Remianen

No, I don't condone the "Good Night Juice" just like I don't condone 'Time Out'. As I've heard many a comedian say, my mother didn't believe in 'Time Out', she preferred 'Knock Out'. But as far as doing it publicly, here's how my mother tended to handle it. I was 5 years old. We were in a now-defunct store called 'Gimbels'. We were walking through the store when I saw something I wanted and grabbed it. My mother told me to put it back. I refused. She smacked me so hard in the back of the head, I swear I blacked out for a second. And this was the late 70s so she had rings on every finger (it was the style back then, I guess). Wanna know what I did next? I put that thing right back where I found it! But some lady tried to tell my mother she shouldn't hit me and my mother said, "When your opinion is worth as much as the oxygen you wasted giving it, I'll let you know." That woman didn't care (and still doesn't). Oh God, this reminds me. I was in K-Mart once with the girl who was at the time the point guard on my youth basketball team. She was like 9 years old. We were getting towels (hallmark of youth leagues is the coaches and parents having to pay for damn near everything) by the boatload and this little boy kept running up to her, hitting her and running. His mother saw it the whole time but said nothing. He did it about 3 or 4 times before she looked up at me, shook her head, and the next time he ran up to her, she shortarm clotheslined him. Oh boy, THEN the mother wanted to speak up. She yelled for security and they took us to the office and looked at the security camera footage. Then they escorted her out of the store. Security director said maybe if his mama had done that to him a few times, he wouldn't think it was okay to run to strangers and hit 'em. I have a friend (yes, you Tony) who drives like a bat outta hell. He's the guy you see flying down the highway switchin' lanes (but always signaling! is his typical defense) like his pregnant wife is in labor. Remember when they used to give credit cards to college students with no credit check? They'd have tables set up on campuses where you could just about sign your name and get a card? Tony did that. Somehow he managed to limp along for a few years after high school and he bought a brand new Dodge Neon when the model was first introduced. He drove that Neon like it was a Ferrari. One thing you could be certain of is if you were in a car with Tony at the wheel, you were going to wear a seatbelt. No question. Dude, if you were making minimum wage with next to zero chance of meaningful advancement ("Whoa, I got promoted! I can work the grill now!"), would you honestly care what the heck people wanted? Your roommate reference reminded me. - Roommates. Most of 'em suck and if they don't suck, they won't be your roommate for very long. When I was in the Navy, a bunch of friends/shipmates and I went in on a house in San Leandro (CA). One of the roommates had a thing for...how can I say this...oh hell, fat chicks. His opinion was, "If she's not 300+, she's not a woman." No, I'm not joking. His girlfriends contributed to more property damage than an earthquake. LITERALLY. The earthquake that hit the Bay Area in like March of '92? Less damage than two broken sofas, a busted loveseat, and a bent bed frame. Worst part is, whenever we went out together, if none of us managed to do any parking lot pimpin', HE always came home with somebody (or tried to. I drove an '88 Mustang GT convertible. They weren't gettin' in MY ride. He often took cabs home). One girl who became his 'fiancee', Sherri, HATED us. She was a slob and insisted on going to the bathroom (down a hallway and just past the living room) in her unmentionables. Six single guys sharing a single level ranch style house and five of us have to put up with THAT crap. Let's not even mention what would happen when we went to Santa Cruz. *shudder* But yeah, roommates suck. One can ruin the experience for an entire group (because there's always the "peacemaker" roommate who tries to make excuses for the screwed up one).

