What the heart makes cloudy, the head makes very clear.
by stuart dean on Sep 23, 2009 1:06 PM EDT
85 comments
Yes I know, I reversed the lyric…
I was a Browns fan from ~ 1970 through 1994. While living in NYC from 1984-1994 I watched almost every game. This required spending a lot of time in the Sporting Club on Hudson Street and other sports bars with many like-minded folk. This took a lot of time and money (bar bills). I stopped being a Brown’s fan after the ’94 season for reasons of pure calculation. I knew the Modells and performed a cost benefit analysis weighing the amount of time and energy that I was investing in the Browns versus the odds of Art or especially David ever producing a winner. Though proven incorrect when the Modell-led Ravens won the Super Bowl, I still believe that the decision itself was soundly made. When the Browns left Cleveland a year later, I was thus insulated from the blow. I did, however, make the decision then to never come back. I haven’t gone back and you know something? I don’t miss it one little bit. I enjoy having 3-5 hours available to me on a Sunday that I otherwise would not have. I have friends that ask me to go all the time but I won’t until or unless a customer asks.
You might ask where am I going with this and why am I babbling on about it on an Indians’ blog? I am giving you this history because there is a faint wisp of an argument just now starting to percolate between my brain and my heart. The heart is kicking butt right now but the head has legitimacy on its side. The head is whispering that though I know and immensely respect the Dolans and Marc Shapiro, the system itself is too rigged for me to waste my time continuing to follow the team. Maybe I should spend that time doing charity work or learn how to basket weave because being a fan of a small market team in MLB’s current system is a fool’s errand. In order for the Indians to win a World Series, everything has to come together at the very same precise instant and then they will have to tear the team apart because they can’t afford to keep it together. Hell, Paul Dolan thinks that within the current framework that the 2004-2007 "era" was a success and he’s probably right. Am I completely wasting my time?
1 recs |
85 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I was going to try and talk you out of it, but cannot find anything to disagree with.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 23, 2009 1:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Professional football is a mechanistic game played by mutantized humans. Baseball is different, and every baseball season is filled with wonderful stories of players struggling to succeed at successively higher levels of a deceptively difficult game. As far as comparing the Indians specifically to the Browns goes, I also just don’t see the similarity between Paul Dolan and David, the idiot child, Modell, or the futility of being a Browns fan for the last forty years versus the fairly obvious successes of the Indians. Baseball is fun to watch, think about and cheer for at every level. Modern football is only compelling at the college level, and even that is sporadic.
by MTF on Sep 24, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can’t say I agree with this, but what sports I like is a completely subjective debate.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 24, 2009 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
or the futility of being a Browns fan for the lastfortyfifteen years versus the fairly obvious successes of the Indians
Fixed.
by Jay on Sep 24, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Certainly the last 15, but in reality, it is the last 40 — basically my entire lifetime. 5 seasons in the ’80’s are the aberration. When I came to this realization recently, it became obvious that Sunday afternoons would be better spent on the golf course.
by lilkeysdad on Sep 24, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If winning is a prerogative for rooting for the Browns, tell me again why you root for the Tribe instead?
by Roger Dorn on Sep 24, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strange as it sounds … is it possible the Indians have actually been more successful than the Browns over the past 40 years?
by Jay on Sep 24, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a matter of semantics when comparing futility. I love both, and they both have failed…spectacularly at times.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 24, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tribe’s been to the Big Dance twice in that period, the Browns have yet to make it to the unfortunately named Super Bowl.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 24, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Browns” going to the “Super Bowl” makes me think of the bathroom every time.
by MooneysRebellion on Sep 25, 2009 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmmm interesting debate.
Since 1969 season (when Tribe was placed in 6 team AL East), the Tribe has finished at .500 or better 15 times with 7 playoff appearances.
In same time frame, the Browns have had 17 seasons of .500 or better with 12 playoff seasons.
Of course with inequities of teams making the playoffs, that might make it a push, but the Indians teams were pretty bad throughout the 70s and 80s with no real hope of making the playoffs anyways.
