure out a way to get around it. Within two years of the 1995 shortened season Boston had gotten around the rookie cap, and by 2008 front loaded contracts approaching or into the double digits was becoming all the rage. Owners always find a way of forking out massive amounts of money no matter what the rules in place are, so just sign the damn deal and wait a couple of years.
 
2012-09-01 12:43:21 PM  
Bettman and Fehr need to be locked in a room with no food, drink or toilets until a deal gets done. Another lockout will hurt too many teams, even if it's a brief one.

I don't see why they just can't do this:

- Full revenue sharing for the whole league, but playoff teams can keep all revenue they earn from playoff games

- Players get 52% of revenue

- If the players share of revenue exceeds 52% in a season, it's made up the following season with a reduced cap (eliminating escrow)

- I've said this 1000 times but expand by 2 teams with at least 1 of them being Canadian. Expand the revenue base. We know the talent is there to create 2 more teams with little to no decline in the quality of play.

- Start the season on October 1, end it on March 31. Playoffs don't go into June.

- Get some better people to dole out discipline on the ice and off. Seeing the replays of playoff games on NHL Network has me fired up about that again.
 
2012-09-01 12:48:19 PM  

Flappyhead: If I were a player I'd be pushing to take whatever deal the NHL puts forward. I'm serious. If the last two lockouts taught us anything it's that as soon as the ink is dry on the CBA some owner/GM is going to sit down and figure out a way to get around it. Within two years of the 1995 shortened season Boston had gotten around the rookie cap, and by 2008 front loaded contracts approaching or into the double digits was becoming all the rage. Owners always find a way of forking out massive amounts of money no matter what the rules in place are, so just sign the damn deal and wait a couple of years.


Thanks for reminding me of something I forgot in my previous post:

- On contracts: The longer the term of the contract, the less difference there can be between the highest paying year and the lowest. A 2-4 yr deal, the high year can be 300% of the low year. A 5-7 year deal is 250%. 8 yrs and longer- 200%.
 
2012-09-01 12:54:24 PM  

jicon: Lots of disparity between owners... If the players push revenue sharing to help the smaller markets out, it is a bad situation where none of the owners will agree to terms. How do you properly value revenue for each team? Seems very difficult to pinpoint to me.

Oh, and Gary Bettman is making 10 million a year.


Like any other union, the NHLPA is only looking out for their own bottom line. If small market teams go away then the union loses members. All parties are to blame for this but but the players need to realize, no matter what the owners do with their profits, as long as the player contracts are honored it's none of your business.

Contraction would probably be the best thing for the league. But I'm smart enough to realize it's not going to happen.
 
2012-09-01 12:59:06 PM  
This is really good news for the ECHL.

upload.wikimedia.org upload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.org

I just wish I knew what the EC stood for in the league initials...
 
2012-09-01 01:08:21 PM  

Choo-Choo Bear: This is really good news for the ECHL.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x171] [upload.wikimedia.org image 150x171][upload.wikimedia.org image 150x171]

I just wish I knew what the EC stood for in the league initials...


Used to be the East Coast Hockey League. Now the EC doesn't really stand for anything, I think.
 
2012-09-01 01:13:11 PM  

desertgeek: Bettman and Fehr need to be locked in a room with no food, drink or toilets until a deal gets done. Another lockout will hurt too many teams, even if it's a brief one.

I don't see why they just can't do this:

- Full revenue sharing for the whole league, but playoff teams can keep all revenue they earn from playoff games.


Heh, the latest bit of fun I've been having is listening to the locals scream and stamp their feet that it's all Torontos fault because they won't push for full revenue sharing like the Giants did back in the 1960s. Cripes if I was the Leafs owner I wouldn't want it either until rules were firmly in place to prevent morons in smaller/struggling markets from taking that money and throwing it all at one or two players. Revenue sharing is one thing, paying off someone elses bad credit is another.

desertgeek:
Thanks for reminding me of something I forgot in my previous post:

- On contracts: The longer the term of the contract, the less difference there can be between the highest paying year and the lowest. A 2-4 yr deal, the high year can be 300% of the low year. A 5-7 year deal is 250%. 8 yrs and longer- 200%.


Better still, no average salary against the cap. 10 year, 100 million contract? That's 10 mill per year boys, bonus money included.
 
2012-09-01 01:27:32 PM  

Flappyhead: Better still, no average salary against the cap. 10 year, 100 million contract? That's 10 mill per year boys, bonus money included.


NHLPA wouldn't support that as it benefits them, and the owners themselves are split on it.

It pisses me off that in the last lockout the owners got everything they wanted, and now, with revenues way up, they're back to bleed the players. Last time out, I sympathized with the players but supported the owners, recognizing that the league needed a salary cap (and I did that as an Avalanche fan, knowing full well how suicidal that was). This time around, screw the owners. Greedy motherf*ckers.

The worst thing is that, no matter what is ultimately agreed on, I guarantee that any revenue sharing in the deal is next to useless. That's the one thing that the league really needs to fix, and with everything else going on I just can't see them committing to it in any real fashion.
 
2012-09-01 01:31:49 PM  
Flappyhead:
Heh, the latest bit of fun I've been having is listening to the locals scream and stamp their feet that it's all Torontos fault because they won't push for full revenue sharing like the Giants did back in the 1960s. Cripes if I was the Leafs owner I wouldn't want it either until rules were firmly in place to prevent morons in smaller/struggling markets from taking that money and throwing it all at one or two players. Revenue sharing is one thing, paying off someone elses bad credit is another.

It's not just Toronto. Any owner of a high revenue team would be against it. But what has helped the NHL bring in record revenues year after year? The expansion of the league. It's a simple business deal- go to places where you're not at and try to expand your revenue base. Is it not in the league's best interest to help some of those smaller markets out? Of course, I am a fan of a small market team so I'm not impartial here.

That's why I say they should go for two more teams. There are cities who want the NHL and can support a team.

If there's ways to prevent such revenue sharing from helping a bad owner out of making terrible financial decisions or allowing him to benefit from outright fraud, that has to be put in too. So I'm not promoting something that would prevent something like the Phoenix situation from happening (f*cking Jerry Moyes) again.

Keep in mind- what's happening in places like Columbus and Dallas has happened to Ottawa and Calgary in the 90s. Full revenue sharing can help prevent that from happening again.
 
2012-09-01 01:39:21 PM  

swahnhennessy: Flappyhead: Better still, no average salary against the cap. 10 year, 100 million contract? That's 10 mill per year boys, bonus money included.

NHLPA wouldn't support that as it benefits them, and the owners themselves are split on it.

It pisses me off that in the last lockout the owners got everything they wanted, and now, with revenues way up, they're back to bleed the players. Last time out, I sympathized with the players but supported the owners, recognizing that the league needed a salary cap (and I did that as an Avalanche fan, knowing full well how suicidal that was). This time around, screw the owners. Greedy motherf*ckers.

The worst thing is that, no matter what is ultimately agreed on, I guarantee that any revenue sharing in the deal is next to useless. That's the one thing that the league really needs to fix, and with everything else going on I just can't see them committing to it in any real fashion.


The last lockout was necessary simply because the NHL needed to hit the reset button. The financial situation was totally out of whack. The game needed some serious fixing. And that's what happened and the sport is better for it.

This time, it's like they're trying to remodel the kitchen when all it has is a burnt out light bulb and a leaking pipe under the sink. It's overzealous on the owner's part.

They're entitled to make money, but so are the players.
 
2012-09-01 01:54:27 PM  
Good thing there's an AHL team in my city. And wouldn't it be hilarious if the NHL season was scrubbed and the Stanley Cup was awarded to the champions of the American Hockey League?
 
2012-09-01 02:08:57 PM  
IIRC, and I may not, the big tie up is the revenue sharing. The players are willing to go to 50/50, but the owners a bigger slice of the pie. I exchanged messages on twitter with Commadore and we both seem to be at a loss why the owners are willing to risk their record profits/fanbase growth since the last lock-out with another one.
 
2012-09-01 02:09:34 PM  

zippolight2002: IIRC, and I may not, the big tie up is the revenue sharing. The players are willing to go to 50/50, but the owners want a bigger slice of the pie. I exchanged messages on twitter with Commadore and we both seem to be at a loss why the owners are willing to risk their record profits/fanbase growth since the last lock-out with another one.


ftfm
 
2012-09-01 02:15:50 PM  
Eh, time to make the trip down to Milwaukee for my AHL team, or even a Green Bay Gamblers game, heard they're a lot of fun. Hell, even my high school team should be able to help with my hockey fix
 
2012-09-01 02:18:36 PM  

zippolight2002: IIRC, and I may not, the big tie up is the revenue sharing. The players are willing to go to 50/50, but the owners a bigger slice of the pie. I exchanged messages on twitter with Commadore and we both seem to be at a loss why the owners are willing to risk their record profits/fanbase growth since the last lock-out with another one.


You have to remember that these are just common owners. These are people of the ice. The common clay of the new NHL. You know, morons.
 
2012-09-01 02:21:52 PM  

desertgeek:

If there's ways to prevent such revenue sharing from helping a bad owner out of making terrible financial decisions or allowing him to benefit from outright fraud, that has to be put in too. So I'm not promoting something that would prevent something like the Phoenix situation from happening (f*cking Jerry Moyes) again.

Keep in mind- what's happening in places like Columbus and Dallas has happened to Ottawa and Calgary in the 90s. Full revenue sharing can help prevent that from happening again.


