SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by swingingbunt on Jan 23, 2019 20:06:01 GMT -5
Yeah man I don't know. I wouldn't trade one of my favorite memories for anything and besides, unless I'm missing something here, Schilling's biggest crime might be that he has an opinion that you disagree with strongly. It's not like he's a rapist like Kobe Bryant or Ben Roethlisberger. But you do you I guess. I mean, his opinion that I disagree with strongly is that my wife should be lynched. We're not going back and forth over whether a hot dog is a sandwich here. Because it's not. It's absolutely not a sandwich.
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on Jan 23, 2019 22:55:59 GMT -5
My wife was, for a numbers of years, a newspaper journalist. With this in mind, by what you say it's imperative that I take his words about lynching journalists at face value then, rather than trying to understand his meaning. If we're only questioning judgment, not motives, then we won't get into him saying WHY my wife should be strung up on a tree or WHY my cousin (who is transgender) is subhuman. I just need to acknowledge it. If you want to tiptoe around saying "he's a bad person" to "well, his judgment causes him to do things a bad person would do and say things a bad person would say" that's fine. If sports is meant to be an escape, stuff like that makes it hard for it to be. Curt Schilling makes me enjoy baseball less. I don't particularly enjoy watching my 2004 World Championship DVD anymore, for one thing. Would I trade it for having not won? I'm in the minority, but yeah, I might - sports isn't real life, and I wouldn't be a different person if the Red Sox had lost that year. That doesn't change his accomplishments on the field - as I said, I'd vote for him. But I don't care if he gets in, and I'd skip his plaque when I visit Cooperstown. I love the Red Sox, Patriots, Bruins and Celtics. I love this website, the posters and most everything that goes on here. Some people overreact to wins, losses, trades, etc; but I try to remain calm and a voice of reason through it all. But its posts like this one, why I try not to post much on here and just keep to myself during the off-season. This is an overreaction of a goofy tweet from a man (Schilling) that despite all the sh!t that goes on in this country is not allowed to express his opinion (right or wrong) without consequences because he is not part of the cool kids' club. Now I never get involved in politics, win or lose I just want the elected candidate to do his best for us all. I hate the way people get caught up in politics likes its the NYY vs our Red Sox. So I really do not care for this new world, this generation is soft, sensitive and only agrees with my opinion if is similar to their own. And the worst part is that this generation is rubbing off on my generation. Sometimes people get offended at anything people like Schilling say because they do not like the person while others say worse things and get away with it. Just look at what happened to him at ESPN, while others were given more opportunities. But I will not fall into this trap, you are entitled to your opinion and I think I spent too much time on this topic when one word would of summed up your whole post ----- WEAK (no adjectives needed) One last thing, the reason why a failed starting pitcher, average reliever and "Elite Closer" who racked up a 1000 saves, most of the 1 inning, empty bases variety, got in unanimously, is because social media would of gone after that writer(s) who didn't vote for him. And people are afraid of losing their jobs, having others hound them or family, etc; Like I said if you do not agree with their opinion... GO PATRIOTS!!!!
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 23, 2019 23:30:45 GMT -5
I'll chime in on my Curt Schilling opinion.
I am forever thankful for how he pitched for the Sox and the guts he had in pitching when his ankle bone needed to be stapled to his tendon or whatever it was that allowed him to pitch the Bloody Sock game. He was totally a difference maker and a big reason why the Red Sox went from being a contender that never quite made it to a Champion. As a baseball player the guy was a winner and should be a surefire HOFer.
My politics don't really match Schilling's "politics". I'm not surprised about the tweet regarding journalists but I honestly don't think the man meant it literally. He always had a distrust of the media and felt they'd twist around what he said and make him look foolish.
I would say Schilling is quite capable of doing that on his own without the media's help, but at least he's consistent about it.
When he pitched for the Sox he'd call into WEEI so that his thoughts weren't being translated by the media and he would post on Sons of Sam Horn for the same reason, trying to reach a fanbase that he knew cared.
Frankly, I appreciated that he did that. Probably never would have really got hooked onto SOSH without Schilling appearing there and eventually my interest in SOSH waned and developed into my interest on this wonderful site, so in a way Schilling is indirectly responsible for me posting here (Hah - another reason not to like the man! ;P )
So it's not surprising to me that in post-retirement he can't stand the media either. My own personal opinion is that most of the media tries their best to get the story right, but there is some that are looking for sensationalism or sacrifice accuracy to be the first to report whatever. So I get the distrust of media, but I think it's mostly misplaced.
Does that mean it that the tweet was cool or mature or classy? Hell no - just the opposite of course. Do I think he literally meant that reporters should really be lynched? No. He was being sarcastic and crude and said as much.
Frankly I didn't care for the Red Sox' exclusion of Schilling when members of the 2004 squad came onto the mound to throw out the first pitch prior to Game 2 of the World Series. Schilling belonged there.
