Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: MLB postseason scores, schedules and blog coverage Bar-right-arrows

Poop or fried chicken: Yankees have tentative deal with first baseman Sexson

Really? Before Bonds?

Link 2 months ago Pic25-niyazov_tiny Turkmenbashi Comment 152 comments 1 recs |

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

That was EXACTLY my comment.

The only place Bonds WOULDN’T be a distraction to the team is in NY.

by Toxicadam on Jul 17, 2008 3:24 PM EDT   0 recs

Sexson’s hitting .344 against lefties this year? Holy crap.

I do hate you, sir, for sending me to that page, whereupon I was led to this image:

by FredOx on Jul 17, 2008 3:29 PM EDT   0 recs

What’s the story here? I don’t even know who’s moustache that is. Buckner?

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 17, 2008 4:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Why does his hat have a C on it?

by afh4 on Jul 17, 2008 4:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It’s the 1982 All-Star game. Eckersley was the starter, but didn’t bring a batting helmet, so he borrowed a Cleveland one. There’s actually a long history of players wearing the wrong helmet:

More here. I love Uni Watch.

by FredOx on Jul 17, 2008 4:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Uni Watch is awesome

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 17, 2008 4:21 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Fun article. Thx!

by JulioBernazard on Jul 17, 2008 5:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think NY would go crazy (in a bad way) if they signed Bonds. They’re quasi rebuilding anyway, so I wouldn’t see the purpose of the signing. The Rays, on the other hand, should totally hit that.

by Joe. on Jul 17, 2008 4:09 PM EDT   0 recs

I think we can safely conclude that MLB is colluding against Barry Bonds.

by gte619n on Jul 17, 2008 4:54 PM EDT   1 recs

OMG, I just lost it at my cubicle

recrecrecrecrec

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 17, 2008 5:14 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

yeah, but in this case everybody’s already got poop in their mouth.

also this particular turd is very good at hitting baseballs.

by still ill on Jul 17, 2008 5:20 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

and this is an example of the media and/or fan trying to convince the rest of us that we should really be eating poop because it tastes good.

by Brick. on Jul 17, 2008 5:40 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Jason Davis is a good example of a guy who might try to make you eat poop.

by afh4 on Jul 17, 2008 5:50 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

eat it or i throw this at you. eat it. EAT IT!

by Brick. on Jul 17, 2008 5:54 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Nice work here, Brick. I might just pour myself a tumbler of Boodles tonight and toast ya.

by fleerdon on Jul 17, 2008 8:53 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Richie Sexon, by all possible measures, sucks at hitting baseballs. Barry Bonds, by all appreciable measures, is awesome at hitting baseballs. He’s also better defensively. Does he have some baggage? Sure, but not so much baggage that the Yankees would go, “oh well, I know there’s this guy over here with a .480 OBP and some defensive value, but shoot, let’s just take the one dimensional wind machine with at 315 instead,” unless there was collusion going on.

If anything, Richie Sexon is the poop. Barry Bonds would be like a snickers bar on the floor without the wrapper.

by gte619n on Jul 17, 2008 7:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If the metaphor had been a turd in the pool instead of the floor, then a Baby Ruth would’ve been more appropriate.

by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 17, 2008 9:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Baby Ruth, huh? Works on so many levels.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 18, 2008 10:03 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

This is just a terrible metaphor. There are zero, or at least very little desirable qualities about poop. There are, however, lots of nice qualities about Mr. Bonds, most importantly, OBP. Now, I don’t think the signing of Richie Sexson necessarily proves anything, but the whole thing seems a little funny.

by ClarkM on Jul 17, 2008 7:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Agreed.

It’s more like, there’s a big bucket of fried chicken in the middle of the room. And one by one, 30 different guys proclaim: “That is not a bucket of fried chicken, that is a pile of poop.”

It’s fried chicken, damn it. And fried chicken is awesome, even if it isn’t all that good for you.

by Jay on Jul 17, 2008 11:24 PM EDT to parent up   1 recs

I’m recing this too. Awesome.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 18, 2008 10:04 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

How many fan bases would accept a Barry signing? Exactly one—SF.

So, while this may be chicken and be awesome, it’s going to make your breath smell like shizz and cause people (aka fans) to stay well away from you.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 11:05 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Here’s another question: How many stadiums would sell out their play-off games with Barry on the team?

