Vlad was coming off a major back injury going into his free agency and that scared off a few teams. With something tricky like the back, the Yanks went for Sheffield. After seeing how Mattingly declined due to a bad back, I don't blame George for wanting to go with someone else. It's hard to argue the Yanks made the wrong decision in signing Sheff. Their numbers are very similiar and Sheffield's contract is only for three years while Vlad's contract is five year pact.
Without the Yankees/Red Sox what do we have? I don't want to imagine Northeast baseball without the two. Anyway, I like you ct! I have Two Red Sox fan friends in the everyday world. I probably would be friends with you too
With that said, where is a mooning icon when ya need one
Without the Yankees/Red Sox what do we have? I don't want to imagine Northeast baseball without the two. Anyway, I like you ct! I have Two Red Sox fan friends in the everyday world. I probably would be friends with you too
With that said, where is a mooning icon when ya need one
Dan >>
Dan - absolutely I agree! I work with a bunch of guys who are Yankee fans, and let me tell you, it sure makes for some great conversation and debate amongst us! Last year, they really had me down, and I could do nothing about it, but when we came back - I had bet one guy a 5lb lobster dinner on the series, and even made the reservation when we were down 3-0. The dinner sure was sweeter on his dime, though!
I, like many here, loathe the Yankees. But give them credit-- at least they actually win something from time to time. For years I have been baffled by the fact that a second-tier outfit like the Boston Red Sox could get as much national attention as they did. Here's a team that hadn't won a Series since Moby Dick was a minnow, yet every spring the national media droned on about the 'proud history of the franchise,' etc. etc.
Proud history? Huh? Or, to be more accurate, how is it 'prouder' than the Cubs, or Tigers, or Cardinals, or A's, or Phillies, or Giants, or Dodgers? For years there was this prevailing myth that the Red Sox were somehow on par with those franchises that-- Oh, I don't know-- had actually WON SOMETHING since the Wilson administration; when, in fact, the Red Sox were just another B grade outfit like the Cubs or Indians.
Now I'm not here to give Red Sox fans grief. Heck, I'm a Detroit Lions fan, and they're arguably (or perhaps inarguably) the most pitiful franchise in the NFL that isn't located in Arizona. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that they're on the same strata as the Packers just because they've been around as long. In some sense we don't have much of a choice in who we root for. There's either a geographical imperative at work, or it's passed down from our Dads. So I speak from the heart when I say that Red Sox fans have nothing to be ashamed of. But let's be honest; your team has been aggressively mediocre for eighty years or so, and it's a disservice to the residents of the Big Apple to use the words Yankees and Red Sox in the same breath.
<< <i>I, like many here, loathe the Yankees. But give them credit-- at least they actually win something from time to time. For years I have been baffled by the fact that a second-tier outfit like the Boston Red Sox could get as much national attention as they did. Here's a team that hadn't won a Series since Moby Dick was a minnow, yet every spring the national media droned on about the 'proud history of the franchise,' etc. etc.
Proud history? Huh? Or, to be more accurate, how is it 'prouder' than the Cubs, or Tigers, or Cardinals, or A's, or Phillies, or Giants, or Dodgers? For years there was this prevailing myth that the Red Sox were somehow on par with those franchises that-- Oh, I don't know-- had actually WON SOMETHING since the Wilson administration; when, in fact, the Red Sox were just another B grade outfit like the Cubs or Indians.
Now I'm not here to give Red Sox fans grief. Heck, I'm a Detroit Lions fan, and they're arguably (or perhaps inarguably) the most pitiful franchise in the NFL that isn't located in Arizona. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that they're on the same strata as the Packers just because they've been around as long. In some sense we don't have much of a choice in who we root for. There's either a geographical imperative at work, or it's passed down from our Dads. So I speak from the heart when I say that Red Sox fans have nothing to be ashamed of. But let's be honest; your team has been aggressively mediocre for eighty years or so, and it's a disservice to the residents of the Big Apple to use the words Yankees and Red Sox in the same breath. >>
<< <i> But let's be honest; your team has been aggressively mediocre for eighty years or so, and it's a disservice to the residents of the Big Apple to use the words Yankees and Red Sox in the same breath. >>
Aggressively mediocre?
I by no means am a BoSox fan, but I would say that the red sox have been FAR from mediocre. Plenty of world series appearances, plenty of play off appearances...far from mediocre.