I’d have to give the slight nod to the Browns.
by talonk on Sep 24, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, if all you care about is a 7 game series in october, then walk away. i, personally, enjoy the time i spend watching a game on tv, listening to it on the radio, and of course from the stands. i tend to hope they win that game and that season, but it’s still fun. i spend money to watch and enjoy movies that don’t win best picture as well.
by Brick. on Sep 23, 2009 1:26 PM EDT reply actions 6 recs
Very fair point though isn’t the centerpiece of being a fan that “hope that springs eternal”? What happens the current system removes that hope. To say “all I care about is a 7 game series in October” misses the point. The importance of the hope and the dream of a 7 game series in October cannot be under valued.
by stuart dean on Sep 23, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see both these points and embrace each equally. I love the nuances of the game and as much as being a small market fan can be frustrating, I feel that when we experience success it is more genuine, more natural than the Boston’s and NY’s. The daily game and its fickel nature keep me here on a daily basis, but amidst the long summers I let my mind wander to the day that the Indians are again World Champions. I will look around to the semi-fair weather fans around me, trying to leech on the moment, and know that while they may be excited, they will never know the joy I will be feeling, because I’ve been here all along.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 23, 2009 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I had already done the same thing. I just didn’t have the guts to post it. My “Dear John Letter” goes something like this:
Dear Indians,
After much soul searching and therapy I have come to a conclusion. I need some time apart. I just feel that I am putting in more than I am getting out of this relationship. I mean, where is this going anyway? I thought we had a common goal?
I’d like to say it not you. It’s me. But that isn’t true. It’s you. You suck me in every off-season only to dash my hopes and dreams every fall (or sooner). My friends tell me I am different when you are around. I drink more. That’s for sure. But it is ok if they don’t understand. You are MY team.
But this year is different somehow. Maybe you lost your heart (Vic) or maybe your revived fatalist attitude (Lee)… Individually, I think I could have handled it. However, added together your actions seemed so pragmatic but so cruel.
And don’t drag Akron into this. Just because my eye wonders to a winner now and again doesn’t mean I don’t still love you.
I think I just need some time. You always look better in the spring than you do in times like these. I’m sure you’ll try to win me back as you do every year. Let’s keep in touch. Just, don’t call me. I’ll call you when I’m ready.
>>>
I say there is nothing wrong with venting. ……
That seemed so much funnier in my head.
proverbial "moron in a hurry"
by 94neverout on Sep 23, 2009 1:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You should be a Pirates fan. Seriously?
"You just gotta roll with the ounches." - Clemson58YearOldMan
by emd2k3 on Sep 23, 2009 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Such fairweather fans! I am a fool. I come from a family of fools. All Cleveland Indians fans are fools. Therefore I am an Indians fan. Unlike football, I don’t have a choice.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 2:35 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
succinct and to the point. for this, I award you one rec!
by oaksterdam on Sep 23, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I personally continue to follow simply because I LOVE baseball. Played it since I was three, like many American kids. And, being born in Cleveland, I root for the Indians. Not so much because I want to see this team win, its because its baseball. Perhaps you could try talking yourself into this notion, as I have. That it doesn’t matter what the team it is, as long as its baseball. I mean, what the hell else are we going to do with an extra 8-9 months out of the year?
by MooneysRebellion on Sep 23, 2009 3:41 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Baseball is the greatest sport ever invented. There is nothing even remotely equivalent.
by odradek on Sep 23, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 6 recs
Big-rec.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 23, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I have grown older, baseball has only become more and more of a passion for me.
In fact, I watch/listen to more baseball today than I did in the 90’s when we were winning the division every year.
by Toxicadam on Sep 24, 2009 9:55 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
There is a big difference for me now in the way I watch baseball. I lived in Cleveland in the 90’s and had the fortune to attend a number of games, which I just don’t have access to anymore. To compensate for this, I watch way more games on TV now and follow the team closely on the internet. I do really miss going to Indians games though, and wish that I could catch more than a 1-2 each year.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 24, 2009 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Without a doubt. 162 games is a burden, but it is a sweet, sweet burden.
by APV on Sep 24, 2009 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Imagine if the financial playing field was even somewhat level. From an MLB perspective, wouldn’t overall attendance go up?
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Sep 26, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s some controversy about that. Attendance would go up, I think that’s basically a given. But overall revenue might not go up. A winning team boosts local TV revenue (indirectly, through ratings for 162 games) as well as home attendance (for 81 games). In larger markets, however, it appears that since the overall revenue scale is larger, the boost is proportionately larger as well.