My guess: 30

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 18, 2008 12:01 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Plenty of teams don’t sell out their playoff games now. I doubt Fried Chicken Man would change that.

by FredOx on Jul 18, 2008 12:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Agreed. AZ had lots of trouble, didn’t they?

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 12:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think that is just totally off-base.

Any team that signs Bonds is going to have fans that are mostly ecstatic and only a little ambivalent — and the players will be enitrely ecstatic. And very suddenly, there’s going be a dozen other teams wondering, wait a second … why didn’t we do that?

Fans rationalize. We rooted for Belle and Mesa, and Bonds is certainly no bigger a cretin than those guys. After two games with him in the lineup, 99% of fans would be totally turned around on this.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 12:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

players will be enitrely ecstatic

Have you read anything about what this dude’s like in the locker room? Don’t forget that a team has to practically live with any new guy they bring in. I’m sure that’s a big factor as to why GMs are turning away from Bonds.

Bonds is a bigger cretin nation-wide than Belle or Mesa ever were. Fans forgive cheating, ruining the game, and lying far less easily than they do bad non-baseball-related behavior.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 12:50 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Intentionally throwing at a guy every time you face him is non-baseball-related behavior?

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 18, 2008 1:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I was thinking more of the butt-grabbing or whatever he did, which is not excusable at all, but seems to have largely been forgotten.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 1:27 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think “fans” in general don’t see it quite the way that you do.

I think if you ask all the players if they’d like to have Bonds on their team, warts and all, well over 90%, possibly 99%, would say HELL YES RIGHT THE F NOW without hesitation. They may not like everything about him, either his reputation or his clubhouse presence, but on balance, they want him on the roster.

Lots of guys are a pain in the ass in the clubhouse, but none of the others hit like Bonds. And the players understand better than anyone that Bonds largely has been targeted and scapegoated, that he’s borne far more than his fair share of the heat for the terrified silent majority of players who engaged in one PED or another.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 1:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

We’ll never know about the players, but I think you’ve completely misread the country’s mood on Bonds. He is universally hated.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 1:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t hate him. Plus, he walked 132 times last year. A .480 OBP.

If Barry had played for the Yankees or the Red Sox, there’d be a bit more love for him. He’s at a disadvantage having played in SF and Pitt.

by odradek on Jul 18, 2008 8:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

yeah I dunno about fans’ attitudes towards Bonds. It’s clear that a lot of folks here wouldn’t like him, despite this being a more intelligent, stat-driven community. A quick visit to the ESPN message boards - which I think are probably pretty representative of the huddled masses of baseball fandom - and you’ll find little to no love for Bonds, and some just outright hatred.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 18, 2008 1:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

That’s part of my point: besides being hated by a large swath of the general populace, he’s also particularly hated by sports fans and baseball lovers (ya know—the folks who buy tickets).

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 2:49 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

There’s a big difference between fans in general and fans of the team that just signed Barry Bonds.

When Mark Ecko did his vote756 thing, about a third of the voters said that the ball should be sent to the HOF with no mark on it. This may seem like an incredibly low number, but I believe that it’s quite high. Those who hate Bonds were substantially motivated to go and vote for the asterisk (“screw that guy forever”) or for shooting it into space (“I’m sick of the whole thing”). Those who don’t hate him would not be very motivated to find the site at all.

In short, the vote shows that for all the several million people who despise Bonds, half that many are motivated to defend him vehemently — and many more than either group aren’t moved all that much one way or another.

Put it to another way: Among “the folks that buy the tickets,” I believe the vast majority of them are far more concerned with having a winning team than with hating Barry Bonds. In fact, I think it’s not even close.

And one final thought: There is simply no precedent for a truly great player coming to a new team and being rejected before he even gets to play. Fan bases hate players for disappointing them on the field — and sometimes off — but Bonds would be unlikely to do either for a new team.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 3:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

here is simply no precedent for a truly great player coming to a new team and being rejected before he even gets to play.

Um, Shane Spencer ring a bell?

by Brick. on Jul 18, 2008 4:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Those who don’t hate him would not be very motivated to find the site at all.

Sure they were, considering that the ball’s future depended on the vote. Using your parentheses quotes, it would be something like (“gotta protect my guy and get the ball in the HoF unsullied.”)

Even though I put no stock in Internet polls whatsoever, the 10MM count does provide some legitimacy to the numbers.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 4:50 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

My point is that even Bonds’ fans are not vehement about it. There are far more people who are vehemently against Bonds than vehemently for him — but that doesn’t necessarily mean that most people are against him.