The Red Sox have been plenty successful in their time as a franchise, even before last year's miraculous coming from down 0-3, and winning the world series.
Whoa! I expected more from you than that, boopotts! As Axtell already mentioned, the Red Sox history consists of many amazing and legendary World Series appearances (1967, 1975, 1986 come to mind), along with a fair number of playoff appearances and AL East titles. Not to mention, the reason Boston fans are so proud of the franchise history is because of all of the HOF players who have worn the Red Sox uniform over the years. Starting with the best hitter the game has ever seen - Ted Williams, and many others too numerous to mention. Heck, even Babe Ruth was a Bosox! The number of legendary players that have come from Boston is a greater number than most franchises have produced, and this is why the team's diehard fan base refers to a rich and storied history.
I think some (if not most) sports fans see anything other than winning it all means your team is 'mediocre'? That's the only way I can take his statement and make any sort of sense of it.
Apparently the world series appearances, playoff appearances, means you are simply mediocre?
That, or he simply doesn't know the history of the BoSox as he claims to?
Aggressively mediocre may be a bit strong. But here's my point- the national media adores two teams; the Yankees and the Red Sox. And while I understand the press' obsession with the Yanks, I've always been baffled by it's adoration with the Red Sox. By any objective measure the Red Sox are no more 'storied' than the teams I listed in my above post. So why do they get so much attention? The answer, ironically, is simple; because they're the Yankees biggest rival. But it has nothing to do with their accomplishments on the field, or the caliber of the players which have donned their uniform.
<< <i> it has nothing to do with their accomplishments on the field, or the caliber of the players which have donned their uniform. >>
Are you kidding?
Countless playoff appearances and 4 world series appearances?
Some incredible names to have worn Red Sox jerseys: Teddy Ballgame, Yaz, Jimmie Foxx, Lefty Grove, Babe Ruth, Tris Speaker, Cy Young, Carlton Fisk, Wade Boggs, Jim Rice, Roger Clemens, as well as today's superstars like Manny Ramirez, Pedro Martinez, and a whole host of others.
No, of course no team has close to the 26 world series titles that the yankees have...but to say the national attention the red sox get has nothing to do with what they've done on the field and is only a result of their rivalry with the yankees? That's just inaccurate.
Why do I have to repeat myself? Look at the Red Sox history, and compare it to that of the Cardinals, or A's, or Phillies, or Giants, or Tigers, or Dodgers. Are they a notch above these teams from a historical perspective? No. But do you hear twice as much about the Red Sox as you do any of these teams on ESPN? Yes. So what are you left with? What separates the Red Sox from these other teams? What you're left with, ultimately, is that they participate in the most popular rivalry in MLB. If it isn't that, then what is it?
This isn't a question of 'whether or not the Red Sox have fielded some good teams'. It's a question of whether or not their on field accomplishments RELATIVE TO OTHER TEAMS warrant the kind of national media attention they receive.
"Some incredible names to have worn Red Sox jerseys: Teddy Ballgame, Yaz, Jimmie Foxx, Lefty Grove, Babe Ruth, Tris Speaker, Cy Young, Carlton Fisk, Wade Boggs, Jim Rice, Roger Clemens, as well as today's superstars like Manny Ramirez, Pedro Martinez, and a whole host of others."
You can go through a list like this for almost any team that's been around 100 years.
Oh, Come on. I don't care if the Red Sox grace the cover of every sports weekly from now till doomsday. I really don't. I have nothing against the Red Sox, and certainly nothing against their fans. I have teams I root for, like everyone else here, but I'm realistic about it. The fact is that one squad of millionares is probably about like the next. You could measure with a thimble the amount of emotional attachment I feel toward any pro sports franchise.
However, I will note that whether I have 'Bosox Envy' in no way informs the validity of the points I made in my last post. Points, I might add, which you appear reluctant to address.
<< <i> However, I will note that whether I have 'Bosox Envy' in no way informs the validity of the points I made in my last post. Points, I might add, which you appear reluctant to address. >>
What do you want me to say? It's clearly obvious you don't think the BoSox deserve the national attention they get; whereas I do. How do you want me to debate that? Your first point saying the bosox are 'aggressively mediocre' told me everything I need to know about where you stand on their teams. It tells me you don't know your baseball history or are a big fan of the yankees or some other team outside boston.
You sit there with your pithy comments as if I am supposed to be impressed you don't have any emotional attachment towards a team...as if you are too cool to care.