So there is a theory that says that total MLB revenue is higher under a system that favors teams in the largest TV markets. The counter-argument is that (a) the effect doesn’t seem to be enormous, and (b) it’s a strategic blunder in that “hope and faith” are systematically decimated in the other 22 to 25 markets, creating a situation that will yield lower revenue overall over the long run.
by Jay on Sep 26, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, what a contrast in styles!
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 26, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Possibly, but why would the Steinbrenner Spawn give a rats ass? They’re raking it in with both paws while the likes of the Indians and Royals are selling pencils on the street corner.
I don’t see revenue sharing coming any time soon. First the ML clubs would hafta come to a super-majority agreement. That ain’t gonna happen. And what would the media tdo if in baseball, unlike football and basketball, the New York or LA clubs weren’t in the hunt every year? How could they draw the ratings numbers if the Brewers played the Royals in the WS?
Nope, all the money guys want at least one Boston/NY/LA/Chi team in the championship game every year. How’s that gonna happen if the playin’ field is level?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 26, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fact is, the World Series has crap rating regardless of who’s in it. Baseball is a game that garners massive interest everywhere in the country, but more than the NBA or NFL, the vast majority of folks are really only interested in their own team. Thus we have over 200 major and minor league clubs, nearly all of them thriving in their towns, but by and large, the fans of more than 90% of those clubs don’t really care about the World Series in any given year.
Local revenue is where it’s at. That is both baseball’s problem and its solution. Make a strategic decision to favor local fans’ interests over a national perspective, and everything will work out better. Nobody cares about your Spider-Man movie promo or Dane Cook, nobody cares about your “beyond baseball” national ads or whatever crapola they’ll do next year. They care about the hometown team, period.
by Jay on Sep 26, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
So we’re back to: who ya think generates the most local revenue, the Yankees or the Pirates? There ya go. Lots more gold to be mined in NYC than Pittsburgh. So if they share gate reciepts and TV revenue who benefits the most – why the little guy of course. Again the Steinbrenner Spawn will not stand for this. Hank or Henry or Hannibal or one of those other Steinbrenner stronzi will hold his breath and stamp his feet or whatever the hell it is that they do at those league meetings until everybody forgets about revenue sharing.
There’s a reason we’re fed a steady diet of BoSox and Yankees on TV and in ain’t just cuz they’re good. But then again, they’re good cuz of the imbalance. It’s a vicious circle and the only way to break it is unappealing to the folks callin’ the shots.
Bottom line: don’t hold your breath. The status quo has way too much inertia to change.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 26, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Substantial strides were made in revenue sharing for the last CBA, which was approved by club owners 29 to 1. The Yankees complained a lot but were powerless to do anything about it.
Imbalance has gotten worse, now, and still open is the question, if they got 29 votes for that proposal, how drastic a proposal could they push through and still get a 20-vote super-majority?
“Will not stand for it” is a phrase without legal significance. Either you have the hammer, or you don’t. The Yankees don’t.
by Jay on Sep 26, 2009 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I dunno. If they came down to playin’ chicken I’ll bet that the New York doofus’s would threaten to start their own league. There’s presedence for this you know.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 26, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I say, let ’em start their own league. See who comes.
by Jay on Sep 27, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I should add: the steady diet of BoSox-Yanks is overwhelmingly a creation of ESPN, which is essentially a monopoly in terms of national sports broadcasting. Monopolies create perverse incentives and warped decision-making processes.
If there were two or three players in that space, we might well see one entity or another compete with a very different programming mix. Maybe ESPN is maximizing their profits, but maybe they’re wrong.
by Jay on Sep 26, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, maximizing profits by maximizing their ratings.
by TribeJay on Sep 26, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But without competition, we don’t really know if they are maximizing their ratings, and again, achieving short-term ratings and building a long-term audience are not the same thing.
by Jay on Sep 26, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly. Your point above about local revenues sums it up. I don’t think the current model is sustainable. If most of the fans don’t really have hope, they will find something else to do with their time. It may take 20 or 30 or maybe 50 years, but people will lose interest at some point.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Sep 26, 2009 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They all ready have.