It was wrong of the Red Sox not to have him there. If he had pulled an OJ Simpson or something really bad but not to that extreme then fine, but he was expressing his (uneducated in my own opinion) opinion. That's not a reason to not vote for the man or try to pretend he wasn't a prominent Red Sox player. He was and I enjoyed watching him pitch and I enjoyed listening to his baseball opinions which he expressed quite often. I kind of felt like the man was half baseball HOFer and half fan sitting in the stands like the rest of us. That's a side of Schilling I appreciated.
Frankly, I don't care for his opinions outside of baseball, but those opinions shouldn't keep him out of the Hall of Fame (unless he was really radical and was a neo-nazi or KKK or something like that - I find him to be more Archie Bunker than the first two categories, not that that is something to be proud of). There's no real reason he shouldn't be in the HOF now.
When I think of Schilling I try to think of Schilling the baseball player and separate him for the human being. I think a lot of our baseball "heroes" would fall apart if we really knew them as people. In a way, there are a lot of songs/music I enjoy even if I don't like what the artist does. Same with actors/actresses. Same thing, have to separate the skills the person does from who the person is. Like I said, short of the person being a murderer or a willfully agressive violent/hater, etc, I can make that separation. Curt Schilling turning out to be a guy I wouldn't really want to have a conversation other than baseball with doesn't lessen my enjoyment of what the 2004 (and 2007) Red Sox did.
That would be like saying I can't enjoy those Sox teams because Manny slapped his wife (which is something that is high on my list of things that I find despicable) and he was on the team. If I start getting onto the slippery slope before long I won't be able to enjoy anything.
Ok. I'm off my soapbox. Feel free to disagree. It's ok.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 23, 2019 23:37:40 GMT -5
I mean, his opinion that I disagree with strongly is that my wife should be lynched. We're not going back and forth over whether a hot dog is a sandwich here. Because it's not. It's absolutely not a sandwich. Agree strongly. A sandwich needs a second slice of bread. If someone is the sort of maniac who eats a hot dog between two slices of bread, then I'll concede that person is eating a sandwich. Also how is a failed business make him a fraudster? Zero charges were filed, he did nothing wrong but not be good at running a video game company and those are crazy hard to run in this market. He lost all his wealth in the deal also. Don't give me that because a state was stupid, it some how makes it worse than it was. They lured him and wanted the jobs. They should have researched the industry because more fail than succeed. Yeah, so that's incorrect. The state of Rhode Island sued him for for misrepresenting 38 Studios financials - specifically the amount of capital Schilling himself had invested in the company - and he settled for a $2.5 million penalty. The financial adviser responsible (a Wells Fargo affiliate), was sued by the SEC, and settled for an additional $16M.
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Jan 23, 2019 23:41:51 GMT -5
The HOF voters are the worst though. Seeing Mussina in the HOF but Schilling not just more evidence. You can argue that Schillings regular season is borderline (although then you need to do the same with Mussina), but Schilling did that around many injuries and then you add in his post season dominance over a pretty large sampling he should be in over a guy like Mussina. It’s really sad the reason many aren’t voting for him are because they disagree with his politics. I agree. He belongs in in the HOF and imo better than Mussina.
|
|
Smittyw
Veteran
Posts: 1,287
Member is Online
|
Post by Smittyw on Jan 24, 2019 1:41:28 GMT -5
My wife was, for a numbers of years, a newspaper journalist. With this in mind, by what you say it's imperative that I take his words about lynching journalists at face value then, rather than trying to understand his meaning. If we're only questioning judgment, not motives, then we won't get into him saying WHY my wife should be strung up on a tree or WHY my cousin (who is transgender) is subhuman. I just need to acknowledge it. If you want to tiptoe around saying "he's a bad person" to "well, his judgment causes him to do things a bad person would do and say things a bad person would say" that's fine. If sports is meant to be an escape, stuff like that makes it hard for it to be. Curt Schilling makes me enjoy baseball less. I don't particularly enjoy watching my 2004 World Championship DVD anymore, for one thing. Would I trade it for having not won? I'm in the minority, but yeah, I might - sports isn't real life, and I wouldn't be a different person if the Red Sox had lost that year. That doesn't change his accomplishments on the field - as I said, I'd vote for him. But I don't care if he gets in, and I'd skip his plaque when I visit Cooperstown. I love the Red Sox, Patriots, Bruins and Celtics. I love this website, the posters and most everything that goes on here. Some people overreact to wins, losses, trades, etc; but I try to remain calm and a voice of reason through it all. But its posts like this one, why I try not to post much on here and just keep to myself during the off-season. This is an overreaction of a goofy tweet from a man (Schilling) that despite all the sh!t that goes on in this country is not allowed to express his opinion (right or wrong) without consequences because he is not part of the cool kids' club. Now I never get involved in politics, win or lose I just want the elected candidate to do his best for us all. I hate the way people get caught up in politics likes its the NYY vs our Red Sox. So I really do not care for this new world, this generation is soft, sensitive and only agrees with my opinion if is similar to their own. And the worst part is that this generation is rubbing off on my generation. Sometimes people get offended at anything people like Schilling say because they do not like the person while others say worse things and get away with it. Just look at what happened to him at ESPN, while others were given more opportunities. But I will not fall into this trap, you are entitled to your opinion and I think I spent too much time on this topic when one word would of summed up your whole post ----- WEAK (no adjectives needed) One last thing, the reason why a failed starting pitcher, average reliever and "Elite Closer" who racked up a 1000 saves, most of the 1 inning, empty bases variety, got in unanimously, is because social media would of gone after that writer(s) who didn't vote for him. And people are afraid of losing their jobs, having others hound them or family, etc; Like I said if you do not agree with their opinion... GO PATRIOTS!!!! Haha yup, only a true snowflake would consider a joke about lynching journalists to be crossing a line. I guess we're calling that a "goofy tweet" now. Yuk yuk...what a knee-slapper. Good thing he didn't kneel during a football game or something truly awful like that instead.