Yes. The sites are designed to keep you there as long as possible. The theory is, the longer you stay, the more likely you'll be to buy more or be open to upselling. God, yes. If it's not those, it's there/their/they're. My problem is, I read things as they're written so I have to re-read to "know which [you] meant". I don't like re-reading crap when I don't/shouldn't have to. Maybe they don't want to jinx themselves. Employers do check Facebook and MySpace, after all. Some people even put their Facebook and MySpace ON THEIR RESUME (I kid you not!) not realizing that if an employer checks (and trust me, they do) and sees you have a bunch of slackass potheads as friends, that could reflect badly on you. What gets me (besides the above): - The complete lack of entrepreneurial spirit in my countrymen. Seriously, economy went into the toilet, you got laid off, perfect opportunity to start your own gig so the same thing doesn't happen again. Have an acquaintance who asked me if I had anything for him because he's been unemployed since Merrill got eaten up and they restructured (so almost a year). He's a tax accountant. THE HELL?!? By contrast, when my church closed the school we had (and converted it to a charter school) and the principal (a close family friend who used to babysit me when I was a tyke) got laid off (taking the bullet for two teachers), she opened a tutoring company. Since when is a school principal more marketable a vocation than a tax accountant?!? - "Tommy" acquaintances (those who have watched 'Martin' know what I'm talking about) - Uh "loose" women who take advantage of my friends. And as a corollary, my friends who get taken advantage of by these women. (Hey bruh, don't let that night at the club earn you an 18 to life sentence, especially not with this country's laws ) - Clients who don't listen and then complain later (I told you to change your W-4 last year, momotard) - Clients who think they know more than they actually do ("My neighbor told me I could spend two weeks in Corsica for $600, air included." Then tell your neighbor to tell you how.) - People with priorities that are seriously out of wack. Lemme explain that. If your rent is $600 a month but your car note is $688, and you have to make a decision about which to pay (at ANY time), your priorities can be called into question. "If I need a place to stay, I can move in with you for a minute, right?" Wrong. - Shopping with women. Yes yes, I should be used to it by now but seriously, if you spend half an hour in a store, you better come out with a bag or summat! Buy a keychain or SOMETHING. - My mother sometimes. (Seriously, you ask me ONE MORE TIME about grandchildren and I'll give you a dozen of 'em, all born within a month of each other. ) - House prices. Honestly, there are several places in the world that have not been affected by the so-called "global economic crisis". Apparently, some of those places are Bonaire, Curacao, Turks & Caicos, and London (or anywhere I'd be the least bit interested in buying a freakin' house). Damn prices haven't budged in two freakin' years! Hello? Where are the fire sales?!? - Really bad investment ideas. If anyone has seen the Fidelity commercial with the two guys on the golf course, that investment idea is/was REAL. Friend of mine got the idea for the series of ads from a pitch we were given. Yes, imported ICE. - Kids who can act up in stores (throw tantrums, curse at their parents, etc) and not get their heads knocked clear off their shoulders. (So jealous ) - Hospitalization. Man, that freakin' sucks! Especially when well-meaning family use that crappy "You need to rest" line and take away my cell phone AND my laptop. Oh boy, don't get me started.

Um, while I don't really expect you to know this, it has nothing (read: NOTHING) to do with Hitler's birthday. The significance of 420 (which contributes to 4/20) is this. It's like most things in American culture. It starts small then snowballs (for good or ill) as more people latch on to it. And I see they're actively trying to give Rob Terry some purpose for existing.

Neither is MMA. I can recall very few fights ending with some guy telling both (or all) participants to stop. Even if that guy is a cop. Just sayin', use the same brush if you're going to paint two things similarly. One out of two for me. I remembered that angle but I didn't care, mainly because I don't care about Terry and I barely care about Williams (and that's only because he trained a few of my favorite workers). Besides, are you new? This isn't a new thing for TNA. The issues were resolved by the squashes. Whether you like it or I like it or Slagaholic likes it, it doesn't matter. Williams costs Terry the case, Terry squashes Williams and Magnus. The End.

Easy way to ensure that. Pay him. Minimum. He's the best player in the game (as well as being ridiculously consistent...and he performs in the playoffs) and without him, the Cards have as much a chance of getting deep into the playoffs as the Cubs. He's 'The Franchise' (just like Derek Jeter is for us) and those people get their money over and above anyone else. Sorry, I'm a proponent of paying a person respective to their value. Pujols has proven himself to be the most valuable player on the Cards and arguably in the entire game. Thus, it is my belief that he should be the highest paid player in the game (not just on the Cards). All the various excuses to the contrary are just that. I guarantee the Cardinals know the deal. They do not want him to hit the open market. In addition to being an awesome on-field talent, he's also an excellent locker room influence and phenomenal in the community. All of that has value, especially these days.

To be fair, it comes with the job. I know a lot of bouncers and you have to be a (richard) if you're going to be successful. It wasn't rude, it's true. He has a title? Oh, the useless piece of bling he carries that means nothing (because it hasn't been booked to be meaningful). My bad.

Exactly my point. The Bills had better hope Pozluzny comes back at full strength AND they find some impact players in the draft. "Good" secondary isn't enough. Because Belichick is a situational maven. The man knows how to put players in situations where their strengths shine and their weaknesses are masked. Problem is, it's extremely difficult to do that with corners and even harder to do it with safeties (who need corners and linebackers to cover for them). People may fault him for a few decisions he makes that don't pan out (most coaches are pus...wusses so going for it on 4th down isn't even a consideration for many of them), but the man is an excellent strategist. Psst, Revis wasn't a rookie. Last year was his third season. They had Lito playing opposite Revis Island. The key for the Jets last year was having people onhand who knew Rex's system (Bart Scott, Jim Leonhard, etc). That helped everyone (except Kerry Rhodes) get on the same page and execute that much better. I think the Pats will be fine. That team scouts so well, they find diamonds in the rough regularly (who's under center?). I think once they add Jason Taylor (and they will add Jason Taylor. It's the only place that really wants him), all they'll need are maybe one end, a #2 receiver (Edelman will shine this year in the slot. Watch), and a few role players. They're likely to find someone who breaks out and a few developmental guys along the o-line (they do every year) so the pressing needs are relatively few. And again this year, you'll find some team that'll accidentally come across a dynamic returner, even though only one team (that I know of) actually scouts for that type of player (guess which one? Yep, the Bears). Everyone else seems to just pigeonhole people into the role if they don't fit at their natural position.

I say once again, read what I wrote in the context it was written. I did not say he was going to have that season. I said he would be primed to have a breakout year, given the circumstances. Again, you're under the mistaken assumption that you have to throw the ball a whole lot for receivers to put up big numbers. That...is false, and has been proven false, historically and recently. Lemme give you an example. In 2007, Jay Cutler completed 297 of 467 attempts. How many catches did Brandon Marshall have? Would you say Marshall was the only player catching the ball? Would you say the Broncos weren't fully committed to the run? You're also ignoring the fact that the Jets had MUCH lower quality receivers last year so of course you go with your strength (running the football). With above average talent at receiver now, throwing the ball more is a given. You don't draft Mark Sanchez to hand the ball off. It's a chicken & egg situation. No smart coach is going to throw the ball tons with a rookie signal caller and poor receivers (Dustin excluded). It's career suicide, especially when you have the option to run lots. Look at the Chargers. For his first couple years, Rivers handed the ball off A LOT. But once he matured and they got him some talent outside the numbers (to go along with Antonio), they threw the ball A LOT more than they had previously, did they not? Again, read what I wrote. I didn't say he was going to put up those numbers. I said he COULD, for the reasons I've explained. Personally, I think it's likely that this city eats him alive because he seems weak minded and New York isn't the city you want to play in if that's the case. But if it doesn't, he's standing in the midst of what could be a perfect storm. If you think the Jets are going to grind the ball like they did last season, well, in eight months I'll get to point out that it didn't happen. Rex is a defensive coach. Defensive coaches protect their defenses. The best way to do that as a head coach is to have the offense spend inordinate amounts of time on the field. However, he's also a smart coach and smart coaches exploit weaknesses in their opponents. Sanchez will get 100-150 more attempts this year, which could very well lead to a lot of catches for one of the three primary Jets receivers. With no pass rush and weak linebackers, no secondary can be good. You could put Deion Sanders on one side and Lester Hayes or Mike Haynes (in their prime) on the other with Lott & Reed at safety and the secondary would still get decimated. You can't expect even the best DBs to cover indefinitely (and the linebackers need to cover too).

Second year QB. Teams keying on the run, thus making it even more difficult to double Holmes, Edwards, or Dustin Keller. All it would take is one or two big games to keep an 8 catch per game average and you do remember that they play the Bills....TWICE. Those numbers weren't exact. Less catches but a higher average could produce the yardage and the TDs. Doesn't take 16 games to run up 10+ TDs, after all. And I don't think I said that's what he would put up. My numbers were in response to Gatorbait asking what I would consider a 'breakout' year for him. I just took last year's numbers and added 6-10%. I also posted that before he was suspended, I think. But I don't see why he can't put up numbers at least rivaling last season's. Sanchez, with a year in the system, is bound to be a lot better, so Brian will loosen the reins a bit and let him work.