You ask why UD didn't do a set for the Cardinals? While not on the board of UD, I can't speak to that. Why don't you write UD and find out? Or are you too cool for that, too?
Whoa there, slugger! I already backtracked on my 'aggressively mediocre' remark. That was poorly worded. But again-- if it isn't their rivalry with the Yankees that produces so much national attention for the Red Sox, then what is it? Because I think I've shown that the Red Sox legacy is not demonstrably superior to those of other teams which have been in business for a like number of years.
Just to reiterate-- I have nothing against the Red Sox or their fans. But if I bring up a point, and you dismiss it by saying 'well, you have Red Sox envy', then what kind of reaction is that supposed to elicit? Or, more to the point, how does my Red Sox envy, or lack of it, have any bearing on the legitimacy of my argument?
In any case, there's no need for this debate to get too charged up. I think the Red Sox are overhyped, but I still respect a man's right to root for them. And I'm as happy as the next guy when they beat the Yankees.
"You ask why UD didn't do a set for the Cardinals? While not on the board of UD, I can't speak to that. Why don't you write UD and find out? Or are you too cool for that, too?"
Why the inflammatory language? All this is is a debate-- it's not life or death. I've brought up what I think are legitimate points, and you've countered with bits about 'Red Sox Envy' or 'are you too cool for that'. I've presented my argument; namely, that by any objective measure the Red Sox are no more distinguished then most of the other teams that have been around for the past 90 years or so. Yet, they garner far more attention then these other teams. And the only reason I can think of for this dispartity is that they're the arch rival of the most celebrated franchise in American sports history. If you have another explanation, or you think my initial premise is incorrect, then fine-- fire away. I'm certainly open to opposing viewpoints.
Boopotts - I understand completely your point about the Sox being tied in with the Yankees, and that being a large reason for their popularity. I still disagree, but I do see what you are trying to say. I bet, though, that a lot of people back the Sox (even just a little bit) because they are anti-Yankee, and the Sox are clearly the biggest rivals to knocking them off year after year. I would like to think that the rich history of the Sox is enough to explain the popularity of the franchise, but perhaps that's just me. I'm cool with what you are saying - even if I don't agree with it.
<< <i>you've countered with bits about 'Red Sox Envy' or 'are you too cool for that'. >>
No, that's not all I've countered with.
I've mentioned the postseason appearances and the number of all-time greats who have worn the Boston jersey, you then attempt to say any team that's been around for that long has the same number of great players.
As I stated, what else do you want to hear? Are you that dead-set on your viewpoint being the only one? Or is it perhaps that the red sox are a better franchise than you wish to give them credit for?
"I've mentioned the postseason appearances and the number of all-time greats who have worn the Boston jersey, you then attempt to say any team that's been around for that long has the same number of great players."
I'm not attempting to say it, I'm flat out declaring it.
Check this:
Number of HOF's who played for a given team for at least five years.
With the exception of the Tigers, all these teams are within 5 HOF's; fairly comparable, I think, although you're welcome to disagree. In any case, any deficit in HOF's should be compensated for by more championships.
"As I stated, what else do you want to hear? Are you that dead-set on your viewpoint being the only one?"
No, I'm not dead set on my viewpoint being the only one. Just provide some evidence that shows me how the Red Sox are significantly more distinguished then other teams which have been around as long.
<< <i> Just provide some evidence that shows me how the Red Sox are significantly more distinguished then other teams which have been around as long. >>
Don't you get it? the Red Sox are more distinguished than the aforementioned teams because their fans say so. It also doesn't hurt to have people like Peter Gammons, Bob Ryan, Dan Shaughnessy and people of their ilk keep parroting how important the Red Sox are to the survival of the human race.
<< <i>Why do I have to repeat myself? Look at the Red Sox history, and compare it to that of the Cardinals, or A's, or Phillies, or Giants, or Tigers, or Dodgers. Are they a notch above these teams from a historical perspective? No. But do you hear twice as much about the Red Sox as you do any of these teams on ESPN? >>
It does not hurt the Boston Red Sox that ESPN is located right in Red Sox nation, combined with the great story line of a miserable past makes great theatre. And that is what ESPN loves ..... theatre.
Yes, Softparade, I'm with you regarding ESPN. I used to love ESPN when they used to broadcast sports and not create a 'theatre-like' environment everytime Sportscenter comes on the air. I'm convinced the execs at ESPN sit around all day and try to come up with the story that has the most drama (what's T.O. going to do today, where's Larry Brown headed next, etc.), not the story that has the most to do with sports of the day.