|
|
|
HOF Talk
Jan 24, 2019 4:35:03 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 24, 2019 4:35:03 GMT -5
Rivera gave up 11 Earned runs in 141 postseason innings in his career. Bill Mueler and Luis Gonzalez had 2 RBI's in 2 of the biggest postseason games of all time. Those 2 runs accounted for less than 20 percent of the runs he's ever given up. No wonder why I don't have any memories of Rivera giving up anything in the postseason beyond that because he literally gave up nothing beyond that. Over 650 saves, even if that's a counting stat, that might never get touched again. Yeap. He probably deserved to be the first unanimous guy. When you're literally the best ever at what you did, you deserve that honor. Still ticked Pedro wasn't the first, but at least the argument can be made that he perhaps wasn't the best of all time at his position. Rivera was. Rivera was one of my worst nightmares as a kid growing up. I literally turned off the TV half the time in the 90's when he came on the mound as a stubborn kid. Like I had no hope every friggen single time before 2004. I only thought the Sox had a chance to get him in 2004 because Mueler was one of the very few who got to him before that game 4 in 2004. I'm surprised they didn't intentionally walk him because of that reason and thankful that they didn't after Roberts stole that base. Ehhh... I think it’s pretty ridiculous. Nothing against Rivera, but there should have been 50 guys who went in unanimously by now. Yeah, you're probably right about that, but Rivera should have been unanimous whether he was the first or the last or whatever. He was the most dominant reliever, nevermind closer of all time. Very few players have been as dominant as Rivera from the moment they stepped onto a major league mound, until the moment they retired. He was dominant every single year. I have a hard time coming up with names that fits this criteria. All I can come up with is Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds. They were the only 2 names that I can come up with that showed no signs of decline ever like Rivera did. Rivera walked away for personal reasons, not because he wasn't good anymore. I heard a Pedro reference to Rivera, but I don't think Pedro would have the sustained dominance and durability that Rivera had. He wasn't built like that. I imagine he would have had the best prime out of any reliever ever (just like when he was starting), but he would have tailed off in the end when he started losing velocity. Not taking anything away from my sports hero Pedro of course. On a side note, Billy Wagner had one off year in 2000, but he was otherwise dominant each and every year. I hope he gets more votes too. He's the most dominant left handed reliever ever. This is just a sidenote to all I was talking about.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 24, 2019 4:51:46 GMT -5
Baseball should just throw out the morality clause.
Guys like Schilling won't be remembered for being an intolerant blowhard 50 years from now. Heck, Ty Cobb for reference was one of the biggest racists in all of sports history. I bet no one cares about that right now or even wants to even care to read about it in today's world. I just remembered it from reading about baseball history from somewhere (can't remember where).
They should have thrown it out the second they knew the players were using steriods. It would make things a lot easier. If the voters don't want to vote on the players (whether they definitely knew or not they used steriods), then throw out the voters who aren't basing their decisions based off of stats, winning, and merit and stuff like that. They need to stop playing the role of god in the baseball HOF and just look at the back of the baseball card. That's just my opinion of course.
Schilling might be the only guy that has won 4 rings with 3 different teams. He might be the only non Yankee or Red Sox player of his ERA with multiple rings too. He's a jerk, but it says a lot about him too if he goes to different teams and they turn into a championship contender. The guy knew how to pitch in the biggest games and get the job done. Winning should be the number one priority of the votes in the HOF, that is if that player has the stats to back it up. Schilling has enough of those stats, he's in eventually and he should be in. There's really no debate in my eyes. Not taking away from Mussina either, they both deserve to be in.