There's no 'up to'. The picks aren't conditional. It's flat out, #43 this year, and their 2nd rounder next year. It's a good deal for both sides. For some reason, people seem reluctant to part with 1st rounders, probably due to the absence of a cap.

Brandon Marshall is a Dolphin, for a pair of 2nd rounders. Not bad. Not ideal, but not bad. Source: NFL Network (on the ticker) and now, the front page of NFL.com While you're right that we'll have to wait and see, I don't understand how the boobirds could come out so quickly. Let's look at what happened in San Diego that contributed to and precipitated LT's drop in production. The team moved fully to Norv Turner's preferred system (which, obviously, is pass oriented) with the emergence of Philip Rivers and Vincent Jackson. They also started giving Darren Sproles more carries to justify his much higher pay grade. Several times during the season, the Chargers were playing from behind (which means MORE emphasis on the pass to a Norv Turner). Oh and did I mention the O-line was beat up? Meanwhile, at the same time, Thomas Jones was playing for the first time with a defense oriented coach looking to protect his prized defense along with a rookie starting quarterback. What's that mean? Ball control, all day. Pair that with the nastiest offensive line in the league, and you have a lot more rushing attempts to go around. Thus, Jones benefited from all of that, with roughly the same number of carries but far more exploitable holes with which to work. I think people predicting the demise of LT will find themselves in a situation similar to those people who predicted the demise of Mark Twain.

No offense, but this is pure BS. If you think ANYONE is trying to hear that, I've got some oceanfront property in Nevada to sell you. A-Rod set the market. Thus, Albert has to get AT LEAST that much or people will chalk it up to a 'hometown discount'. 200 would be WAY too low for a deal that long, unless they let him void the last four. They need to pay him more because, unlike A-Rod, Albert isn't playing in a major media market and thus, doesn't have the same endorsement potential. In addition to that, I'm positive we have a larger Dominican population that St. Louis and this is a much larger podium for Albert to work his charitable endeavors from. Sorry, to quote Deion Sanders: PAY THE MAN. If St. Louis doesn't want to, I can guarantee at least a half dozen other teams (in much larger markets) will queue up to throw money at him. A-Rod switched positions when he joined the Yankees. Albert would do the same, I think. However, I don't see him leaving St. Louis (they'll pay him - market value).

That wouldn't surprise me. Thomas Jones is going to be splitting carries with an unproven young back for an absolutely abysmal team. LT is going to be a third down/goal line back for a team that played in the conference championship game. Here's where your 'cheaper price' thing fails. Jones refused to take a pay cut, which led to his release. He's not making $5.8 million with the Chiefs (like he would have made with the Jets). He's only scheduled to make 3. So the "cheaper price" thing fails because he wouldn't have accepted $3 million from the Jets and only accepted that from the Chiefs because it was the best he could get on the open market. LT signed a two year, $5.1 million dollar deal that maxes at $5.6 million. That's $2.8 million a season average, at best. Do you honestly think Thomas Jones would've taken that? For a team that didn't want to have to deal with another possible Curtis Martin situation, it made perfect sense to go with the younger legs and back him up with a proven veteran. Plus, LT's going to have to share carries with both Shonn AND the returning Leon Washington. Seriously, I know you have a mancrush on Thomas Jones but that doesn't mean the Jets are going to crash and burn without him. The Jets upgraded their backfield while saving money at the same time. You see, the problem with workhorse backs like Jones (and Martin before him) is that stupid teams rely on them so when they do break down, the team is left with no alternatives but to overpay for a replacement. Smarter teams have several high quality backs who can all get the job done should the need arise.

Ummm, huh? Yeah, I didn't want to get into numbers because a lot of "fans" have no clue how well some workers do outside of WWE. Might be best to just let them keep thinking the 'E is the be all, end all. But I know we have more than a couple real, honest to God indy promoters as well as actual workers here who could definitely shed some light on that subject. It's not as 'bush league' as people would like to think.