<< I heard Edgar Martinez is coming out of retirement to sign with the Yankees to play centerfield? >>
How bout this one....Steinbrenner pulls a doozy and the Yankees get Soriano back and put him in Center Field where he has played before. That would indeed add fuel to the anti-Yankee fire.
<< <i><< I heard Edgar Martinez is coming out of retirement to sign with the Yankees to play centerfield? >>
How bout this one....Steinbrenner pulls a doozy and the Yankees get Soriano back and put him in Center Field where he has played before. That would indeed add fuel to the anti-Yankee fire.
<< <i><< I heard Edgar Martinez is coming out of retirement to sign with the Yankees to play centerfield? >>
How bout this one....Steinbrenner pulls a doozy and the Yankees get Soriano back and put him in Center Field where he has played before. That would indeed add fuel to the anti-Yankee fire.
I know...I started the thread BUT.....Soriano is a Yankee lover. The question is do the Yankees want him back and will the possibility of the Mets getting Soriano make Steinbrenner all hot and bothered.
Who can the Yanks give Texas for him, though? At least the Mets have prospects, and deep starting pitching to help Texas right away. I don't believe the Yanks have anything even close to comparable - not to mention, I'd bet Texas would rather trade him out of the AL if they had a choice.
I think Rickey Henderson would play CF for the Yanks without much arm-twisting. Say, major league minimum and a promise that Reggie could DH one day a week.
What ever happened to the mariners? didn't they win like 116 games one year? and wasn't it the Yankee's that knocked them off? I could be mistaken but man how they went from the penthouse to the outhouse so abruptly. what happened?
Is it true what I heard? Jose Canseco in Yankees centerfield!? And they are going to pay him $15 Million for the remaining season! Say it isnt so! Anyway, there must be a better arguement than the Yanks spending money money money. What are other teams buying for players with their cut of the revenue sharing they receive from the Yankees? The money they receive could sign a superstar...but I dont see any teams doing that...though I give credit to the Baltimore Orioles and LA Angels for their aggressiveness to sign top notch players. (If you want to consider Sosa and Palmiero top notch). As far as the YES Network goes....ummm...YES stands for YANKEES ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK. I mean, I dont think I would care to see "Marinerography" or "RedSoxography" on the Yankees Network. As far as the announcers go...I will half agree....because Jim Kaat, Ken Singleton, and Bobby Murcer are GREAT to listen to. Some great personal experiences and knowledge of the game make them entertaining. Michael Kay and David Justice are just horrible...though I know many like Kay. So back to the money spending....I dont see the money spending to be so valid...because if it was, wouldnt the Yankees have won at least 4 of the 5 last World Series? They havent won in 5 years! That is a lifetime in sports! Fact is that those guys just cant keep it together enough and the Yanks have weaknesses....currently pitching. So for anyone to say that the Yanks are "buying" their championships is just wrong...and envious. I give the Red Sox all the credit in the world for winning the series...just as I have the Marlins and D'backs.
Comments
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
can we agree on this next statement?
Without the Yankees/Red Sox what do we have? I don't want to imagine Northeast baseball without the two. Anyway, I like you ct! I have Two Red Sox fan friends in the everyday world. I probably would be friends with you too
With that said, where is a mooning icon when ya need one
Dan
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>hey ctsox,
can we agree on this next statement?
Without the Yankees/Red Sox what do we have? I don't want to imagine Northeast baseball without the two. Anyway, I like you ct! I have Two Red Sox fan friends in the everyday world. I probably would be friends with you too
With that said, where is a mooning icon when ya need one
Dan >>
Dan - absolutely I agree! I work with a bunch of guys who are Yankee fans, and let me tell you, it sure makes for some great conversation and debate amongst us! Last year, they really had me down, and I could do nothing about it, but when we came back - I had bet one guy a 5lb lobster dinner on the series, and even made the reservation when we were down 3-0. The dinner sure was sweeter on his dime, though!
This one's on me -
Proud history? Huh? Or, to be more accurate, how is it 'prouder' than the Cubs, or Tigers, or Cardinals, or A's, or Phillies, or Giants, or Dodgers? For years there was this prevailing myth that the Red Sox were somehow on par with those franchises that-- Oh, I don't know-- had actually WON SOMETHING since the Wilson administration; when, in fact, the Red Sox were just another B grade outfit like the Cubs or Indians.
Now I'm not here to give Red Sox fans grief. Heck, I'm a Detroit Lions fan, and they're arguably (or perhaps inarguably) the most pitiful franchise in the NFL that isn't located in Arizona. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that they're on the same strata as the Packers just because they've been around as long. In some sense we don't have much of a choice in who we root for. There's either a geographical imperative at work, or it's passed down from our Dads. So I speak from the heart when I say that Red Sox fans have nothing to be ashamed of. But let's be honest; your team has been aggressively mediocre for eighty years or so, and it's a disservice to the residents of the Big Apple to use the words Yankees and Red Sox in the same breath.
<< <i>I, like many here, loathe the Yankees. But give them credit-- at least they actually win something from time to time. For years I have been baffled by the fact that a second-tier outfit like the Boston Red Sox could get as much national attention as they did. Here's a team that hadn't won a Series since Moby Dick was a minnow, yet every spring the national media droned on about the 'proud history of the franchise,' etc. etc.
Proud history? Huh? Or, to be more accurate, how is it 'prouder' than the Cubs, or Tigers, or Cardinals, or A's, or Phillies, or Giants, or Dodgers? For years there was this prevailing myth that the Red Sox were somehow on par with those franchises that-- Oh, I don't know-- had actually WON SOMETHING since the Wilson administration; when, in fact, the Red Sox were just another B grade outfit like the Cubs or Indians.
Now I'm not here to give Red Sox fans grief. Heck, I'm a Detroit Lions fan, and they're arguably (or perhaps inarguably) the most pitiful franchise in the NFL that isn't located in Arizona. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that they're on the same strata as the Packers just because they've been around as long. In some sense we don't have much of a choice in who we root for. There's either a geographical imperative at work, or it's passed down from our Dads. So I speak from the heart when I say that Red Sox fans have nothing to be ashamed of. But let's be honest; your team has been aggressively mediocre for eighty years or so, and it's a disservice to the residents of the Big Apple to use the words Yankees and Red Sox in the same breath. >>
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
<< <i> But let's be honest; your team has been aggressively mediocre for eighty years or so, and it's a disservice to the residents of the Big Apple to use the words Yankees and Red Sox in the same breath. >>
Aggressively mediocre?
I by no means am a BoSox fan, but I would say that the red sox have been FAR from mediocre. Plenty of world series appearances, plenty of play off appearances...far from mediocre.
The Red Sox have been plenty successful in their time as a franchise, even before last year's miraculous coming from down 0-3, and winning the world series.
<< <i>Aggressively mediocre? >>
Whoa! I expected more from you than that, boopotts! As Axtell already mentioned, the Red Sox history consists of many amazing and legendary World Series appearances (1967, 1975, 1986 come to mind), along with a fair number of playoff appearances and AL East titles. Not to mention, the reason Boston fans are so proud of the franchise history is because of all of the HOF players who have worn the Red Sox uniform over the years. Starting with the best hitter the game has ever seen - Ted Williams, and many others too numerous to mention. Heck, even Babe Ruth was a Bosox! The number of legendary players that have come from Boston is a greater number than most franchises have produced, and this is why the team's diehard fan base refers to a rich and storied history.
I think some (if not most) sports fans see anything other than winning it all means your team is 'mediocre'? That's the only way I can take his statement and make any sort of sense of it.
Apparently the world series appearances, playoff appearances, means you are simply mediocre?
That, or he simply doesn't know the history of the BoSox as he claims to?
Aggressively mediocre may be a bit strong. But here's my point- the national media adores two teams; the Yankees and the Red Sox. And while I understand the press' obsession with the Yanks, I've always been baffled by it's adoration with the Red Sox. By any objective measure the Red Sox are no more 'storied' than the teams I listed in my above post. So why do they get so much attention? The answer, ironically, is simple; because they're the Yankees biggest rival. But it has nothing to do with their accomplishments on the field, or the caliber of the players which have donned their uniform.
<< <i> it has nothing to do with their accomplishments on the field, or the caliber of the players which have donned their uniform. >>
Are you kidding?
Countless playoff appearances and 4 world series appearances?
