Centerfield

DAMNYANKEES.

That is all one word, in caps, correct?

Remember:

Yankees '05 payroll $208m
Red Sox $123m
O's $73m
Blue Jays $45m
Devil Rays $29m

It's truly pathetic it took them this long to get to first.

Should someone's political beliefs determine whether or not they own a professional baseball franchise?

You betcha. A true communist should not be allowed to own anything. ;-)

I guess the Yankees are just one more Evil Empire that I support.

I'll stick by my sentiment that the sox could go 0-162 this season and it wouldn't bother me a bit. I am actually leaning towards hoping the Red Sox don't trade their best prospects on a half-season rental. The bottom line is that, unless Schilling can return to be their top of the rotation ace, their starting pitching is not good enough to win during the postseason. And if Schilling can't do this, it wil be because of the damage he incurred helping us win the world series. So if you thought it was worth it then, you gotta stick to your guns.

The Yankees are in first, but this is reflection of the unexpected parity on the AL, not Yankee power. The yankees still have big worries. They have 2 solid starters who have not been outstanding, and everyone else is pure question mark (although I really like Al Leiter, he didn't surprise me Sunday). They really need a centerfielder. Word is that cementhead Eric Byrnes is on the way, he'd be a perfect fit tempermentally, but he's not a centerfielder. He has a tendency to go after balls too aggressively and then get into trouble, which IMO is tolerable in a corner outfielder but not a CF.

I think the AL will go into the last month with as many as 4 or 5 teams still contending for the 2 spots of AL east crown and wild card: NYY, Boston, Baltimore, Minnesota, and even the Rangers, A's and Indians might still be in the mix. Even the Tigers are decent.

I could care less which millionaire can line up enough buddies to put in the fix for ownership of the Nationals. If you ask me, any dough the city kicks in to help teams out (like for a big money stadium) should be part of a deal for partial ownership by the city and thus the people. The dough DC is ponying up is IMO a disgrace, talk about corporate welfare.

Good point on DC Brian, I concur.

I could care less which millionaire can line up enough buddies to put in the fix for ownership of the Nationals. If you ask me, any dough the city kicks in to help teams out (like for a big money stadium) should be part of a deal for partial ownership by the city and thus the people. The dough DC is ponying up is IMO a disgrace, talk about corporate welfare.

Huzzah, and a man after my heart. "Sports" subsidies for millionaires coming from the taxpayers are one of my favorite vintage whines.

Ok, how many fantasy baseball guys do we have here? I'm in 2 keeper leagues.

Actually true communism does include out and out ownership of personal assets.(It's the anarchists who probably never read a page of Kapital who are against private property, but then again they ARE anarchists.) Of course it provides a socio-political framework for the workers to organize and own the means of production. This has worked with varying degrees of success and failure just like capitalist enterprises. Very few businesses that started in California in the 1950's exist today. In 1972 a clothing shop owner in Arcata, bragged to me that out of 200-odd businesses that started in California the same year he did (1957?) his was the only one left. Several Bay Area worker owned enterprises from the 70's, Missing Link Bike Shop and Good Vibrations, are examples of very successful worker-owned businesses. Ideology is not necessarily a determinant in success or failure.

Now one would think that major league players, many of whom enjoy rather large salaries, would get together and start buying up teams. Take the profits for themselves, etc.
Except for one thing. Who wants the headache of being a team owner? Not many. You want to negotiate with the likes of Bonds or bail out troublemakers like Wilson, Canseco, etc.?
The ballplayers know their own people quite well, too well enough to avoid the pitfalls of ownership by not being owners. MLB is safe from the communist threat.

Meanwhile, Davis should take a stresstab, chill out and let the free market he supports in words continue on without his actions.

The Giants took 3 out of 4 from the lowly Dodgers over the weekend. That's good enough for me.

I hate the Yankees.
I hate the Yankees.
I hate the Yankees.
I hate the Yankees.

True communism posits universal "ownership" of all assets of economic production via the state with the population as the "owners" of the society, Marcus. As an economic "means of production" (producer of profits) a sports team doesn't qualify as a "personal asset" under Marx/Engels communism. It's a communal one. When all own everything equally, no one owns anything. Except that in practice, of course, some are "more equal" than others, as Orwell noted so clearly.