First, Rex Ryan is an intelligent football coach. Everyone with two brain cells knows the Jets are going to run a lot. So when facing an 8 in the box situation, Sanchez will have the ability to audible to a play action play. You seem to be operating under a faulty assumption that a defense has to be 'bad' for a team to throw the ball a lot. Someone tell the Colts that. Good coaches take advantage of situations and matchups (ask Bill Belichick). Rex Ryan is a good coach. Thus, 7 and 8 men in the box will lead to lots of skinny posts and outs and fades being switched to. He wants to add more balance to his offense, or else he never would've gotten Holmes in the first place.

What Nedew said. I'm an analytical type but I wouldn't identify myself as liberal. I honestly don't get this. Lacey is basically Malibu Barbie, looks wise. She's like what you'd see in the lobby at Shutters on the Beach ("Lemme guess. You're a model slash actress?"). She's Maryse without the accent. Oh and Angelina's problem is makeup. The makeup she uses doesn't work well with moisture and humidity. On camera, it makes the skin look somewhat reptilian. Gets even worse if you spackle it on like grout or something.

The problem with that is many workers can make more on the indies, with a far less demanding schedule. WWE doesn't tend to pay its divas all that great. But sometimes, it might be a 'means to an end' kinda proposition. You spend a year on the road with that ridiculous schedule and then when your contract comes due, you take your future endeavor status and, assuming you've spent any time on TV, parlay that into a higher rate on the indies. If you pick up contacts while there, you can even parlay that into something profitable outside of wrestling (hi Maria and Stacy!).

For Santonio Holmes, 88+ catches, 1500+ yards, double digit TDs. Or something resembling a typical Brandon Marshall year. In the Jets offense, he would be Mark Sanchez's first read (Edwards would be the vertical threat primarily, due to suspect hands) so he'd have an opportunity to really get a lot of looks. And yeah GruntMark's right. It's not about the black & white ownership, it's about competition. It's one reason Paul Allen didn't even attempt to buy the SuperSonics when they were on the block. His setup is perfectly allowed since the NBA doesn't have the same rule and there's no freakin' way Portland ever gets an NFL franchise.

I guess it comes down to what you value. Some coaches want their defensive backs to be good in run support and such. Most coaches would give their firstborn to have defensive backs who turn your defense into half an offense. I'm not saying Troy Vincent wasn't good or great, but teams didn't scheme in two phases of their gameplan specifically to neutralize Troy Vincent. Troy Vincent didn't make the person playing on the opposite side of the field better and richer (INTs make DBs money and every CB who played opposite Deion, not to mention the safeties, performed "over their heads"). As I said, his game didn't quite jibe with my preferences (I liked sticking my nose in there, as my other choices would illustrate). However, he did everything his position called for, better than anyone before him or since. It's like saying LT wasn't the greatest LB of all time because he didn't do well in coverage. Coverage wasn't his primary responsibility. And 'famous' doesn't denote 'greatest'. Dick Lane was very good (especially as a ballhawk), but I could name a dozen CBs who were better overall. Including the dude who's a decent defensive coordinator for the Steelers nowadays. There was no gambling scandal. People, by and large, are stupid. When you're making $100 million a year, so what if you like playing blackjack or poker or betting $100,000 a hole on the golf course? If Stewart Mankins, newbie hedge fund manager did it, no one would care (who the hell is Stewart Mankins? people would say). But because it's Michael Jordan, people want to act like he shot their puppy. This is nothing like what Ben & Holmes are dealing with. Jordan was never accused of assaulting someone (especially not sexually assaulting them). He was never charged with battery of any kind. Yes, he had a few infidelities but Juanita's PAID so who cares? Most women wouldn't be too aggrieved if they got almost $170 million (along with various sundry properties and the like) for their troubles. Hi Vanessa, enjoying the purple diamond, are ya? Holmes for a 5th round pick is going to come back to haunt the Steelers. They stacked motivation on top of motivation (walk year + insulting opinion of his value = a dude who might have a breakout year). It was a huge boon for the Jets though. There is little chance they'd land as valuable a player from the draft at that position. I do agree that these guys need to learn to protect themselves better though. Morons. Fame, money, and power attract women like flies to (poop). That isn't news, they have 5 seminars at the rookie symposium on just that ONE area. You'd think with the appearance schedules sponsors/endorsers make them keep, they'd have more than enough nightlife. Oh, and Jason Campbell signed his tender and is "hopeful for a trade". TO WHERE?!? No one wants your robotic arse! Anybody who might want him, has designs on a complete floor to ceiling rebuilding (via the draft) so bringing him in for anything better than a single 5th rounder (or later) would be pointless. That is, unless they're angling to get a shot at Jake Locker next year. Oh, and as a Broncos fan, I'm hoping they can squeeze two firsts out of the some suc....errr, astute team for Brandon Marshall. Or at least a first and third (improving to first with conditions).