Some incredible names to have worn Red Sox jerseys: Teddy Ballgame, Yaz, Jimmie Foxx, Lefty Grove, Babe Ruth, Tris Speaker, Cy Young, Carlton Fisk, Wade Boggs, Jim Rice, Roger Clemens, as well as today's superstars like Manny Ramirez, Pedro Martinez, and a whole host of others.
No, of course no team has close to the 26 world series titles that the yankees have...but to say the national attention the red sox get has nothing to do with what they've done on the field and is only a result of their rivalry with the yankees? That's just inaccurate.
This isn't a question of 'whether or not the Red Sox have fielded some good teams'. It's a question of whether or not their on field accomplishments RELATIVE TO OTHER TEAMS warrant the kind of national media attention they receive.
You can go through a list like this for almost any team that's been around 100 years.
The Cardinals have played in four WS's since 1982. Any ideas on why Upper Deck hasn't released a Cardinals master set?
<< <i>"Countless playoff appearances and 4 world series appearances."
The Cardinals have played in four WS's since 1968. Any ideas on why Upper Deck hasn't released a Cardinals master set? >>
Sounds to me like you have some BoSox envy going on.
I don't know what to tell you...other than it seems you are incredibly envious of the attention Boston receives.
However, I will note that whether I have 'Bosox Envy' in no way informs the validity of the points I made in my last post. Points, I might add, which you appear reluctant to address.
<< <i>
However, I will note that whether I have 'Bosox Envy' in no way informs the validity of the points I made in my last post. Points, I might add, which you appear reluctant to address. >>
What do you want me to say? It's clearly obvious you don't think the BoSox deserve the national attention they get; whereas I do. How do you want me to debate that? Your first point saying the bosox are 'aggressively mediocre' told me everything I need to know about where you stand on their teams. It tells me you don't know your baseball history or are a big fan of the yankees or some other team outside boston.
You sit there with your pithy comments as if I am supposed to be impressed you don't have any emotional attachment towards a team...as if you are too cool to care.
You ask why UD didn't do a set for the Cardinals? While not on the board of UD, I can't speak to that. Why don't you write UD and find out? Or are you too cool for that, too?
Just to reiterate-- I have nothing against the Red Sox or their fans. But if I bring up a point, and you dismiss it by saying 'well, you have Red Sox envy', then what kind of reaction is that supposed to elicit? Or, more to the point, how does my Red Sox envy, or lack of it, have any bearing on the legitimacy of my argument?
In any case, there's no need for this debate to get too charged up. I think the Red Sox are overhyped, but I still respect a man's right to root for them. And I'm as happy as the next guy when they beat the Yankees.
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
<< <i>You sit there with your pithy comments >>
Ax
O'Reilly would be proud!
The nerve of some people.
Why the inflammatory language? All this is is a debate-- it's not life or death. I've brought up what I think are legitimate points, and you've countered with bits about 'Red Sox Envy' or 'are you too cool for that'. I've presented my argument; namely, that by any objective measure the Red Sox are no more distinguished then most of the other teams that have been around for the past 90 years or so. Yet, they garner far more attention then these other teams. And the only reason I can think of for this dispartity is that they're the arch rival of the most celebrated franchise in American sports history. If you have another explanation, or you think my initial premise is incorrect, then fine-- fire away. I'm certainly open to opposing viewpoints.
You keep this up and people are going to start calling you Axwell Smart!
Boo, any conversation/debate/fight with AX requires that you do.
Why the inflammatory language?
that is just the way he is. no one else can have an opinion if he disagree's with it.
SD
<< <i>Why do I have to repeat myself?
Boo, any conversation/debate/fight with AX requires that you do.
Why the inflammatory language?
that is just the way he is. no one else can have an opinion if he disagree's with it.
SD >>
And yet another WP lowlight...contibuting nothing to a thread.
And you call me 'inflammatory'?
<< <i>you've countered with bits about 'Red Sox Envy' or 'are you too cool for that'. >>
No, that's not all I've countered with.
I've mentioned the postseason appearances and the number of all-time greats who have worn the Boston jersey, you then attempt to say any team that's been around for that long has the same number of great players.
As I stated, what else do you want to hear? Are you that dead-set on your viewpoint being the only one? Or is it perhaps that the red sox are a better franchise than you wish to give them credit for?
I'm not attempting to say it, I'm flat out declaring it.
Check this:
Number of HOF's who played for a given team for at least five years.