On another side note, Tony Mazz still has a vote. This is who's voting for the baseball HOF. That needs to change. The idiot who never watched JD Martinez play ever and told the Sox to run away from him. That's how good his opinion on baseball is. My god, I would want ANYONE on here voting instead of him. This is why I say some baseball writers are the worst. Yeah, he'll lose his vote eventually because the baseball HOF changed the rules, but there's way too many guys who don't have a clue like Mazz who won't ever lose their vote imo.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 24, 2019 5:27:26 GMT -5
Because it's not. It's absolutely not a sandwich. Agree strongly. A sandwich needs a second slice of bread. If someone is the sort of maniac who eats a hot dog between two slices of bread, then I'll concede that person is eating a sandwich. Also how is a failed business make him a fraudster? Zero charges were filed, he did nothing wrong but not be good at running a video game company and those are crazy hard to run in this market. He lost all his wealth in the deal also. Don't give me that because a state was stupid, it some how makes it worse than it was. They lured him and wanted the jobs. They should have researched the industry because more fail than succeed. Yeah, so that's incorrect. The state of Rhode Island sued him for for misrepresenting 38 Studios financials - specifically the amount of capital Schilling himself had invested in the company - and he settled for a $2.5 million penalty. The financial adviser responsible (a Wells Fargo affiliate), was sued by the SEC, and settled for an additional $16M. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_StudiosHe and three other people paid 2.5 million. Which is standard practice in cases like this, basically paying what the legal fees would be. As you can see his share was almost nothing compared to others and the owners always share the blame even if they didn't know. Wells Fargo who he hired was charged with security fraud and just settle for an undisclosed amount. This wasn't some fraud, ponzi scheme type thing. Schilling lost 50 million dollars and took nothing from the company. I'm sure he made mistakes, because it was crazy for him to go that big that quickly. Yet a big part of that was the money the state offered him. The state troopers, US attorneys office and the FBI investigated and zero charges were filled so how is that incorrect? He was sued, that isn't charges were filed. I would love to know how he personally lied like you make it sound. He made over 115 million in his carrer and is worth something like 1 million and that was before the lawsuits. Yea I don't feel sorry for him, but its not like he walked out of this rich because he was a fraud like you make it sound. It's no different than any athlete going broke over a failed business. This one just got a ton of press because the new Governor used it to raise his profile and Schilling did what he does and wouldn't shut up. You don't like the guy have at it, but this sound have zero impact on Schilling and the HOF
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 24, 2019 8:39:08 GMT -5
I'd vote for him, because to me the Hall of Fame isn't about that stuff. . That doesn't change his accomplishments on the field - as I said, I'd vote for him. And despite all that, I'd still vote for him to go to the Hall of Fame. You don't like the guy have at it, but this sound have zero impact on Schilling and the HOF Good talk.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Jan 24, 2019 9:54:35 GMT -5
My position on Schilling is very comparable to James Dunne's in terms of the HoF. If I had a vote he would get it.
I view Schilling as someone who was a great ballplayer on the field and who is a horrible, loathsome, person off of it.
Also;
Confession: I still enjoy listening to 1970's era Ted Nugent music on rare occasions...
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jan 24, 2019 10:27:02 GMT -5
Haha yup, only a true snowflake would consider a joke about lynching journalists to be crossing a line. I guess we're calling that a "goofy tweet" now. Yuk yuk...what a knee-slapper. Good thing he didn't kneel during a football game or something truly awful like that instead. Yeah if he did he would face a truly horrifying future of (gulp) making millions out of advertisement without ever risking his body again. America eating their young alright! Let's not beat around the bush here folks, the problem with Schilling isn't what he said or did, it's that he's a notoriously right wing person. It's exactly like the MAGA kid and the native american. It isn't about what you say or do, it's about who you are. It's frustrating that we have to pretend like he did something heinous, use preposterous straw man like comparing it to the NFL situation or false equivalences like comparing a tweet to a player injecting junk on his buttocks until he drops a third ball. Let's call it like it is.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 24, 2019 10:29:24 GMT -5
Baseball should just throw out the morality clause. Guys like Schilling won't be remembered for being an intolerant blowhard 50 years from now. Heck, Ty Cobb for reference was one of the biggest racists in all of sports history. I bet no one cares about that right now or even wants to even care to read about it in today's world. I just remembered it from reading about baseball history from somewhere (can't remember where). They should have thrown it out the second they knew the players were using steriods. It would make things a lot easier. If the voters don't want to vote on the players (whether they definitely knew or not they used steriods), then throw out the voters who aren't basing their decisions based off of stats, winning, and merit and stuff like that. They need to stop playing the role of god in the baseball HOF and just look at the back of the baseball card. That's just my opinion of course. Schilling might be the only guy that has won 4 rings with 3 different teams. He might be the only non Yankee or Red Sox player of his ERA with multiple rings too. He's a jerk, but it says a lot about him too if he goes to different teams and they turn into a championship contender. The guy knew how to pitch in the biggest games and get the job done. Winning should be the number one priority of the votes in the HOF, that is if that player has the stats to back it up. Schilling has enough of those stats, he's in eventually and he should be in. There's really no debate in my eyes. Not taking away from Mussina either, they both deserve to be in. On another side note, Tony Mazz still has a vote. This is who's voting for the baseball HOF. That needs to change. The idiot who never watched JD Martinez play ever and told the Sox to run away from him. That's how good his opinion on baseball is. My god, I would want ANYONE on here voting instead of him. This is why I say some baseball writers are the worst. Yeah, he'll lose his vote eventually because the baseball HOF changed the rules, but there's way too many guys who don't have a clue like Mazz who won't ever lose their vote imo. Ty Cobb was not the biggest racist in all of sports history. He was smeared by a writer who was not exactly known for his integrity to put it charitably. Al Stump actually took an easy pay day to slander Cobb when he died. He also made money forging his signature and faking his memorabilia to make a buck. Unfortunately for Cobb, a movie was made on the Al Stump version of events which further cemented Cobb's "legacy". Cobb was actually for integration Here's a quote from Cobb in 1952 regarding integration, “The Negro should be accepted and not grudgingly, but wholeheartedly . . . no white man has the right to be less of a gentleman than a colored man.” Charles Leerhsen wrote a biography called “Ty Cobb: A Terrible Beauty,” that sheds light on Cobb. He wasn't a saint - he'd fight anybody, white or black - no discrimination there, but he wasn't the racist that he was thought to be. He actually came from an abolitionist family. .
