May 19, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Sam Zell’s Nightmare Continues (10)
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
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
My Morning in ExileAll of the cool kids are on their way to the SABR convention in D.C., so I'm doing a little extra duty over at the Blue Network this morning:
I didn't want to go to SABR anyway . . .[grumble grumble grumble].
Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 12:18pm
You complain about Columbus and then want to go to Washington at the end of July? The temperature and humidity add up to 200 this time of year.
Posted 07/29 at 12:48 PM
I suspect that for every homerun the Green Monster gives to pop ups that would be warning track outs it takes aways in solidly hit line drives that would clear most left field fences but are doubles in Fenway.
I suspect Jim Rice would have had at least 50 more homeruns playing in most any other ballpark.
However, isn’t that part of the beauty of baseball as opposed to others sports with uniform dimensions for playing areas. I love the quirky designs so much more than cookie cutter era that brought us Three River(s)front Stadium.
Posted 07/29 at 01:18 PM
I’m not sure I dispute the point, but how do YOU know that the Sox brass are using the media as their instrument or that Dan Shaughnessy has long been a mouthpiece for Sox management? Given your recent little infatuation with the Red Sox, maybe you aim to take that title? Hmmm, hmm? Come to think of it, you’re becoming just as cranky with the Red Sox as CHB…that oughtta scare you.
I think the epic media beatdown Daisuke receives is due mostly to the slow news time you mentioned, and the fact that most fans, Boston’s included, don’t tolerate “divas” who don’t perform to expectations.
Posted 07/29 at 01:37 PM
I’m pretty sure the A’s have had that taboo hidden in their clubhouse for three years running.
Posted 07/29 at 01:59 PM
I’m not sure I would call Shaughnessy a mouthpiece for Sox management either because pre-2004 WS he tended to take as many opportunities as possible to rip and/or stir up the waters regarding the Sox.
If I recall correctly it was his insider information (Lucchino) article regarding the Nomar contract situation that lit the fuse that on that powder keg, resulting in his departure from Boston. Shaughnessy lost one of his old standby storylines (i.e. Curse of the Bambino) the moment Foulke tossed the ball over to Dougie M ending 86 years of drama.
Dan made a living writing about the dysfunction of the Red Sox and if he could get inside scoop that aided in the process all the better. After John Henry forced Theo and Lucchino to kiss and make up and the Red Sox won another WS it was pretty evident that Shaughnessy no longer had the Sox to kick around.
As for Craig’s focus on the Red Sox - it’s kind of like the whole Darth Vader luring Luke over to the Dark Side. Granted Luchhino called the Yankee’s the Evil Empire but the Red Sox and Yankees are just two sides of the same coin. Larry L was just cloaking himself in goodness as part of his evil and sinister plan to drag Craig into the abyss.
Posted 07/29 at 02:16 PM
And the Pedroia thread appears to be devolving into yet another typical Yankees V. Red Sox pissing contest.
Posted 07/29 at 03:14 PM
Oswalt’s back is hurt?!
*camera zooms in on necklaces*
Posted 07/29 at 03:25 PM
Wooden U. Lykteneau said...
Craig - The ballpark deal has not changed, nor has its financing. Fenty is proposing to use a revenue stream other than its intended purpose - in layman’s terms, he’s robbing Peter to pay Paul. Happens all the time in local government, most famously with school superintendents using “building maintenance” funds to pay for school supplies. Oddly enough, taxpayers will say “no” when asked to pay for new textbooks but “yes” when asked to pay for a new roof. Funny how that works.
Say what you will about borrowing money in the first place, but the fault of how the money gets paid off has nothing to do with *why* the money asked for.
Posted 07/29 at 04:48 PM
Craig Calcaterra said...
Wooden—but if they’re taking money that was to be used to service ballpark debt for something else, doesn’t that mean they aren’t servicing ballpark debt? And doesn’t that, in turn, mean that they have to pay longer, at higher rates, or with some sorts of penalties?
I don’t mean to equate it with consumer credit like that, but generally speaking, if you take your debt payments and apply them elsewhere, doesn’t your outstanding debt increase? If it didn’t, why bother ever paying off the debt at all?
Posted 07/29 at 04:53 PM
Wooden U. Lykteneau said...
Yes, that’s what it means—but the label of “ballpark” is irrelevant and misleading.
Here’s an example…
D.C. borrowed money to build a library, then incurred a library tax to pay for the library building loan, but decided to use the library tax monies for something else, it doesn’t mean it was a bad idea to build the library. It just means that the debt on the library building loan will increase.
Kevin Reichard, who runs ballparkdigest.com, has a similar love/hate relationship with public monies and stadia albeit at much smaller scale (think $15-50M vs. 500M), but has long remarked that municipalities are better positioned to take out loans than individuals or small developers because they can get a better interest rate.
Unfortunately, as we can see here, politicians are also better positioned to act irresponsibly about how that debt is paid off, because let’s face it: When the loan is finally paid off, Fenty will be a Wikipedia entry.
Posted 07/29 at 05:33 PM
Page 1 of 1
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Next Post: Bit of an afternoon in exile, too . . .>> <<Previous Post: And That Happened