Sweatin' to the oldies (b/w Steinbrenner gonna pump you up!)
Bill:
Forget about trying to figure out why the moon appeahs biggah when its on the horizon, let's talk about why the loss that ends a long win streak feels biggah …
Steve:
No kidding. Going from scoring umpteen runs a game to getting 3 hit and shut out is a sharp rejoinder. But, heh, beats the frig out of having some old nut job telling you you're not trying hard enough.
Bill:
Yeah, and I love that the wire story mentions that Steinbrenner dictated the statement to his publicist while lifting weights. Is that supposed to be scary or something?
Steve:
Yeah like we're all of a sudden going to be think he's some sort of physical Goliath and not just another one of those droopy skinned old guys haunting the gym in sweaty velour?
Bill:
I'm not sure what is more pathetic, the lifting weights image or the fact that he's delusional and doesn't realize his team can't be fixed by players trying hahdah because the Yankees are already playing up to their mediocre capabilities.
Steve:
All the wanting to win in the world and still, Tony Womack is Tony Womack.
Bill:
Yeah, but don't forget Georgie's secret weapon: the Cashman whiner line.
Steve:
Ah, of course. The Yankees' place in the standings has nothing to do with poor pitching and disastrous defense, no, it's all because of those damned dirty umps.
"You may have noticed that I have carefully avoided engaging you on this blog."
And you might not have noticed that no one really cares about who you do or not 'engage'. I say 'might not' because it's quite obvious you think that the only reason people 'engage' you here is because they are desperately trying to defend their hollow arguments from your righteous logic.
"1- You fail miserably in your attempts to present anything even vaguely resembling a point."
Coming from a guy who thinks that the first team in MLB history to blow a 3-game lead in a best-of-7 series is somehow still superior to the team that beat them, I'll take that as a compliment.
But I will grant you point #2, nowhere does that quote say anything about WHY "cheering for the Red Sox is like cheering for the Yankees". I made the mistake of assuming some logic in the writer's argument (namely, that because the Yankees only get fans for the occasional few years they field winning teams, the Red Sox newfound popularity has, at root, the same cause). There is, in fact, no logic connecting the two, and now I *really* see why you quoted it in the first place.
And dude, you can't play the "arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics" card if you're going to keep on running. And no you didn't expressly say that, and yes I'm going out on a limb by suggesting that you might have been referencing that, but I'm an optimist and I like to pretend even moronic Yankee fans can string a couple thoughts together.
A tip: when starting flame wars, don't bother trotting out the "I just can't resist" excuse, it makes you look even more insecure. Just admit you're arguing on the internet and dive right in.
Posted by: illegitimate son of dwight evans | 2005.06.28 at 05:08 PM
Careful PAWSOXPOP - You sound like somebody looking down their nose at another city!
Folks from Pawtucket look down their noses at EVERY other city, didn't you know that? Check out "Outside Providence" by the Farrelly Brothers for a great scene filmed at McCoy Stadium where the main character and his brother are trying to get into a Patriots-Jets exhibition game.
But seriously, it's curious that you quoted the Dallas Morning News. Actually Dallas Cowboy fans were probably the closest to Yankee fans in obnoxiousness during the '70s, calling themselves "America's Team" and bashing everybody over the head with Roger Staubach. But at least their cheerleaders were cuter than the Irish tenor.
Hey, maybe the Spankees should give the Irish tenor a start. He couldn't do much worse than Kevin Brown! Then maybe they could get Jello Biafra to sing "God Bless America" -- or John Doe.
Posted by: pawsoxpop | 2005.06.28 at 05:15 PM
Just want to apologize to the Soxaholix crew as a whole, I should've stayed off that juicy curveball. That felt good to type but it shouldn't have been posted.
Posted by: illegitimate son of dwight evans | 2005.06.28 at 05:22 PM
"Just want to apologize to the Soxaholix crew as a whole, I should've stayed off that juicy curveball."
No need to apologize. Whenever you see a hanging curve, you should always swing away. And those Yankee fans throw a lot of those hangers these days don't they? Almost as many as their pitching staff.
Posted by: pawsoxpop | 2005.06.28 at 05:30 PM
Oh...my...God. Have any of you people ever seen Shawshank Redemption? What am I saying, it was written by Stephen King, of COURSE you've seen it.
There's a scene where Andy Dufrain (sp?) asks the warden if he is being 'deliberatley obtuse'. I think that must be what's happening here today.
h.b - my point is NOT that it doesn't matter because Steinbrenner's pockets are so deep. My point is that as much as the SAWX have to deal with the Yankees free-spending ways so must the REST of the league deal with money the SAWX are able to spend.
Allison/NV in SD - I never said it was 'wrong' for the SAWX to spend money. What I said was this - "If you are going to point out the Yankees for spending 69% more than you while having a worse record, you should realize that there are teams out there who feel the same way about you. Namely the Nats and the WhiteSox.
Jim- You are wrong about comparisons that really matter. What matters is winning the World Series. Surely you folks know this more than anybody else. Did any of your playoff appearances of the past 86 years soothe your souls? Of course not. Because of that fact it is necessary to do comparisons against all of baseball. But, because I am one HELL of a nice guy, I'll indulge you. Let's talk AL East. The Yanks outspend the SAWX by 69%. The SAWX outspend the Orioles by 67%. You outspend the Jays and the Devil Rays by well over 100%. I eagerly await your next rationalization...