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 24, 2019 10:39:49 GMT -5
Baseball should just throw out the morality clause. Guys like Schilling won't be remembered for being an intolerant blowhard 50 years from now. Heck, Ty Cobb for reference was one of the biggest racists in all of sports history. I bet no one cares about that right now or even wants to even care to read about it in today's world. I just remembered it from reading about baseball history from somewhere (can't remember where). They should have thrown it out the second they knew the players were using steriods. It would make things a lot easier. If the voters don't want to vote on the players (whether they definitely knew or not they used steriods), then throw out the voters who aren't basing their decisions based off of stats, winning, and merit and stuff like that. They need to stop playing the role of god in the baseball HOF and just look at the back of the baseball card. That's just my opinion of course. Schilling might be the only guy that has won 4 rings with 3 different teams. He might be the only non Yankee or Red Sox player of his ERA with multiple rings too. He's a jerk, but it says a lot about him too if he goes to different teams and they turn into a championship contender. The guy knew how to pitch in the biggest games and get the job done. Winning should be the number one priority of the votes in the HOF, that is if that player has the stats to back it up. Schilling has enough of those stats, he's in eventually and he should be in. There's really no debate in my eyes. Not taking away from Mussina either, they both deserve to be in. On another side note, Tony Mazz still has a vote. This is who's voting for the baseball HOF. That needs to change. The idiot who never watched JD Martinez play ever and told the Sox to run away from him. That's how good his opinion on baseball is. My god, I would want ANYONE on here voting instead of him. This is why I say some baseball writers are the worst. Yeah, he'll lose his vote eventually because the baseball HOF changed the rules, but there's way too many guys who don't have a clue like Mazz who won't ever lose their vote imo. In a way they've done that. The problem is that if you look at the back of Fred McGriff's baseball card and the back of other guys' cards like a Palmeiro, a Sosa, or of course Bonds, it's not going to look as good and it has reflected on McGriff's vote totals. Let me clarify what I'm trying to say - yes Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire - those guys aren't getting votes, but what I'm trying to say is that I was watching MLB network and they put up a graphic that showed McGriff's offensive numbers weren't far off (very comparable) of Bonds numbers until Bonds decided to cheat and become an all-time offensive guy in the league of Williams and Ruth. Compare Bonds' numbers thru 1998 (which are already awesome) and then look at the ridiculously absurd stretch of 1999 - 2004 - how can you honestly take them at face value and just go by the back of the baseball card? Bonds was a slam dunk HOFer before that and would have performed at a HOF level before aging took over, but without his PEDs he wouldn't have been putting up those Ninendo numbers. So because McGriff didn't cheat (or at least there's zero evidence that he did) his numbers got left in the dust and for those who use counting stats to vote, he didn't get a chance to hit his 7 homers during the strike of 1994 to reach the magical 500 mark. Strange, in a way Rice and Baines got boosted because they were considered clean, yet McGriff somehow got hosed. The overall point is that I think there were some honest players who got screwed because of the cheaters. How do you think Mike Greenwell feels about Jose Canseco winning the MVP award in 1988 when it was obvious he was cheating while Greenwell wasn't?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 24, 2019 10:57:39 GMT -5
Haha yup, only a true snowflake would consider a joke about lynching journalists to be crossing a line. I guess we're calling that a "goofy tweet" now. Yuk yuk...what a knee-slapper. Good thing he didn't kneel during a football game or something truly awful like that instead. Yeah if he did he would face a truly horrifying future of (gulp) making millions out of advertisement without ever risking his body again. America eating their young alright! Let's not beat around the bush here folks, the problem with Schilling isn't what he said or did, it's that he's a notoriously right wing person. It's exactly like the MAGA kid and the native american. It isn't about what you say or do, it's about who you are. It's frustrating that we have to pretend like he did something heinous, use preposterous straw man like comparing it to the NFL situation or false equivalences like comparing a tweet to a player injecting junk on his buttocks until he drops a third ball. Let's call it like it is. Do you really think the problem so many of us have with Schilling is not the things that he says, but that he has different politics from us? That's pretty far out. Strange, in a way Rice and Baines got boosted because they were considered clean, yet McGriff somehow got hosed. That's not what happened. Rice got in because people thought he was a Hall of Fame quality hitter and "one of the most feared hitters in his day." He's a borderline candidate and his case has gotten discussed a lot, but as a player with an outstanding peak who didn't hold his value for long, he's an entirely case than McGriff, whose case is his consistency. Baines, once again, got in because the veterans committee ended up being a weird conglomeration of people who had been associated with Harold Baines. His election was an accident, you can't compare it to McGriff at all. Canseco and Greenwell both lucked out in that voters cared more about RBI than anything else back then anyway. Wade Boggs should've been winning his second straight MVP in '88.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 24, 2019 11:12:25 GMT -5