Heh, I've wondered for years why certain people haven't been looked at. Lizzie Valentine basically has WWE's look down pat (and has since she was 'Valentina Laree' years ago). Nowadays, she even has an international profile, with her work in NWE and AAA (and WSX, for the fifteen minutes it was famous). And come on, April Hunter? Hmm, on second thought, scratch April. Sure she was a fitness model, but she's probably way too big for the 'E's look. She's built too much like Beth. Hopefully Jessie's too, uh, "small" for them and Madison's too big (or tall) and Penni's too old.

God no. Jessie's too sweet to do the WWE thing. She's got potential to be REALLY good (in-ring) and she's not likely to ever get there working in the 'E. I'd like to see her stay on with SHIMMER and perhaps do a run with Ibuki, Sendai, WAVE, and Oz Academy so she at least becomes well versed in multiple styles. I'd like Mika Akino and Mariko Yoshida to get their hands on her for a while. But this might be very similar to men's basketball.

I defy you to find me a writer who could make two guys making out palatable in this country. I'd really, really like to see someone accomplish the utterly unfathomable.

There has to be an example made of someone. If people want to continue using their franchises as an ATM and then holding local taxpayers at ransom for things they didn't earn (stadiums), somebody needs to die to teach these types of owners a lesson. George Steinbrenner bought his team in 1973 for like $9 million dollars. How much is the team worth now? Why? There are owners who have owned their teams as long or longer, who can't approach that amount of 'capital gain'. If a franchise dies as a result of its ownership's decision not to reinvest in the team, it would teach all the rest of 'em a lesson. It would also make owning a baseball franchise less attractive to those owners who NEED the revenue their teams would generate. It happens half a dozen times every season. The relative success of the Oakland A's is testament to the approach and the Seattle Mariners didn't do too bad last year using the same approach. This year, they got Chone Figgins specifically for his defensive prowess and moved him to their most vulnerable and key defensive position. One metric that's gaining in popularity (to the point where the Yankees and Red Sox are even using it) is baserunning logic. It doesn't seem that great to most fans but tell me, if you have a guy who isn't particularly fast, but due to his 'baseball IQ' can go from first to third on a single because he recognizes fielder position and ability, does that player not have more value than the typical player at his position? This year, Chone Figgins was the poster boy for that approach. He's an exceptionally smart baserunner and, unlike Carl Crawford (who also rates highly in that category), he doesn't have blazing speed. These are some of the things the "new stats" are bringing about. Likewise, and it's a very good discussion/debate to have. Most fans don't pay much attention to what people term as the 'meta-game' but it's interesting to look at. I'm a large market proponent to the bone but I can appreciate when small market franchises try to find cost effective ways to compete. When you can't fight straight up, you often resort to "scrapping" and this is what small market teams have to do.