Keep in mind the problems in the Canadian markets had more to do with the brutal $1.30-35 exchange rate on Canadian currency(NHL players are paid in American). Right now Dallas and Columbus are suffering because of terrible management and business models. I think the BoG needs to stop pointing fingers at the PA and start working together to come up with effective solutions for non traditional market teams. Hell if Nashville can establish a hardcore fanbase there's no reason other markets can't either.
 
2012-09-01 02:32:26 PM  

Flappyhead: I think the BoG needs to stop pointing fingers at the PA and start working together to come up with effective solutions for non traditional market teams. Hell if Nashville can establish a hardcore fanbase there's no reason other markets can't either.


That's the point I'm trying to get at (though probably not doing well at it). It's not the players' fault a bunch of teams are in financial trouble. Fehr knows that and the PA's proposal said as much. Bettman and the owners just have their heads in the sand, it seems.
 
2012-09-01 02:42:17 PM  
Bettman said, "...[the NHLPA said], 'We're not going to reset. Anything we're prepared to do only comes out of future revenues and that's our position.' So there was no counterproposal or new proposal."

Actully Gary, that was their counter-proposal.
 
2012-09-01 03:01:38 PM  
i've never fully understood how the players have accepted the way the NHL handles relocation. This has been one of Gary's little fiefdoms during his tenure, and arguably it is costing the players money. Given that the players get a percentage of revenue, they have an interest in seeing revenues as high as possible. Yet, as the Glendale debacle shows, the league is willing to keep teams in unprofitable markets.

If i'm the PA, I start attacking the league's right to exclusively control relocation. Demand full access to the revenue sharing details and push to move to dead weight franchises elsewhere.
 
2012-09-01 03:01:39 PM  

Kurohone: I'm an Oilers fan, and this sucks on toast for me.


Look at it this way, the kids get a chance to get a year older and stronger. It sucks that they can't play, but then, they are in a better position than one of the older teams who are sitting around getting older and stiffer. It's not the worst thing for the Oilers.
 
2012-09-01 03:10:08 PM  
i291.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-01 03:10:46 PM  

december: i've never fully understood how the players have accepted the way the NHL handles relocation. This has been one of Gary's little fiefdoms during his tenure, and arguably it is costing the players money. Given that the players get a percentage of revenue, they have an interest in seeing revenues as high as possible. Yet, as the Glendale debacle shows, the league is willing to keep teams in unprofitable markets.

If i'm the PA, I start attacking the league's right to exclusively control relocation. Demand full access to the revenue sharing details and push to move to dead weight franchises elsewhere.


That's an owners thing. Owners of existing teams don't want new teams impeding on their established territory. That exists in all major leagues. Fehr would know that from his time in baseball, though I don't know if he was still running the MLBPA when the Montreal Expos moved to Washington.

/Baltimore Orioles raised a stink about that for a while
 
2012-09-01 03:38:35 PM  

desertgeek: Flappyhead: I think the BoG needs to stop pointing fingers at the PA and start working together to come up with effective solutions for non traditional market teams. Hell if Nashville can establish a hardcore fanbase there's no reason other markets can't either.

That's the point I'm trying to get at (though probably not doing well at it). It's not the players' fault a bunch of teams are in financial trouble. Fehr knows that and the PA's proposal said as much. Bettman and the owners just have their heads in the sand, it seems.


The stupid part is they seem to think that the fans are going to side with them like a large amount did last time. They killed a whole season on the pretext of saving the game, which I'll admit was necessary, but what's the problem now? Oh yeah that's right, they didn't include an actual revenue sharing system or a solid cap structure, they just just implemented a pseudo-luxury tax on the top money makers and figured all was well. There is absolutely no long term thinking with the BoG, it's all quick fixes with no eye on the future.
 
2012-09-01 03:43:56 PM  
The NHL misses one more game due to this jackoff and the jackoff owners he's representing then it will never receive a single farking penny from me again in any form. I keep getting calls from the same sales rep with the Blues asking me to reup my season tickets and I keep telling him the same thing...I'll do it the day the new CBA is in place assuming it's in time for the season to begin. If it's not, never bother to call again.

God farking damn this guy. Going for the hat trick on work stoppages during your tenure is supposed to be avoided you coont.
 
2012-09-01 04:13:24 PM  

sno man: Steve Zodiac: He is doing a fine job of killing hockey in the US. No one, I repeat, NO ONE, could do better.

He and Mr. Fehr must be getting cheques from the NBA.


As much as I don't want to defend Fehr, at this point he's looking better than Bettman.
 
2012-09-01 04:14:35 PM  

Gonz: JosephFinn: but besides that he's been a pretty damn good commissioner.

All-Star game still determines home field advantage for the World Series. Your argument is invalid.


Really? So you're in favor of tied AS games that bring nothing to the table?
 