What’s funny is that you’re failing to grasp this point, even though you are the living embodiment of it. You are by far the most vehement person in this thread, and you can’t stand Bonds. Those who don’t care or are supportive of him aren’t giving it nearly the energy that you are.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 8:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m a good example of someone who doesn’t care and isn’t participating.

Oh. Shoot.

by afh4 on Jul 18, 2008 8:13 PM EDT to parent up   1 recs

WARNING: EXTREMELY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE
I thought we were against those around here. Of about six guys posting on this topic, one is “vehement” and the others are not. Logic (and this mini-thread) has gone off the rails.

Bonds’s defenders are not vehement (because you say so), but those against him are (because you say so). The third of voters who defended Bonds are naifs who happened to stumble on the vote756 site out of naivete, while those who voted to mark the ball are caustic crazies. Puh-leeze.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 19, 2008 9:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

For god’s sake, someone post a poll already.

by supermarioelia on Jul 19, 2008 11:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I never said the population commenting here proves anything, only that it happens to be representative (in my view) of the overall population of baseball fans on this subject.

I’ll be blunt. You’re blind with rage on this subject.

by Jay on Jul 20, 2008 10:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Just trying to parse your logic, and having trouble with it. No rage here.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 21, 2008 12:04 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I didn’t mean rage towards me, I meant rage towards Bonds.

People who are strongly emotional about an issue often vastly overestimate the percentage of other people who feel the same way.

Haven’t you ever been at a party and gotten into a conversation with someone you just met about, oh, say, abortion, or the 2000 election, and every word that comes out of his/her mouth reflects the expectation that everyone else agrees with whatever they’re saying?

Well … that’s how you are with Bonds. But unlike those two hypothetical subjects, there are very few people who strongly believe that Bonds is a great guy and should be defended to the hilt, so the conversation ends up way out of balance — like Ecko’s balloting.

This is also one of the main reasons we don’t talk politics here!

by Jay on Jul 21, 2008 4:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Here are examples of your making an emotional argument rather than a reasoned argument, and of your broad assumption that almost everyone agrees with your strong feelings about this.

How many fan bases would accept a Barry signing? Exactly one—SF.

“I really hate Bonds, and so does everyone else outside of SF.”

So, while this may be chicken and be awesome, it’s going to make your breath smell like shizz and cause people (aka fans) to stay well away from you.

“I really hate Bonds, and so does everyone else.”

Have you read anything about what this dude’s like in the locker room? Don’t forget that a team has to practically live with any new guy they bring in. I’m sure that’s a big factor as to why GMs are turning away from Bonds.

“Every available piece of evidence points to Bonds being a horrible person who should not be playing.”

Bonds is a bigger cretin nation-wide than Belle or Mesa ever were.

“I really hate Bonds, and so does everyone else.”

Fans forgive cheating, ruining the game, and lying far less easily than they do bad non-baseball-related behavior.

“I consider Bonds a cheater first and foremost, and I consider cheating to be the worst thing in a baseball player — except for doctoring the baseball, which is okay — and so does everyone else.”

That’s part of my point: besides being hated by a large swath of the general populace, he’s also particularly hated by sports fans and baseball lovers (ya know—the folks who buy tickets).

“I really hate Bonds, and so does everyone else.”

by Jay on Jul 21, 2008 4:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The initial question was why Big Sexsy was signed ahead of Bonds. I added several real-world possibilities as to why GMs were passing on BB that did not include collusion.

Let’s smoke a peace pipe on this one and move on to other topics.

by JulioBernazard on Jul 22, 2008 11:42 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The people who voted in defense of him did so to justify their love of him. If a crap load of people voted in a poll on Hafner being washed up and they said he was washed up, I would vote against that because I love the guy. I would have tons of motivation to go and vote. I would need to prove everyone else wrong about him with my vote.

LGT's resident beer connaisseur.

by LGT Patrick on Jul 18, 2008 7:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well the whole pole would be useless, cuz the only one that can prove that Hafner is not washed up is Hafner.