What’s America’s past time? Why football of course. Who’s closin’ the gap on baseball? Basketball – and they’re arguably ahead of baseball right now.
Nope the morons that run baseball – and Selig is leading the parade of stramaledetti cacasodi – think that it’s the economy – or a changing social demographic – or global warming – or Martian mind-rays – that’s causing the shrinking number of baseball fans. They’re just too goddam stupid to realize the their real enemy is themselves.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 26, 2009 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And yeah, I know that baseball atendence is up almost every year. But when polled, pro football finishes first and baseball second in popularity. But the number of folks who say baseball is their favorite sport has gone down 33% since 1985! And stock car racing – stock car racing! – has 2/3s as many fans as baseball! Stock car racing for God’s sakes!
Lord, I pray for my country.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 26, 2009 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Give it up and move to Canada, where they could give a rat’s arse about Nascar.
by odradek on Sep 27, 2009 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but they loooooove hockey.
"But people are stupid, and their memories are short." - FredOx
by woodsmeister on Sep 28, 2009 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the trouble is, people don’t tend to react until a real crisis develops. I think it will take several small or mid-market clubs to actually fail before this group would take any action. Hopefully I am way off base on this.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Sep 27, 2009 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks guys – that thread is the conversation that I was hoping to kick start…
by stuart dean on Sep 27, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball makes money because people are willing to pay to watch, so maximizing revenue is about entertaining the maximum number of people. Real fans appreciate a well played game, but the casual fan loses interest when the games stop being meaningful. It shouldn’t be surprising that the owners and players union are OK with a system that gives the teams with the most fans an edge.
Some revenue sharing is good for the game since even Yankee fans might get bored if their team never lost. A system where every team has an equal chance would end up with a lot of disinterested people in big markets, and ESPN who shells out big bucks for multi-year broadcast rights wouldn’t be as likely to risk paying as much.
I don’t really know what the optimum amount of revenue sharing is, but I suspect it isn’t too far from the current system.
This thesis seemed easier to agree with in 2007 than in 2009.
by Pa tribefan on Sep 27, 2009 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, Jay, I think I mis-read your comment about competition. I was talking baseball, and you were talking media.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Sep 27, 2009 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was specifically talking about all the Yankee-Red Sox games. They show them so often because they are trying to maximize their ratings. I understand your point about the difference you described and agree with you.
by TribeJay on Sep 28, 2009 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, can’t wait for four hour games of yanks-sawx in october. with buck and mccarver. sounds great! blech.
by macasson on Sep 28, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Turn down the sound and listen on the radio. I have no idea who’s doing radio, but I guarantee it’s better than those two clowns.
by odradek on Sep 28, 2009 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Listening to fingernails on a chalkboard in dining room filled with knives scraping on empty plates while holding a microfiber cloth would be better than those two.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 28, 2009 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clearly you’ve never heard Susyn Waldman do a game her partner in crime, John Sterling. But then she did supply me with one of my all-time favorite baseball moments.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 28, 2009 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have, but they wouldn’t let those two buffoons within 50 yards of a microphone for national radio. In the old days they’d have Vin Scully or Ernie Harwell, or Jerry Coleman. Lately it’s been guys like John Rooney—undistinguished but generally not annoying.
That Waldman routine makes me smile every time I hear it.
by odradek on Sep 29, 2009 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I loathe John Sterling.and his on-air “servicing” of Derek Jeter, I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Susyn Waldman…
by stuart dean on Sep 29, 2009 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two Sterling home runs calls for you:
“A Tex message from Mark Texeria!”
“An A-BOMB for A-Rod!”
by Roger Dorn on Sep 29, 2009 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
She has four writers on staff to come up with lines like that.
by odradek on Sep 29, 2009 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it matters what you need from watching a sport or what you expect to extract from watching a sport. Most people simply cannot and refuse to have an enjoyable time knowing that a chance of success is slim. These folk associate sport to bottom line thinking in which the opportunity to succeed must exist in some significant way. The act of succeeding is the part that comforts them.
Many sports fans, probably not most, see beauty in the performing of that activity and the struggle that it symbolizes. The outcome is important, but the reward is in the viewing. There’s nothing superior about either type of fan. Each type thinks they know something the other doesn’t get.
by elsandito on Sep 23, 2009 3:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Most people simply cannot and refuse to have an enjoyable time knowing that a chance of success is slim.
