Screw the link. Here's the text:
Ankiel's feel-good story doesn't feel right anymore
By Jeff Passan, Yahoo! Sports
September 7, 2007
Sometime over the last month, as Rick Ankiel launched home runs and put a defibrillator to his career and thrust the St. Louis Cardinals back into the playoff race, the irony of his new nickname must have dawned on him.
The Natural.
It's funny and sad now, of course, in light of the New York Daily News' bombshell late Thursday that linked Ankiel to a 12-month prescription of human growth hormone in 2004. The author of baseball's greatest story this season – the one guy in whom everyone, Cardinals fans or otherwise, wanted to believe – was allegedly just like Barry Bonds: seeking glory through needles.
The continued marriage between Major League Baseball players and performance-enhancing drugs came as no surprise, with the fallout of the latest scandal, stemming from the federal raid of Signature Pharmacy in Orlando, bound to extend its tentacles to baseball. The name, though – that was a shock, and a disappointment, too, because it reinforced the notion that baseball players, even those who evoke such wonderment, must be viewed through a prism of skepticism.
Performance-enhancing drugs have weaved themselves into baseball's culture, and extracting them has proved messy every step. The New York Times on Wednesday reported that the players' association was resisting overtures from George Mitchell, the lead of baseball's investigation into steroid use, who wanted to speak with 45 players, most still active.
Make that 46. Ankiel had captivated baseball with an incredible month that crested Thursday, when he hit two home runs and drove in seven runs to bring the Cardinals within one game of National League Central-leading Chicago and Milwaukee. Already his comeback to the major leagues as an outfielder after he flamed out spectacularly as a pitcher, losing his control and never regaining it, was inspiring enough. His success was movie material.
Even though the Daily News report said Ankiel stopped receiving HGH before MLB banned it in 2005 – and that he got the eight shipments over a 12-month period when he was still a pitcher – it colors and tempers and dampens his accomplishments just as Bonds' link to performance-enhancers renders his all-time home run crown questionable.
When records are no longer records, does that make lesser accomplishments not accomplishments at all? It's the dichotomy fans must navigate, the fork in the road with equally tenuous paths: Appreciate athletes for their performances while accepting they could be on any kind of cocktail or shun professional athletics altogether for its duplicity in allowing performance-enhancers to infiltrate their games?
"If it's true," Cardinals general manager Walt Jocketty told the Daily News, "obviously it would be very tragic, along with everything else we've had happen to us this year."
In spring training, manager Tony La Russa was charged with a misdemeanor DUI. On April 29, reliever Josh Hancock was killed in a single-car crash with a blood-alcohol content of .157, nearly twice the legal limit. Cardinals utilityman Scott Spiezio left the team in August to deal with substance-abuse issues. Potholes pocked their road to repeating as World Series champions, and Ankiel's emergence had begun to fill them.
Certainly he knew the possibility of his name surfacing from the rubble of the Signature raid, which makes you wonder guilt consumed him or hubris emboldened him. Athletes – whether Ankiel or Bonds, Rodney Harrison or Shawne Merriman, Floyd Landis or Justin Gatlin, and on and on, ad nauseam – understand the consequences of performance-enhancing drug use. Not physical problems; those are debatable. Simply the black mark that tarnishes the person's reputation and, worse, heaves collateral damage on the sport.
Baseball, as an institution, wants steroids to go away. Sure, there will always be enablers, like doctor William Gogan, who, according to the Daily News, provided Ankiel – then, by all accounts, a healthy 24-year-old with no need for an artificial testosterone boost – with the HGH prescription. In the 1980s and '90s, baseball personnel turned their heads as players injected themselves – La Russa among them, with admitted user Jose Canseco starring on his Oakland A's teams.
And some may say this is baseball's just desserts for such actions. Yet how many times can a punch-drunk boxer get pummeled until he crumbles? The problem for baseball is, no referee exists to stop the match.
So expect more names to emerge, more legacies to fall, more stories on pharmaceuticals instead of far home runs. Busch Stadium crackled with life as Ankiel smacked his eighth and ninth homers Thursday, and after the Cardinals' 16-4 victory, La Russa started to wax on how Ankiel was a "marvel."
"It is kind of amazing," he said, "isn't it?"
Actually, no. Not anymore.
Not in the least.
A few questions.
1) Who the fuck is Jeff Passan?
2) Who gives a shit?
3) Mr. Passan, have you ever smoked pot in your life? Have you ever gotten a parking ticket? Because, if so, you've put another stain on an already disgraced profession. It's clear you're no stranger to plaigarism because everyone else seems to write the same column over and over and over and over. Maybe that's going over the top. You're just too lazy to bother. Or to think.
It's not even worth puncturing all the holes in this jock-sniffer's stupid column. The logical flaws are all obvious...this is 2007, not 2004, and so on...
Is there one sportswriter with something interesting to say about any sport? There are a lot of interesting issues. That Rick Ankiel took HGH is BORING. That Scott Speizio is an addict is double-plus boring.