Pudge - "Winning percentage actually means jack squat, between divisions, except in the abomination known as the Wild Card" - Ahem. The WIld Card is the only FRIGGIN' reason you chowdah-heads are defending World Champs! Please put down the crack pipe, son.
Posted by: Big | 2005.06.28 at 05:44 PM
I thought last year didn't mean anything?
What's more, just like you can't compare two teams in two different divisions, you also can't compare a season with a Wild Card to one without. Who's to say we might not have won a few more games if there were no Wild Card?
I also hate interleague play, but without interleague play, all other things being equal, the Yankees would have won the division by only two games instead of three. So what? You work with what you've got, and you can't go back and say "if this had happened," because it didn't.
Just because the Yankees couldn't do jack squat when they won the very first Wild Card (and the Sox won the division), doesn't mean you have to bitter about it now.
The fact is that you can't reasonably compare the records of two teams who have drastically different schedules. It makes no sense to declare otherwise. If that means that there should be a short round-robin playoff for the second team in each division, so be it.
Posted by: pudge | 2005.06.28 at 05:58 PM
Dwight - "you can't play the "arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics" card if you're going to keep on running. And no you didn't expressly say that, and yes I'm going out on a limb"
That's not the card I was playing 'dude'. And yes you went out on a limb and yes it just snapped right out from under you. I have never had a problem admiting to arguing on the internet. And, as you can see here today, I have no problem 'diving right in'. One MFYankee fan against an entire 'nation'. Doesn't smell like insecurity to me.
And as for juicy curveballs - Even Bellhorn could smack the shit you've been hangin' out there today...
Posted by: BigBri | 2005.06.28 at 06:03 PM
BigBri: I find it hilarious that on your site, you have a post "SAWX Are Struggling," and then went 13-4, during which time you didn't post at all. Musta been a rough time for you, huh?
Since your post, Manny has been on a tear, there's been no trouble between Millar and Olerud, Foulke has given up only two ER (both in one game) in 8 games and 8.2 IP, the Sox have doubled their lead on the Yankees and taken first place ...
Any chance you can post more about how the SAWX are struggling? It did so much good the last time.
Posted by: pudge | 2005.06.28 at 06:14 PM
Thank for posting the video Pudge! That was great! I'd love to get a copy of it on a dvd if you're able... email me at YankeesSuckAssForever@yahoo.com if you can. Thanks!
Posted by: Ice Princess | 2005.06.28 at 06:14 PM
OK, many posts ago (actually it was less than 4 hours ago) were the answers to my questions. I thank you HB for your knowledge of The Randoms. Ah yes, another old punk rock fan such as myself.
And thank you Bob for reminding me of that great and appropriate Fear song. Now I have 4 anti-NY songs I can burn on a "Slappy McBlueLips Greatest Hits" CD:
FEAR: New York's Alright If You Like Saxaphones
SEX PISTOLS: New York
THE RANDOMS: Let's Get Rid of New York
THE MOLECULES: Fuck New York
Geez, why couldn't Cornrow-yo have done THOSE songs instead of the "sensitive-grunge" pap on (ugh) Covering The Bases? According to Amazon.com, customers who viewed that CD also viewed Asia, Michael Jackson, Bob Mould and Violent Femmes. (?!?)
If you want some REAL laughs, check out what other customers recommended instead or in addition to Bernie Williams' CD from two years ago: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00009VGX9/ref=pd_sbs_m_3/103-7153167-4803062?v=glance&s=music&n=507846
Posted by: scott12xu | 2005.06.28 at 07:03 PM
scott12xu, at risk of overhyping myself, I suggest you add "Johnny Got Suspended" from http://pudge.net/music/, a punk-ish cover of the classic Zambonis song. You won't regret it.
o/~ My friend Johhny got suspended for wearing a Yankees Suck t-shirt ... o/~
Posted by: pudge | 2005.06.28 at 07:08 PM
Bri, I'm not suggesting that the Red Sox aren't outspending Baltimore/Toronto/TB by a wide margin, I'm suggesting that they would be at a tremendous disadvantage with regards to finishing with a better record then the Yankees and winning the division if they didn't.
You are correct in stating that the ultimate goal is winning the world series. Let me connect the dots between my point and that goal for you. In order to win the world series, you first have to get into the playoffs. In order to get into the playoffs, you have to either win your division outright or win the wild card. In the regular season, the teams with more talent generally finish higher then teams with less talent. If the other teams in your division are spending to bolster the amount of talent they have, you had better spend too or run the risk of not having the same depth to deal with the injuries/slumps/etc that inevitably happen during the regular season.
In the playoffs anything can happen, as last year's ALCS proved in most conclusive fashion. You don't start off building your team to win a 7 game series. You start off building your team to win in the regular season. If you can't do that, you won't be playing any 7 game series. Once you think you can do that, then you start tweaking your roster so you can win in the playoffs too.
Your point was the Nats and the White Sox were doing better from a wins/$ perspective. That metric is not really relevant. What matters is making the playoffs and giving yourself a shot at a world championship. In order to do that, you have to try to win your division.
Posted by: jimindenver | 2005.06.28 at 07:49 PM
Steinbrenner working out just makes me think of Vince McMahon, which is probably not the image the Boss wants.
Posted by: Richard | 2005.06.29 at 07:14 PM