And yet, an average of 22,338 persons have attended Kansas City Royals games so far this season.
"But people are stupid, and their memories are short." - FredOx
by woodsmeister on Sep 23, 2009 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Royals draw more than the Indians because the Royals are more likely to win.
by Matt in LA on Sep 23, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They actually draw more than the Indians because they have not disappointed anyone too much.
by Jay on Sep 23, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please let me know how many days total the Royals have been ahead of the Indians lets say in the past 15 years.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 23, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually find this stat kind of sad. As a fan, shouldn’t you WANT to have chance to win? Are baseball parks becoming amusement parks?
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Sep 27, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a great point. But I think most sports fans are actually less focused on the primacy of winning than you describe.
Most European soccer teams have almost literally no chance of beating out the Real Madrids and Chelseas for a league title; this doesn’t stop fans from passionately supporting Hull City or Calcio Catania or whatever. And think of the millions of people who attend college football or basketball games each year in this country to support teams that have zero chance of winning a national championship.
I’d say most sports fans at least sometimes fit into your second category.
by still ill on Sep 23, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t care if they win or not, they’re my team, my dad’s team, my brother’s team. Wins and losses aren’t the biggest point here.
by fwembt on Sep 23, 2009 9:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Indians don’t seem to treat you that much worse than your brother anyway.
by Jay on Sep 23, 2009 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Indians haven’t come close to the sort of suffering my brother imposed.
Chugga-chugga chugga-chugga, Choo Choo!
by USSChoo on Sep 23, 2009 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve got three, or six or seven, depending on how you count.
by Jay on Sep 24, 2009 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m an excellent counter, if that helps.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 24, 2009 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m with you a 100% on this one, fwembt.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 23, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tried to write about why I love the Indians but it just came out sappy and maudlin. So I’ll just cut to the chase. There’s something about the shared experience with other Tribe fans and their depth of emotions that draws me to Tribe. No fanciful event compares – outside of real life tragedy – with the misery of watching your club drop 11 straight. But it makes it so much sweeter when you take three outta four from the Yankees to eliminate them for the year.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 25, 2009 6:14 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Very true. Getting Torre fired, the last game playoff game at the old Yankee Stadium being a loss….all so so sweet.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 25, 2009 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also! The last game of Roger Clemens’s career, getting knocked out in the third.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 25, 2009 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
MARONE, I wonder if enjoying ruining other team’s seasons puts us on a level with Star Tek groupies?
by elsandito on Sep 25, 2009 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No Dude, when down like this we’re more like the baseball equivalent of the Viet Minh.
Indian’s fans invented * schadenfreude before the Germans did.
\SHOD-n-froy-duh\ , noun:
1.A malicious satisfaction obtained from the misfortunes of others.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Sep 25, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you kidding? Sports fans are far more obsessive than Trekkies.
by Jay on Sep 26, 2009 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m afraid it puts on par with Boston College fans.
Il faut d'abord durer.
by CU Adam on Sep 26, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice effort against the vaunted Purdue Boilermakers.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 27, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I got married this weekend.
Our first date was at the Jake in 04. We cemented our relationship in 2005 with our late season push. We got engaged in heritage park on opening day 2008. This team has been an obsession of mine since the days of Doug Jones, Brook Jacoby, and Rich Yett.
Before we had to leave Cleveland to find work, we were exactly the fans who would go down to the Jake just because they were playing.
I’m done until MLB gets a hard salary cap. So is she. Being a fan of the Indians in the current system just hurts too much. I don’t see a sunny horizon coming any time soon.
So if they have lost me, what help is there for the casual fan?
by NatiTribeFan on Sep 29, 2009 12:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We are two years removed from nearly winning the World Series, four years removed from another great season. I’m sorry, but you sound just like the casual fan.
by fwembt on Sep 29, 2009 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this going to be your signature post, and you’re going to see how many threads you can get it into?
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by junkballer on Sep 29, 2009 1:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In his defense, it seems like he posted this just minutes before Ryan’s front-page post and realized that was a better place for it.
by Jay on Sep 29, 2009 8:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i told the story at work this moring as if it were my own.
by Brick. on Sep 29, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Sweet Baboo
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