What you describe are egalitarian worker's cooperatives, a form of democratic socialistic capitalism. While Marx and Engels give the model some weight as a requisite transitional form in achieving a communist society, they are not "communism."

I hate the Yankees too, Carla. DAMNYANKEES.

Shhh...Tully.

We don't want anyone to know that we have common ground. It will wreck our combatative facade.

:)

Heard yesterday on NPR that Davis's threat may have more to do with MLB's slow/weak response to steroid abuse than Soros's politics. Also the story pointed out that threatening MLB's anti-trust exemption is a regular ritual.

Oh yeah; forgot to mention. I grew up in upstate NY and was a Yankee's fan (during the bad "Horace Clark" days). Lost interest after Steinbrenner took over. BUT as a New Yorker (even an upstater) I will NEVER like the Red Sox.

In practice in a communist state, the Boston Red Sox fans would never lay claim to any kind of ownership of the Yankees. Closest thing we have to community ownership of a pro team is the Green Bay Packers, current holders of 12 chanmpionships.

Queue time for season's tickets.... 35 years.

35 years? Ouch!!!

I put in for Broncos season tickets the year I moved to Denver. I was still on the waiting list when I moved away a decade later. I don't think I moved up that much, but I'm pretty sure the wait was under 35 years. But the ticket rights weren't inheritable, so there was always natural attrition!

(I won't tell if you won't, Carla.;-X )

All of this hatred towards the Yankees! My grandmother was originally from upstate NY and I grew up watching them with her. I've always bucked the "Every Southerner is a Braves Fan" trend.

We talked about the whole Soros thing a month or so ago. It's just an example of a Congressman whose opinion of himself is grossly inflated. Nothing will come of it.

As far as the corporate welfare goes, my hometown of Jacksonville has shelled out tens of millions for our on-again, off-again Jacksonville Jaguars. After building them a new stadium in 1997, we found ourselves shelling over tax dollars for an upgrade about 4 years later, only to learn the Super Bowl was coming to town--an event that cost us another $10 million or so in taxpayers subsidies. But, we just keep ponying it up. (Of course, I have a much more "realistic" description, but I won't go there on a family board.)

The last session of the Florida Legislature saw Miami once again trying to weasel state money out of Tallahassee to pay for another new stadium. Fortunately, Jeb seems to have an aversion to funding sports arenas, so they failed. But, they never give up...

I think I've mentioned often enough that I'm a much bigger fan of college baseball than pro. Of course, the Royals suck, and I'm barely a mile from Eck Stadium/Tyler Field. And college ball is played in the srping, when it's NOT a hundred degrees in the shade.

Yeah, flyover country is sure not a place for day baseball in July and August. I have the utmost sympathy for would-be Royals fans, and am an advocate for imposing a salary cap to foster more parity. It strikes me as ludicrous that baseball expects people to root loyally for teams with no shot and no reason for hope over the next few years.

I tend to be much less of a fan of all college sports mostly for reasons of continuity. I can connect personally with the enduring faces on pro teams, compared to the turnover rate for college teams where no one plays more than 4 years, and most of the guys will only be everyday contributors for a couple of seasons. But who wants to follow a bunch of hapless losers who view their current posting as no better than purgatory?

Here in Boston this morning, we've lowered the panic level from bright red to pale red because the Red Sox re-took first place last night. People from outside New England probably have a hard time understanding the mentality around here. We have a vicious rabble-rousing media which includes a local radio and TV sports market devoted to the local teams that is every bit as ionvolved and negative as what you see on ESPN for the sports coverage of the nation as a whole. Withhin the last 3 weeks, Boston Globe's Cancer Dan Shaughnessy has called Curt Schilling The Big Blowhard and Mr. Self-Importance. I've hated this atmosphere since I was a kid, and it's only grown. Given the overabundance of "sports personalities" and the competition for ratings, the attitude on the sports talk shows pretty much boils down to "OK, we've got an empty cross here again today, and someone is going up on it."

My local team is consistently winner of their conference, has been to the nationals every year for the last twenty or so, and has picked up a few College World Series wins and more CWS appearances in that same time, so it's not like they're boring....

And remember, this year is almost a GOOD year for the Royals. They're up to .362! Why, they're within fifteen games of not being in last place in their division!