Haha yup, only a true snowflake would consider a joke about lynching journalists to be crossing a line. I guess we're calling that a "goofy tweet" now. Yuk yuk...what a knee-slapper. Good thing he didn't kneel during a football game or something truly awful like that instead. Yeah if he did he would face a truly horrifying future of (gulp) making millions out of advertisement without ever risking his body again. America eating their young alright! Let's not beat around the bush here folks, the problem with Schilling isn't what he said or did, it's that he's a notoriously right wing person. It's exactly like the MAGA kid and the native american. It isn't about what you say or do, it's about who you are. It's frustrating that we have to pretend like he did something heinous, use preposterous straw man like comparing it to the NFL situation or false equivalences like comparing a tweet to a player injecting junk on his buttocks until he drops a third ball. Let's call it like it is. Political ideology isn't like skin color or sexual orientation or something. It's a choice you make, and some of those choices are objectively toxic.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Jan 24, 2019 11:27:48 GMT -5
Schilling's politics are the least of the off the field issues I have with him. Politics aside he is a loathsome, horrible, person.
As I have even told Curt on the rare occasions we had exchanges (all those years ago at the Remy Report when he posted there while still playing) we will agree to disagree on politics. His subsequent actions and statements on non-political issues is what I take great offense to...
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jan 24, 2019 11:37:07 GMT -5
Do you really think the problem so many of us have with Schilling is not the things that he says, but that he has different politics from us? That's pretty far out. Yeah I do think that plays a part. Maybe it isn't 100% the reason as God knows Schilling doesn't help himself either, but I believe most of his sh*t would be ignored if we wasn't a conservative. Former athletes saying something stupid isn't exactly rare. Political ideology isn't like skin color or sexual orientation or something. It's a choice you make, and some of those choices are objectively toxic. Not objectively, not even close. Maybe in some rare stances where guy holds some truly extreme beliefs, but not in the widespread way that is is nowadays where everyone is a russian bot.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 24, 2019 12:03:55 GMT -5
Do you really think the problem so many of us have with Schilling is not the things that he says, but that he has different politics from us? That's pretty far out. Yeah I do think that plays a part. Maybe it isn't 100% the reason as God knows Schilling doesn't help himself either, but I believe most of his sh*t would be ignored if we wasn't a conservative. Former athletes saying something stupid isn't exactly rare. I mean, it's not like the "crazy" things Schilling says are somehow independent from his politics. deadspin.com/hall-of-fame-candidate-curt-schilling-in-hot-water-over-1821655648thinkprogress.org/breitbart-white-nationalist-nehlen-490e0e05439a/He was openly praising a guy who literally adopted the KKK's slogan. This isn't subtle and it's not a difference of opinion. Schilling traffics in the most some of the most vile ideas possible, full stop.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 24, 2019 13:04:18 GMT -5
There's nothing more fun than politics and racism.
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jan 24, 2019 13:08:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 24, 2019 14:13:16 GMT -5
I grew up listening to Boston talk radio - WBZ back then in the early 60s. That's the era when George Lincoln Rockwell's brownshirts were goose-stepping their way through the streets of Boston, Philadelphia, and other East coast cities. I remember the speeches by Malcolm X, the arguments about what the right approach was to gaining some sort of racial equity. What seared my memory and has stayed with me ever since was that it was a precursor to the killing of MLK, Bobby Kennedy, and the Chicago riots during the Democratic convention. I've honestly never gotten over 1968, I'm still haunted by the emotions that were generated that year and the years leading up to it.
Everyone has a right to say whatever they want, it's important that we keep that in mind. I believe that our greatest strength is often perceived by the rest of the world as our greatest weakness: the immediacy with which issues surface and the turmoil that they cause. The only way to sort things out is to get them acknowledged, get the public megaphone blasting away. That, it seems to me, is the most powerful drug we have coursing through our societal veins, though I tend to take it in regulated doses myself.
What we have to have to go with that pantheon of thought is the critical thinking needed to sort through those ideas. The supremacists have always been with us, it's not new. At the start of the last century, it was Italians, swarthy men from Eastern Europe, and the Jews who were escaping pogroms in Russia who were pariahs. Even back then there were plenty of voices asking that we close the doors on the boats arriving from those places and send them back. Our better instincts prevailed I believe, though it took two world wars and a hell of a lot of pain and suffering after that to even get us to this point.
