May 22, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Sam Zell’s Nightmare Continues (11)
William S. Stevens: 1948-2008 (22)
Teixeira’s Options (18)
Cole Hamels Meets Talk Radio (23)
Appropos of nothing (4)
Shyster's Daily Circuit
Joe Posnanski Blog
Cot's Baseball Contracts
It IS About the Money
Baseball Think Factory
MLB Trade Rumors
Way Back and Gone
Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog
The Biz of Baseball
The Daily Fungo
The Common Man
Jorge Says No!
Baseball Over Here
Baseball. Blogging. Whenever.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
My son was born the day after I saw "Batman Begins" at the theater. If he would have come sooner, Mrs. Shyster would have been on her own. They're called priorities, Cole Hamels. Think about it:
Phillies starter Cole Hamels has left the ballpark with his wife, a former "Survivor" contestant, who is in labor with the couple's first child.
In other news, at least he now has a use for the minivan.
The little rectangle on the right side of the screen bugs me. No, it's not a crime against humanity, but I tend to have a pretty good ability to remember how a sequence of pitches has gone -- at least to remember enough to make the whole batter-pitcher confrontation meaningful for me -- so I really don't need it.
Jay at Fack Youk has a much more considered opinion of it all that's worth checking out.
Per Keith Law, Andy Oliver has settled with the NCAA :
Andy Oliver, the former Oklahoma State Univ. pitcher who won a court decision earlier this year voiding the NCAA's regulation prohibiting student athletes from having an attorney make direct contact with a pro sports team, has settled his case against the NCAA, two weeks before it was to go to a jury trial. "I can confirm there is a settlement and that it is confidential," Oliver's attorney, Rick Johnson, said late yesterday. He declined to comment further.
I've been forwarded the settlement agreement -- or at least the notice of settlement which outlines the major terms -- and basically the NCAA is giving Oliver $750,000, and the court is going to vacate the Feburay order in which it invalidated the NCAA's no-representatives rule.
I think -- and since I lose all my cases and never settle, I do not know for sure -- that vacating that order allows the NCAA to reinstitute its no-reps rule. Which would probably be stupid on their part because it's not like the groundwork hasn't been laid for another plaintiff to come in and make the same case. But if the order is vacated, the order is vacated. The NCAA is rather stupid. My bet is that they learn absolutely nothing from this process.
As for Oliver: seeing this case through to the end probably could have done a lot of good in beating the crap out of the odious NCAA, but at the end of the day, $750,000 ain't hay for a minor leaguer.
New York, Los Angeles and Philly won yesterday. FOX and TBS smile . . .
*If I may, please allow me to ask all of you not to use this phrase unless you know what it means. It does not mean "the exception which renders the rule valid." That's how people almost always use it, but it makes no sense if you think about it for more than 3 seconds. In this instance, "proves" takes on an alternate, and somewhat more antiquated meaning; that being "tests," in the same way that "proving grounds" really means "testing grounds." Ergo, "the exception which proves the rule" means "the exception which really tests and challenges that rule, and may in fact make us consider whether or not it is still a rule." And no, I will not accept the recently cited "2000/2001 is the end of the century" or "-gate = scandal" argument, which holds that if enough people f*ck something up those of us who had it right all along should just fall in line with the morons. The last time I ever gave in on that was with UNABOM/Unabomber thing and I still hate myself for it.
UPDATE: OK, based on the comments, it seems that I'm wrong about this too. Whatever. Let's not lose sight of the important thing here: there are a lot of people in the world who annoy me, and whether it's over their turns of phrase or on general principles, I am going to use this space to attack them whenever possible, because I am a small, small man.
Phillies 5, Rockies 1: Man, when Cliff Lee is on he's on, isn't he (CG, 6 H, 1 ER, 5K)? Nice of him to spare Charlie Manuel the need to fret over his bullpen for a day. Every Phillie had a hit, Lee included. Jayson Werth said the sun and wind made it "the toughest day I've ever seen in Philly." Based on what I know about Philly, he must not spend a lot of time in town.
Yankees 7, Twins 2: This was all rather ho-hum. The Twins were no doubt gassed after Tuesday's business, but Duensing was probably going to have trouble against that lineup regardless. Still -- and I appreciate that this is hindsight, but I did think it at the time -- maybe he should have left him in to face Matsui? Probably doesn't matter. Deck chairs on the Titanic don't you know.
Dodgers 5, Cardinals 3: Hey, does anyone here appreciate that I picked the Cardinals to win this? Shape up, will ya? Everyone, actually, because that was way too many walks from guys who are supposed to know better and way too many men left on base from teams who are supposed to be fundamentally sound. And since when is Jeff Weaver the get-you-out-of-a-jam guy in the pen?