I'm saying that if you're the Brewers, A-Rod isn't even a possibility. So who's next and why? Scott Brosius was a good player in all phases of the game but he performed well above expectation in the postseason. Thus, his value would be relatively high because he wouldn't demand $25 million a season. It's win/win. The last thing a team wants is a player who performs great during the season and disappears during the postseason. The game changed. You went from talking millions of dollars to BILLIONS of dollars. I'll give you an example of when the game was changed forever: April 6, 1992. Why is that date significant? It's the day Camden Yards opened. A ballpark as an entertainment destination had not been done prior to that. Since that park opened, every team in the majors has tried to find a way to duplicate it. There used to be firms that existed specifically for designing ballparks (like golf courses). Take a guess who designs ballparks now? Architectural firms! The same people who design skyscrapers, design ballparks. That hadn't happened previously. So now, ballparks are considered to be profit centers, not simply places to house baseball teams. Camden Yards started the trend and it only accelerated from there. Camden Yards cost about $100 million to make. The latest entrant into the 'new, retro-style baseball stadium as entertainment destination' cost fifteen times that. It was money, plain and simple. Look at the revenues MLB had when KC was a "powerhouse" and compare it to the revenues today. Adjust it for inflation and you'll see the big difference. So lemme get this straight. You think people who own major league baseball franchises do it out of the kindness of their heart? A baseball team is a company like any other. Its ownership expects the entity to create profit. They want their seeds to bear fruit. Granted, some teams are better than others when it comes to reinvestment, but that's not the core reason for the small market morass. Profit sharing in baseball is NOT a sufficient balancing measure. You think profit sharing is going to put the Brewers on equal footing with the Red Sox? It doesn't even come close! Luxury tax is petty cash to the Yankees. They don't care! It's like someone taxing you a nickel because you bought a $100 pair of sneakers. How much is that going to hurt you? Chances are good that if you can afford to spend $100 on shoes you won't even wear every day, 5 cents isn't going to give you sticker shock. Mind you, I don't even LIKE profit sharing. I think teams who can't find a way to make a profit need to die. Yeah, I said it. If cities can't support their major franchises, then they need to LOSE those franchises. Baseball's revenue sharing plan is too much like welfare for my liking. That's why I see the necessity and the validity of these smaller teams doing what they can to be competitive. Snatching gems from under the noses of the big dogs can be a very valid way of doing business when you can't successfully go head to head with them. Again, the same thing can be said for all the "traditional" stats. If a kid carries a .260 batting average overall but hits .413 with runners in scoring position, that kid has value in my eyes. It says to me that he's more likely to be "on" when the pressure is. You fixate on the .260 and dismiss the kid offhand and you miss an area of strength. Then when your .343 hitter is at the plate with two outs in the 8th inning down by a run in the LCS, with runners on second and third and his .177 RISP average rears its ugly head as he whiffs on a circle-change, you then wonder if there was someone who might've been as good or better in that situation, and at a cheaper price. Again, stop referring to an entire generation in the past. It's folly. Do you realize how long ago the 80s were? Do you realize what has occurred in sports since then? Consider how the numbers have changed, how the society has changed. Did you know what 'the internet' was in the 80s? The world, in and of itself, has changed since that time period. Cold War? What the heck was that? Globalization was a pipe dream in the 80s. It's LIFE now. All I'm saying is that things have changed immensely. While it's not a guarantee of success to have the highest paid player at every position, typically the highest paid player also happens to be the best (in whatever way people think of that) at that position. Sure, there are always missteps (hello Carl Pavano) but by and large, that's true. Many of the exceptions come about due to development (Evan Longoria, Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, Dan Uggla) which can never be predicted. If every rookie turned in a performance like a Tim Lincecum or Ryan Howard did, the major leagues would be full of rookie starters at every position. But when a CC Sabathia or Alex Rodriguez or Mark Teixeira becomes available (people with a track record of high performance), if you can get them, you get them. I'm not trying to say they're all important. But different teams will value different stats and most of them can be meaningful. As I said, the New Yorks and Bostons don't have to care about them because they can just pluck the best free agent (or soon to be free agent) on the market with no problems. But most teams can't do that so they have to dig a little deeper to find the hidden gems. Those extra stats help to uncover those gems. This isn't exactly true. Remember when the YES Network was first proposed? Oh boy, I sure do. Last I heard, the Yankees receive revenue from YES that isn't subject to MLB governance. I also think folks are losing sight of the scale of the revenues. Do you honestly believe the Kansas City Royals generate as much revenue as the Boston Red Sox? REALLY? It's easy to say the Royals owners are skimming (or just not reinvesting into the team) without considering the numbers themselves. If the Yankees produce $2 billion in revenue, what the heck is KC supposed to do with its $250 million (oh and awesome addition of $70 million in revenue sharing)? Those teams aren't even in the same solar system, revenue wise. The Cathedral cost one and a half billion to build and will pay for itself inside of 10 years. That's $150 million a year in revenue JUST to offset the cost of construction. How are small market teams supposed to compete with that? When your STADIUM (just the stadium, not the team itself) is generating more than $150 mil (chalk it up to the affluence and size of your local community), the team doesn't have to do much of anything to blow the doors off of competitive balance. Um, flawed example. Your Lions don't have a single star player they have to pay top dollar right now. They also tend to have "Royals-itis" (trading Dre Bly, trading Roy Williams (granted, Pettigrew is a HUGE plus in hindsight)) so it's not likely to ever be a problem (if they pay Calvin Johnson when his time comes). Remember Mike Furrey? They had to throw money at a rookie to account for that utter lack of starpower. The Colts would be a better example, since they typically press right up against the cap year in and year out. Jim Irsay wants a winner and despite not having much in the way of revenue generation (prior to the opening of Lucas Oil), he paid the cost to get that winner. However, it sure helps a lot when you have the best QB in the league (as well as arguably the best DE, arguably the second best WR, one of the best safeties (despite his injury history), etc). Winning has a significant cost and while you're right in that many owners aren't willing to pay that cost, there's also a reason for that. When you win, everyone on your team looks to cash in and that can be expensive (whether you keep them or have to replace people). My whole point is that smaller revenue teams have to find any way they possibly can to acquire talent that allows them to compete at the highest level they can afford to. Sure some teams do that better than others, for a variety of reasons, but that's always the goal. That's why you get all these "new" stats that come about. Teams are trying to find value where none existed before. That's why a light hitting infielder who is awesome defensively can make $3 million dollars a year. Teams value his fielding very highly. People are starting to see now that defense is important. The days of the immobile guy in right who's only in the game for the thump of his bat, can cost you dearly when games are tight. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that an Ichiro wouldn't be considered a valuable player. Remember when 'right fielder' stood for 'home run hitter'? Times are changing, and changing fast. If anyone remembers when the Yankees went after Mark Teixeira, why did they want him so badly? Wasn't for his bat.