What has changed is the short-circuiting of the consensus that was typically developed - top down - by what we now call the main-stream media. That's not surprising since they were all within a few blocks of each other in New York. I can't count the number of times when Newsweek and Time features the same cover story, often with the same imagery. That's all gone now. We have dozens of alternate communications channels with millions of voices. Everyone can have their say - populism write large, as large as you can imagine it.
I have no idea whether that's good or bad. Like most of what modern tech has developed it's probably both with the sorting-out yet to come. What I do know is that with the rise of all those alternate voices comes enormous responsibility. That's all I'd ask of Schilling, that he take responsibility for his actions. Because those actions do have implications. I learned that lesson in my youth.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 24, 2019 15:12:43 GMT -5
Baseball should just throw out the morality clause. Guys like Schilling won't be remembered for being an intolerant blowhard 50 years from now. Heck, Ty Cobb for reference was one of the biggest racists in all of sports history. I bet no one cares about that right now or even wants to even care to read about it in today's world. I just remembered it from reading about baseball history from somewhere (can't remember where). They should have thrown it out the second they knew the players were using steriods. It would make things a lot easier. If the voters don't want to vote on the players (whether they definitely knew or not they used steriods), then throw out the voters who aren't basing their decisions based off of stats, winning, and merit and stuff like that. They need to stop playing the role of god in the baseball HOF and just look at the back of the baseball card. That's just my opinion of course. Schilling might be the only guy that has won 4 rings with 3 different teams. He might be the only non Yankee or Red Sox player of his ERA with multiple rings too. He's a jerk, but it says a lot about him too if he goes to different teams and they turn into a championship contender. The guy knew how to pitch in the biggest games and get the job done. Winning should be the number one priority of the votes in the HOF, that is if that player has the stats to back it up. Schilling has enough of those stats, he's in eventually and he should be in. There's really no debate in my eyes. Not taking away from Mussina either, they both deserve to be in. On another side note, Tony Mazz still has a vote. This is who's voting for the baseball HOF. That needs to change. The idiot who never watched JD Martinez play ever and told the Sox to run away from him. That's how good his opinion on baseball is. My god, I would want ANYONE on here voting instead of him. This is why I say some baseball writers are the worst. Yeah, he'll lose his vote eventually because the baseball HOF changed the rules, but there's way too many guys who don't have a clue like Mazz who won't ever lose their vote imo. Ty Cobb was not the biggest racist in all of sports history. He was smeared by a writer who was not exactly known for his integrity to put it charitably. Al Stump actually took an easy pay day to slander Cobb when he died. He also made money forging his signature and faking his memorabilia to make a buck. Unfortunately for Cobb, a movie was made on the Al Stump version of events which further cemented Cobb's "legacy". Cobb was actually for integration Here's a quote from Cobb in 1952 regarding integration, “The Negro should be accepted and not grudgingly, but wholeheartedly . . . no white man has the right to be less of a gentleman than a colored man.” Charles Leerhsen wrote a biography called “Ty Cobb: A Terrible Beauty,” that sheds light on Cobb. He wasn't a saint - he'd fight anybody, white or black - no discrimination there, but he wasn't the racist that he was thought to be. He actually came from an abolitionist family. . I did not know all of that. Thanks for the correction. I knew it came from somewhere that Cobb was racist, now I know where.
|
|
|
HOF Talk
Jan 24, 2019 15:21:18 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jan 24, 2019 15:21:18 GMT -5
Baseball should just throw out the morality clause. Guys like Schilling won't be remembered for being an intolerant blowhard 50 years from now. Heck, Ty Cobb for reference was one of the biggest racists in all of sports history. I bet no one cares about that right now or even wants to even care to read about it in today's world. I just remembered it from reading about baseball history from somewhere (can't remember where). They should have thrown it out the second they knew the players were using steriods. It would make things a lot easier. If the voters don't want to vote on the players (whether they definitely knew or not they used steriods), then throw out the voters who aren't basing their decisions based off of stats, winning, and merit and stuff like that. They need to stop playing the role of god in the baseball HOF and just look at the back of the baseball card. That's just my opinion of course. Schilling might be the only guy that has won 4 rings with 3 different teams. He might be the only non Yankee or Red Sox player of his ERA with multiple rings too. He's a jerk, but it says a lot about him too if he goes to different teams and they turn into a championship contender. The guy knew how to pitch in the biggest games and get the job done. Winning should be the number one priority of the votes in the HOF, that is if that player has the stats to back it up. Schilling has enough of those stats, he's in eventually and he should be in. There's really no debate in my eyes. Not taking away from Mussina either, they both deserve to be in. On another side note, Tony Mazz still has a vote. This is who's voting for the baseball HOF. That needs to change. The idiot who never watched JD Martinez play ever and told the Sox to run away from him. That's how good his opinion on baseball is. My god, I would want ANYONE on here voting instead of him. This is why I say some baseball writers are the worst. Yeah, he'll lose his vote eventually because the baseball HOF changed the rules, but there's way too many guys who don't have a clue like Mazz who won't ever lose their vote imo. In a way they've done that. The problem is that if you look at the back of Fred McGriff's baseball card and the back of other guys' cards like a Palmeiro, a Sosa, or of course Bonds, it's not going to look as good and it has reflected on McGriff's vote totals. Let me clarify what I'm trying to say - yes Sosa, Palmeiro, McGwire - those guys aren't getting votes, but what I'm trying to say is that I was watching MLB network and they put up a graphic that showed McGriff's offensive numbers weren't far off (very comparable) of Bonds numbers until Bonds decided to cheat and become an all-time offensive guy in the league of Williams and Ruth. Compare Bonds' numbers thru 1998 (which are already awesome) and then look at the ridiculously absurd stretch of 1999 - 2004 - how can you honestly take them at face value and just go by the back of the baseball card? Bonds was a slam dunk HOFer before that and would have performed at a HOF level before aging took over, but without his PEDs he wouldn't have been putting up those Ninendo numbers. So because McGriff didn't cheat (or at least there's zero evidence that he did) his numbers got left in the dust and for those who use counting stats to vote, he didn't get a chance to hit his 7 homers during the strike of 1994 to reach the magical 500 mark. Strange, in a way Rice and Baines got boosted because they were considered clean, yet McGriff somehow got hosed. The overall point is that I think there were some honest players who got screwed because of the cheaters. How do you think Mike Greenwell feels about Jose Canseco winning the MVP award in 1988 when it was obvious he was cheating while Greenwell wasn't? Champs, how do you know McGriff didn't at one point take steriods or not either? That's what I mean. I wouldn't be surprised if steriods started popping up in the 80's and becoming a huge problem in the 90's. There's just not a lot of clarity of knowing if a player was on roids or not. Vote them all in. It happened. MLB turned a blind eye to it.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jan 24, 2019 15:47:39 GMT -5
I grew up listening to Boston talk radio - WBZ back then in the early 60s. That's the era when George Lincoln Rockwell's brownshirts were goose-stepping their way through the streets of Boston, Philadelphia, and other East coast cities. I remember the speeches by Malcolm X, the arguments about what the right approach was to gaining some sort of racial equity. What seared my memory and has stayed with me ever since was that it was a precursor to the killing of MLK, Bobby Kennedy, and the Chicago riots during the Democratic convention. I've honestly never gotten over 1968, I'm still haunted by the emotions that were generated that year and the years leading up to it. Everyone has a right to say whatever they want, it's important that we keep that in mind. I believe that our greatest strength is often perceived by the rest of the world as our greatest weakness: the immediacy with which issues surface and the turmoil that they cause. The only way to sort things out is to get them acknowledged, get the public megaphone blasting away. That, it seems to me, is the most powerful drug we have coursing through our societal veins, though I tend to take it in regulated doses myself. What we have to have to go with that pantheon of thought is the critical thinking needed to sort through those ideas. The supremacists have always been with us, it's not new. At the start of the last century, it was Italians, swarthy men from Eastern Europe, and the Jews who were escaping pogroms in Russia who were pariahs. Even back then there were plenty of voices asking that we close the doors on the boats arriving from those places and send them back. Our better instincts prevailed I believe, though it took two world wars and a hell of a lot of pain and suffering after that to even get us to this point. What has changed is the short-circuiting of the consensus that was typically developed - top down - by what we now call the main-stream media. That's not surprising since they were all within a few blocks of each other in New York. I can't count the number of times when Newsweek and Time features the same cover story, often with the same imagery. That's all gone now. We have dozens of alternate communications channels with millions of voices. Everyone can have their say - populism write large, as large as you can imagine it. I have no idea whether that's good or bad. Like most of what modern tech has developed it's probably both with the sorting-out yet to come. What I do know is that with the rise of all those alternate voices comes enormous responsibility. That's all I'd ask of Schilling, that he take responsibility for his actions. Because those actions do have implications. I learned that lesson in my youth. Well said - the breakdown of the media has been a major issue that started with the 24 hour news channels but got progressively worse with social media dominating the internet. Our media is now, more than ever about ratings and getting the story out first, truth and facts be damned. Then if proven wrong after spending hundreds of hours on coverage and “analysis” aka political opinion musings they simply mention the mistake in about a minute and move on. Unfortunately, the misinformation and the perception it left is forever stained. Undoubtedly, there are still good journalist out there, James your wife probably is one, but the profession has been a terrible representation of its self proclaimed values. Which we can say about many professions. On top of that, the desire for stories that have bite and create emotional responses has given a strong voice to the minority. They get to be loud and spam their message to everyone and it gets confused as some sort of huge movement when it’s not. The problem with this is it then snowballs on itself. Sad times we live in. I still believe the majority of the country, left - right - center - no where - all want the sake things even if we disagree on the way to achieve them. Unfortunately, we don’t have politicians or a fair truthful media to portray that.
|
|
|