TUCK! sez: Yankees and Tigers and Damon (oh my?)
by TuckMarch 04, 2010
Follow TUCK! on Twitter: @ TUCKsez
Feedback and inquiries: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
|
May 24, 2013
THT Essentials:
Rich Barbieri
John Barten Kyle Boddy Brian Borawski James Gentile Matt Hunter Frank Jackson Chris Jaffe Brad Johnson Jason Linden Dan Lependorf Bruce Markusen Jeff Moore Greg Simons Scott Spratt Dave Studeman Shane Tourtellotte Steve Treder And here's the full roster. Now available
Or you can search by:
THT E-book    All content on this site (including text, graphs, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
TUCK! sez: Yankees and Tigers and Damon (oh my?)by TuckMarch 04, 2010
Follow TUCK! on Twitter: @ TUCKsez Feedback and inquiries: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) Comments
fortehlulz said...
Is that a cat, a leech, or a worm? Posted 03/04 at 12:24 PM
cuban bee said...
I’ve got to agree…i thought at first there was something i wasnt getting. but no - this is just the worst attempt at anything i’ve ever seen… Posted 03/04 at 01:14 PM
TUCK! said...
@AKR: 1) Thanks for your insightful and thoughtful commentary. It’s fans like you that make this all worthwhile. Thanks for the post! 2) There was something to that effect in the Chicago Tribune. They had something about Cashman being surprised. I had a little fun with it. You know, it being a cartoon (and not a news story) and all. For the record, I also don’t think Johnny Damon is really a cat. 3) My guess is he’d have eight million reasons to smile (not to mention (still) getting more than the Yankees apparently offered him), but that’d be just me. Thanks again! Posted 03/04 at 01:27 PM
TUCK! said...
@fortehlulz: See AKR’s post, I guess. Thanks for the post! Posted 03/04 at 01:28 PM
TUCK! said...
@cuban bee: Thanks for your insightful and thoughtful commentary. It’s fans like you that make this all worthwhile. Thanks for the post! Posted 03/04 at 01:30 PM
Momby said...
Everything about this—cartoon, comments, artist’s defense—just made me sad. Thanks for ruining my day. Posted 03/04 at 01:58 PM
TUCK! said...
@Momby: But they started it! (Seriously: I agree with you 100%. I always approach the “TUCK! sez” space as one of fun, and certainly not a place where people go to have their (collective) day ruined. So for whatever part my response(s)(nee ‘defense’) played in it, I apologize. While we’re here: The temptation remains to just let the less-than-thought-provoking comments go without reply. I do, however, have this persnikkety policy to try to respond to all posts, and with a similar level of engagement. Hence the tenor of the responses. We try, sometimes we hit the mark, sometimes, not so much. I’ll let the gentle reader(s) decide for themselves on that one. Whatever the case, do come back and continue to contribute to the discourse.) Thanks for your post! Posted 03/04 at 02:43 PM
AKR said...
Actually, TUCK!, you did start it, by publishing this cartoon. And if you truly “always approach the ‘TUCK! sez’ space as one of fun, and certainly not a place where people go to have their (collective) day ruined,” I’m sorry to tell you that you have failed every single time. Posted 03/04 at 02:55 PM
Tuck said...
@AKR: Thanks for your insightful and thoughtful commentary. It’s fans like you that make this all worthwhile. Thanks for the post! Posted 03/04 at 03:01 PM
AKR said...
Is it actually worthwhile to write punchlines that sound like they were created by ELIZA? Posted 03/04 at 03:25 PM
Oscar said...
Seriously, is Damon supposed to be some sort of fat demon-tiger? It’s not a caricature if it’s just some weird monster with “Damon” hung around its neck… Posted 03/04 at 03:27 PM
BL said...
Can we get a “TUCK! sez”-only RSS feed on the front page? Not only does including cartoons under the umbrella of the main article feed seem to require a rather loose definition of the word “article,” but I prefer to have my sober analysis and uproarious, uncontrollable laughter served separately. On the other hand, if you’re worried about further feed proliferation, you could just remove “TUCK! sez” from the main article feed, and call it a day. Posted 03/04 at 03:38 PM
Mike Rogers said...
Wow. Dudes should relax. It’s a cartoon. Posted 03/04 at 03:50 PM
BL said...
It does satisfy the condition of being “a sketch or drawing” (albeit barely), but according to my dictionary’s first definition of the term, cartoons are “usually humorous.” Posted 03/04 at 03:53 PM
TUCK! said...
@AKR: Seriously? “ELIZA”?? And you say *my* stuff suc—wait. Almost forgot, here you go: Thanks for your insightful and thoughtful commentary. It’s fans like you that make this all worthwhile. Thanks for the post! Posted 03/04 at 06:47 PM
TUCK! said...
@Oscar: Who said anything about caricature? It’s a cartoon (speaking of which: more on this in a second). Thanks for the post! Posted 03/04 at 06:49 PM
Tuck said...
@BL(1): If we move “TUCK sez” off the front page, how would you access the edifying comments section(and where would the rest of us go to see someone show deft mastery of an obviously outdated and abridged dictionary)? Posted 03/04 at 06:53 PM
Tuck said...
@Mike Rogers: I agree completely, and couldn’t have said it better myself (tho I admittedly kinda tried with the ‘dictionary’ bit); thanks! Posted 03/04 at 06:56 PM
Tuck said...
@BL(2): So, what you’re saying is, you want to buy the original art, right? Thanks for the posts! Posted 03/04 at 06:58 PM
AKR said...
TUCK!, what’s your stock labored response to a positive comment, if you’ve ever gotten one? Posted 03/04 at 07:01 PM
Tuck said...
@AKR: You really think you got the stock (“labored”??) response b/c you were *negative*? (Re-read the response to Momby, the “rules” (such as they are) are in there: If you want a legitimate response, post a legitimate comment.) And thanks for the post. Posted 03/04 at 07:21 PM
AKR said...
Here is my legitimate comment, in that case: You are a poor artist and an even worse comedian. Please retire. Posted 03/04 at 07:29 PM
Tuck said...
@AKR: Thanks for your insightful and thoughtful commentary. It’s fans like you that make this all worthwhile…Thanks again for the post! Posted 03/04 at 07:33 PM
BL said...
It was dictionary.com, actually—all I had on hand at the time. Not abridged or outdated, though. But your unfamiliarity with the humor-related component of the definition doesn’t surprise me. Haven’t made a decision about purchasing the original “art” yet, but since you’ve thoughtfully provided your email address, I know how to reach you. If it would take any of these toons out of circulation, I might consider it a public service. Posted 03/04 at 07:37 PM
Tuck said...
@BL: I think it’s cute how dictionary.com is “your” dictionary. You crack me up. Thanks for the post! Posted 03/04 at 08:19 PM
Page 1 of 1
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. Next Article: College pitcher development patterns>> <<Previous Article: Philosophy of batting leadoff | ||||
1. I haven’t seen many drawings of Brian Cashman before. But even if I had, this would still be the worst of them all. Simply horrible.
2. Do you even follow baseball? Never did Cashman, or anyone else from the Yankees, say something like, “I have no idea why Johnny Damon would go anywhere else.” Cashman made it clear he had a pretty good idea why Damon would go: the Yankees didn’t want him and other teams would offer more money.
3. News reports earlier this off-season said that Damon wanted a multi-year deal and would refuse to take a pay cut from the $13 million he earned in 2009. So when he signed a one-year contract worth $8 million, it must have come as a severe disappointment. Why then would you depict him as a smiling Cheshire Cat with a Scrooge McDuck-esque vault of gold coins?