Same with Bonds, if he comes out and hits like I think he can, the baseball fans in the city his playing in will love him. Every body else might hate him, but f’em – if he’s playing in Cleveland.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 18, 2008 9:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

And Rocker.

by supermarioelia on Jul 18, 2008 2:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

the up button was helpful here.

by Brick. on Jul 18, 2008 2:21 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think you meant “The up button is helpful. The above post is a good example of this.”

by NickFantana on Jul 18, 2008 4:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

the up button is like brandon phillips.

by Brick. on Jul 18, 2008 5:08 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Perfect example. Rocker was greeted with skepticism but generally not rejected by Cleveland fans. They kept buying tickets and they cheered him — when he was good.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 8:09 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Even when he was terrible. He was relegated to mop up duty by the playoffs, but when he entered the game in the ninth inning of game 3 against the M’s, the crowd went berserk.

by Roger Dorn on Jul 19, 2008 2:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

you’re focussing on the wrong part of the metaphor. switch out poop for grilled chees sandwich you dropped in a puddle on the ground. there’s still some calories and flavor to be had. shoot, might even be on multigrain bread. piont is, you don’t need to get all the people in the bar on a conference call and agree not to eat the sandwich so that no one eats it. people will probably decide on their own they’d rather eat something else even if it means they have to have it on white bread.

by Brick. on Jul 17, 2008 11:27 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i was thinking it was more like if someone pooped on a scrunched-up $100 bill and left the resulting conglomerate sitting on the floor. most people would leave that alone. but somebody is probably going to pick it up.

and it would seem even more likely that someone would pick it up if:
A) most of them already have poop on their hands and
B) they’re all in a contest to see which of them can field the most productive, successful wallet full of bills.

...unless everyone’s made a collective decision to get out of the poop-handling business.

obviously we’ve taken this too far, though. it’s really more like chicken.

by still ill on Jul 18, 2008 3:54 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

obviously i’m mostly having fun with this. but i really don’t think there’s collusion in the truest sense. we’ve had the discussion before, but up until recently bonds wanted more than the minimum which changed things. now no team out of contention is going to bother. to me, Barry’s a DH, so the NL is out. as is any team with an entrenched DH like say the white sox, etc. there will be teams that won’t want to mess with the circus. how many teams does that leave really, 2, 1? if that team does exists, if, i doubt they’re holding back because all the owners previsouly agreed ‘don’t touch.’

by Brick. on Jul 18, 2008 10:00 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

What do you mean by WHITE bread?!

/stephenasmith

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jul 18, 2008 11:10 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Can the Yankees file this as a charitable expense and reduce their luxury-tax penalty?

by jhon on Jul 17, 2008 9:50 PM EDT   0 recs

$150K would get lost in the rounding for them

by palcal on Jul 18, 2008 12:52 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

BONDS = FRIED CHICKEN.

THREAD CLOSED

by gte619n on Jul 18, 2008 8:13 AM EDT   0 recs

He may be fried chicken, but he’s a freaky genetically-modified featherless chicken.

by FredOx on Jul 18, 2008 10:23 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I hereby rename this the “Pile of Poop” thread. Ryan or Jay, could you take care of changing that title for us?

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Jul 18, 2008 8:20 AM EDT   0 recs

Somewhat.

It would be interesting to have dynamic thread titles, so that they morph as the discussion develops.

by Jay on Jul 18, 2008 10:58 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

we’d have some doozys, that’s for sure.

by Brick. on Jul 18, 2008 11:08 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Given certain members’ personal propensity for using “POOP” I suspect every thread would become a thread of POOP.

by FredOx on Jul 18, 2008 11:20 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I love mimizing this, and still having “Poop or fried chicken…” show up on the Taskbar.

[I work on a PC] :(

by JulioBernazard on Jul 18, 2008 2:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Compromise accepted.

-Erik

by drerikbrady on Jul 18, 2008 5:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I wouldn’t want Bonds to be the reason my team won a championship, but I also wouldn’t want CC or any other difference maker that I picked up at the last minute to be the reason. It’s one thing to pick up a role player like Lofton, who may contribute a clutch performance, it’s a whole other thing to rent a superstar.

by elsandito on Jul 18, 2008 11:26 AM EDT   0 recs

I won’t give a hot damn who was the reason my team won a championship. Hell, we could sign Osama ben Ladin to DH and if he OPSed 1.100 and drove in the winning run offa CC in the 9th of game seven I’d be the first one to carry him around the Jake on my shoulders.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Jul 18, 2008 12:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Have to agree, I don’t care how they do it, just give me one championship. That’s all I ask

by Roger Dorn on Jul 18, 2008 12:34 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It pains me to know this. Why not just send MLB a big check for the trophy and don’t bother to play the games? I believe we fans have to have a sense of identity to our own players. At least the marquee names.

by elsandito on Jul 18, 2008 2:34 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs