Friday, 17 October 2003
|1019 - Friday Five|
These go for me and vakkotaur, especially since he's being silly about it...
1. Name five things in your refrigerator. Yummy buttermilk, yummy Amana cottage cheese, yummy Diet Vanilla Coke, yummy tuna salad, and yummy pea salad.
2. Name five things in your freezer. Stouffer's frozen entrees, ice cream sandwiches, ice, frozen waffles, and lemon ice cream.
3. Name five things under your kitchen sink. Cascade dishwashing detergent, mammoth box of trash bags, little bottle of oil with a telescoping spout, several bottles of Windex, and bug spray.
4. Name five things around your computer. Only five? :-) Telephone, stack of video playback equipment, stack of ham radios, indoor/outdoor thermometer (showing a cold 50.4 F outdoor temperature at the moment), and fax machine.
5. Name five things in your medicine cabinet. Razor blades, toilet paper, cold medicine of various kinds, towels, vacuum cleaner. (Our medicine cabinet is a closet next to the sink.)
current mood: mellow
You call buttermilk, peas, and tuna yummy and have the audacity to claim I am silly? At least my answers were accurate.
OK I like peas and tuna and think they are yummy, and I can use buttermilk in recipies.. But I still say your answers rocked.
Oh. And Jay? As regards the previous baseball post?
Just an Official Bronx Cheer.
Sorry...but I'm *tired* of the Yankees and whoever in the Series. Dynasties are like that. I want to see fresh blood in there. A Sox-Cubs Series would have been great just for the newness factor of it.
Take a look at my friends page, BTW...and look at the comment just below yours, from a fellow New Yorker. I think that pairing is priceless.
All it takes is for someone to field a better team. Until someone does it, we will just be partying in the Bronx every year. But removing this from the arena of sports for a moment, I just find it distasteful when people (generic) try to tear others down simply for being successful. Simply for getting it right.
I would have loved to see the Cubbies win against the Marlins. I think a Sox/Cubbies series would have been fun and I would have rooted all the way for the cubs to kick red sock ass. But the Cubs lost first, leaving the Marlins. That being the case, the Sox interest wanes to less than zero, for me. (not that there's any sox interest, but Im just sayin.)
Until someone else is willing to dump three times as much into salaries as the rest of the teams in the league, we'll keep seeing the Yankees be the best team money can buy - and that, to me, is boring. Wayne Huizenga bought his World Series ring in 1997, and Steinbrenner has bought them ever since. (Well, almost ever since.)
Don't get me wrong: I don't begrudge players their salaries. If I could hit the ball as well as Sammy Sosa, or run as fast as Ricky Henderson, or pick off base runners as well as Pudge Rodriguez, or baffle batters as well as Tim Wakefield, I'd want that kind of money; that the supply of players of that caliber is as low as it is is a prima facie reason, in a market economy, for their price to go up. I just wish that baseball wasn't such a contrast between the haves and the have-nots. Watching the haves prove once again that you can buy success gets tiresome.
1. Explain to me why the Mets have a higher salary payout and they have a less talented team? Your reasoning is flawed.
2. Such is the way of the world in a capitalist society. He who has the most to offer gets the most talented people. The Yankees still won even when GS wasn't allowed to run the team.
As much as I like a Cinderella Story such as the Cubs (bust your ass and get results) as much as the next person, I'm also not in any way moved by the Bad News Bears (lowly downtrodden and poor team makes good.), either.
1) I thought the Yankees' $150 million payroll was the highest in baseball by a significant amount. Is that not the case?
2) The problem is that it only takes a couple of owners willing to spend huge amounts of money to buy a World Series title to drive up the cost of running a team beyond the point where a small-market owner can afford to be competitive. This will ultimately harm competition, and, in turn, eventually harm the sport itself by driving away fans. (If the outcome is all but certain, why watch?)
My main fear is for the sport itself. I see smaller-market teams like, say, the Pittsburgh Pirates eventually becoming perennial cellar dwellers, effectively acting as farm clubs for the higher-grossing teams. When only one or two teams in a division is competitive, then the game as a whole suffers. The main reason the NL Central (the division with which I'm most familiar) is as competitive as it is is that no owner can afford a $100 million plus payroll. As time marches on, the division winner will eventually become the perennial loser in its first-round playoff series, which, in turn, will cheapen the playoffs themselves.
True, baseball has not yet reached that point. I don't think it'll be all that long until it does so, however, if current trends continue unchecked.