Ah, I'm not talking about managing. I'm more referring to personnel. Those stats have led to the game moving away from relying on the big numbers (HR, batting average, RBI, Ks, etc) to really delving into the numbers that are important. Before last season, Alex Rodriguez was one of the best hitters in the game....until the games really counted. Now, would you want A-Rod on your team? Sure! But a guy like, oh I dunno, Scott Brosius, might have a high value as well, because of WHEN his best performances took place. Also, it's those new stats that are leading teams to move away from the traditional "get as many home run hitters as you can" method and emphasizing defense to win games. Remember, if you're Milwaukee or Seattle or anywhere that isn't New York, you can't compete chasing the big hitters and strong pitchers. Those players will (almost) always go for the top dollar and you can't hang with that. But, if you can neutralize the other team's strengths, you can still beat the 'Murderer's Row' types. Relying on the stats that have "worked" for 150+ years is folly because this isn't the 19th century. The immense gulf between the 'haves' and 'have nots' didn't exist back then. It has gotten to the point where a team like Kansas City cannot compete (CANNOT. Not 'will not', CANnot) because they just don't have the money to do so. They've become the major league equivalent of a farm team. Of course everyone holds up the Twins as an example of a successful small market team. Look at how they've done that. The Twins spend heavily on their farm system. For the most part, they develop their own stars (and still often lose them to bigger market teams - hello Torii Hunter). They're also quick to trade a possibly departing star for prospects. But they value secondary attributes like batting average, OBP, speed, and defensive metrics rather than pure power. Besides, the Marlins won TWO titles using that basic strategy, so it obviously can work. I hear the laments a lot (I go to 'The Cathedral of Baseball' a couple dozen times a season) and I think it's shortsighted. "Traditional" fans often think these stats are useless because they don't see the wider benefits. Small market teams are going back to "small ball", emphasizing baserunning and defense, because it's the only way they can have a chance at being successful. Also, if you're the only team focusing on one particular obscure stat, you don't have to worry about competing with "the big dogs". The Yankees don't really care about UZR. They don't have to. Can Seattle say the same thing? Can Kansas City? Can Milwaukee?