Red Sox: 17
Cardinals: 16
Tigers: 9
A's:13
Dodgers: 13
Giants: 26
Phillies:12
With the exception of the Tigers, all these teams are within 5 HOF's; fairly comparable, I think, although you're welcome to disagree. In any case, any deficit in HOF's should be compensated for by more championships.
"As I stated, what else do you want to hear? Are you that dead-set on your viewpoint being the only one?"
No, I'm not dead set on my viewpoint being the only one. Just provide some evidence that shows me how the Red Sox are significantly more distinguished then other teams which have been around as long.
<< <i> Just provide some evidence that shows me how the Red Sox are significantly more distinguished then other teams which have been around as long. >>
Don't you get it? the Red Sox are more distinguished than the aforementioned teams because their fans say so. It also doesn't hurt to have people like Peter Gammons, Bob Ryan, Dan Shaughnessy and people of their ilk keep parroting how important the Red Sox are to the survival of the human race.
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
<< <i>Why do I have to repeat myself? Look at the Red Sox history, and compare it to that of the Cardinals, or A's, or Phillies, or Giants, or Tigers, or Dodgers. Are they a notch above these teams from a historical perspective? No. But do you hear twice as much about the Red Sox as you do any of these teams on ESPN? >>
It does not hurt the Boston Red Sox that ESPN is located right in Red Sox nation, combined with the great story line of a miserable past makes great theatre. And that is what ESPN loves ..... theatre.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Mark
<< <i>To keep this thread on topic, I think PSA 10s of the Big Unit, Arod and Griffey will continue to increase in value.
DaBig
God willin' and the river don't rise!
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
<< <i>I heard Edgar Martinez is coming out of retirement to sign with the Yankees to play centerfield? >>
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
<< <i>Or maybe it was Jay Buhner? >>
Jay Buhner or Edgar Martinez would be upgrades for the Yankees.
<< I heard Edgar Martinez is coming out of retirement to sign with the Yankees to play centerfield? >>
How bout this one....Steinbrenner pulls a doozy and the Yankees get Soriano back and put him in Center Field where he has played before. That would indeed add fuel to the anti-Yankee fire.
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=40&threadid=417919
<< <i><< I heard Edgar Martinez is coming out of retirement to sign with the Yankees to play centerfield? >>
How bout this one....Steinbrenner pulls a doozy and the Yankees get Soriano back and put him in Center Field where he has played before. That would indeed add fuel to the anti-Yankee fire.
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=40&threadid=417919 >>
The spam is spreading!!!! Make it stop!!!!!
<< <i><< I heard Edgar Martinez is coming out of retirement to sign with the Yankees to play centerfield? >>
How bout this one....Steinbrenner pulls a doozy and the Yankees get Soriano back and put him in Center Field where he has played before. That would indeed add fuel to the anti-Yankee fire.
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=40&threadid=417919 >>
Uh, no. He seems to be heading to NY, but to the team across town. Soriano for Zambrano, Heilman, and a prospect.
I know...I started the thread BUT.....Soriano is a Yankee lover. The question is do the Yankees want him back and will the possibility of the Mets getting Soriano make Steinbrenner all hot and bothered.
You are probably correct.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
SD
edited to add:
Anyway, there must be a better arguement than the Yanks spending money money money. What are other teams buying for players with their cut of the revenue sharing they receive from the Yankees? The money they receive could sign a superstar...but I dont see any teams doing that...though I give credit to the Baltimore Orioles and LA Angels for their aggressiveness to sign top notch players. (If you want to consider Sosa and Palmiero top notch).
As far as the YES Network goes....ummm...YES stands for YANKEES ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK. I mean, I dont think I would care to see "Marinerography" or "RedSoxography" on the Yankees Network. As far as the announcers go...I will half agree....because Jim Kaat, Ken Singleton, and Bobby Murcer are GREAT to listen to. Some great personal experiences and knowledge of the game make them entertaining. Michael Kay and David Justice are just horrible...though I know many like Kay.
So back to the money spending....I dont see the money spending to be so valid...because if it was, wouldnt the Yankees have won at least 4 of the 5 last World Series? They havent won in 5 years! That is a lifetime in sports! Fact is that those guys just cant keep it together enough and the Yanks have weaknesses....currently pitching. So for anyone to say that the Yanks are "buying" their championships is just wrong...and envious.
I give the Red Sox all the credit in the world for winning the series...just as I have the Marlins and D'backs.
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
I wouldn't mind seeing that. That way i could find out how they got into the potty so fast.
SD