2012-09-01 04:17:50 PM  

swahnhennessy: Flappyhead: Better still, no average salary against the cap. 10 year, 100 million contract? That's 10 mill per year boys, bonus money included.

NHLPA wouldn't support that as it benefits them, and the owners themselves are split on it.

It pisses me off that in the last lockout the owners got everything they wanted, and now, with revenues way up, they're back to bleed the players. Last time out, I sympathized with the players but supported the owners, recognizing that the league needed a salary cap (and I did that as an Avalanche fan, knowing full well how suicidal that was). This time around, screw the owners. Greedy motherf*ckers.

The worst thing is that, no matter what is ultimately agreed on, I guarantee that any revenue sharing in the deal is next to useless. That's the one thing that the league really needs to fix, and with everything else going on I just can't see them committing to it in any real fashion.


This; the owners want to go for the killshot here and forever make the NHLPA irrelevant.
 
2012-09-01 04:43:28 PM  

Rwa2play: Really? So you're in favor of tied AS games that bring nothing to the table?


They could just eliminate the ASG.

What I like is everyone gets so upset about it, despite the fact that for over a century, HFA simply alternated between the leagues every year and no one gave a sh*t because IT DOESN'T F*CKING MATTER. Now, of course, it's a huge deal.
 
2012-09-01 05:43:17 PM  

Choo-Choo Bear: This is really good news for the ECHL.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x171] [upload.wikimedia.org image 150x171][upload.wikimedia.org image 150x171]

I just wish I knew what the EC stood for in the league initials...


East Coast Hockey League--speaking as someone who was in an area that had an ECHL franchise, once upon a time, then had an IHL franchise until it suffered well-nigh Thrashers-esque mismanagement to the point of oblivion :(

/will be extremely pleasantly surprised if I see hockey here again in my lifetime
//at least there's road trips to Chicago for Blackhawks games if they can ever get the bedamned season started in spite of Bettman...and failing that, the Wolves
 
2012-09-01 06:11:46 PM  

desertgeek: - I've said this 1000 times but expand by 2 teams with at least 1 of them being Canadian. Expand the revenue base. We know the talent is there to create 2 more teams with little to no decline in the quality of play.


No, the talent is not there to expand the NHL by any number of teams. Instead, the league needs to contract by four teams. Too many players in the NHL right now who really have no business being there.

I would like to see a lockout just in the hope that at least two teams fold. It will be better for the NHL and quality of play in the long run.
 
2012-09-01 06:17:48 PM  

I_Love_Cheesecake: desertgeek: - I've said this 1000 times but expand by 2 teams with at least 1 of them being Canadian. Expand the revenue base. We know the talent is there to create 2 more teams with little to no decline in the quality of play.

No, the talent is not there to expand the NHL by any number of teams. Instead, the league needs to contract by four teams. Too many players in the NHL right now who really have no business being there.

I would like to see a lockout just in the hope that at least two teams fold. It will be better for the NHL and quality of play in the long run.


They won't fold teams. They're not going to give up revenue. And you don't think there's enough talent in Canada, the USA, Sweden and Russia alone to add 50 players to the NHL? Really?
 
2012-09-01 06:36:57 PM  
We certainly would be happy to support a team in the area just outside Toronto - the Leafs are impossible to get in to see (and suck too). Not likely to happen since Toronto and Buffalo would squawk (again).

I have no time for the owners this time around. They got what they wanted last time. Gary Bettman is horrible, and well parodied in Bon Cop, Bad Cop.

desertgeek I don't see the talent to stock the teams that are already there. So many marginal players hacking away - so I have no idea where they will find 50 more.
 
2012-09-01 07:59:44 PM  

desertgeek: Choo-Choo Bear: This is really good news for the ECHL.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x171] [upload.wikimedia.org image 150x171][upload.wikimedia.org image 150x171]

I just wish I knew what the EC stood for in the league initials...

Used to be the East Coast Hockey League. Now the EC doesn't really stand for anything, I think.


Its part of thier FAQ:

http://echl.com/faqs-s12377

"What do the letters ECHL stand for?

In a change reflective of the nationwide presence of the ECHL, the East Coast Hockey League changed its name to simply ECHL on May 19, 2003. The leading professional developmental league for the American Hockey and the National Hockey League, ECHL has an identity that is well known within North American hockey circles.
"

I wish the San Diego Gulls were still around. I loved watching them..... horrible hockey but it was incredibly cheap for season tickets.
 
2012-09-01 08:02:34 PM  

Rwa2play: Really? So you're in favor of tied AS games that bring nothing to the table?


When the fans vote in the players, and you cannot use substitutions? ABSO-F*CKING-LUTELY.

It's a travesty that the sport allows morons to determine the guys who are going to get three innings of play in a hugely important game.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report