Christ, these sanctimonious assholes like Jeff Passan make you feel like being a baseball fan is a revolutionary act. Cool. Forego's a baseball fan. He's always going to be a baseball fan. Barry Bonds holds the career MLB home run record and no preaching is going to make that not be true. There is only one legitmate argument to be made. Barry Bonds is not the Home Run King of America because Josh Gibson had more in his career. But that would create all sorts of problems, wouldn't it? It would mean confronting the fact that Josh Gibson has a little corner in the "coloreds-only" section of Cooperstown while a pretty damned useless player of the same complexion, Kirby Puckett, has the full monty. Those are interesting questions about baseball, anyway. Rick Ankiel taking HGH or Scott Speizio getting high is just a space filler.
Bad luck to you, Passan, from Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Sunday, August 26, 2007
HORRIBLE NIGHT ON THE BAIZE FRIDAY, LOVELY NIGHT AT EL ESTADIO ROD CAREW SATURDAY
Played the 25-25 NL Omaha and, man, nothing worked. Every time Forego agreed to do "business," he would have gutted the guy with the Nut-Flush or the Full-House on The River. When Forego slow-played his flopped Straights, he got sucked out, but when he got them all-in good with Off-Broadway under-the-gun with plenty of callers, there was somebody on the button who'd flopped Broadway. Urgh. 7 dimes down the drain.
Brought Forego, Jr, to El Estadio Rod Carew to see the Panamanian National Team host the Japanese Championiship team, Mitsubishi-Fuso. Tickets entitled us to free Atlas Beer and any sodas, free nachos, KFC, hot dogs, and as for the game...there was a long-rain delay, so -- after a long fireworks show, folkloric dancing, and the playing of the Panamanian National Anthem (Forego and Jr gladly stood; the Panamanian anthem is really nice and positive and non-violent), we were treated to a big win by Panama, with the hated (loved by Forego) Ex-Rudy Giuliani Girl, Ruben Rivera, doing his thing in the cleanup spot driving in three with a pair of doubles and Miguel Gomez took a no-hitter with 7 strikeouts into the 6th inning. At 6-0 Panama in the 7th (no, they don't play "God Bless Panama"), Jr's copious nacho, chili dog and orange soda consumption along with the late hour -- midnite Central -- got the best of him and he fell asleep in Forego's lap. We return to Aparatmento Forego and he is sleeping soundly as Forego types.
Forego is blogging as a break from Omaha, to which he'll return tomorrow.
Our Obama fade is working out nicely, thanks. We got down at a net-price of -250 that Mr Hopeful Audacity would NOT get the Democratic nomination and are pleased to see that the best price available now is -600.
We've got some small bets going in a very esoteric market: England's Booker Prize For Literature. All of the early money had shown for Ian McEwen knocking him down from +800 to +232 favoritism, driving price on early favorite Nicola Barker up to 9/2, which we gladly scooped up and then saved with Hamid and Wilson only because they both opened long -- Hamid +1500 of 15/1, Wilson +4000 or 40/1 -- and both had been bet down to co-3rd choices at +700 or 7/1. We were willing to fade McEwen because other than Barker he was the only recognizable name, but the action taken by Hamid and Wilson suggested some superior knowledge. It goes sometime in September.
We'll do some US Open tennis later this week and maybe some NCAA and NFL look-aheads.
Finally, Forego's meditation on mellow coaches was proved right by Newsmeat as our favorite football coach, Barry Switzer, was revealed to have ONLY given to Democrats.
Good Luck from Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar
Brought Forego, Jr, to El Estadio Rod Carew to see the Panamanian National Team host the Japanese Championiship team, Mitsubishi-Fuso. Tickets entitled us to free Atlas Beer and any sodas, free nachos, KFC, hot dogs, and as for the game...there was a long-rain delay, so -- after a long fireworks show, folkloric dancing, and the playing of the Panamanian National Anthem (Forego and Jr gladly stood; the Panamanian anthem is really nice and positive and non-violent), we were treated to a big win by Panama, with the hated (loved by Forego) Ex-Rudy Giuliani Girl, Ruben Rivera, doing his thing in the cleanup spot driving in three with a pair of doubles and Miguel Gomez took a no-hitter with 7 strikeouts into the 6th inning. At 6-0 Panama in the 7th (no, they don't play "God Bless Panama"), Jr's copious nacho, chili dog and orange soda consumption along with the late hour -- midnite Central -- got the best of him and he fell asleep in Forego's lap. We return to Aparatmento Forego and he is sleeping soundly as Forego types.
Forego is blogging as a break from Omaha, to which he'll return tomorrow.
Our Obama fade is working out nicely, thanks. We got down at a net-price of -250 that Mr Hopeful Audacity would NOT get the Democratic nomination and are pleased to see that the best price available now is -600.
We've got some small bets going in a very esoteric market: England's Booker Prize For Literature. All of the early money had shown for Ian McEwen knocking him down from +800 to +232 favoritism, driving price on early favorite Nicola Barker up to 9/2, which we gladly scooped up and then saved with Hamid and Wilson only because they both opened long -- Hamid +1500 of 15/1, Wilson +4000 or 40/1 -- and both had been bet down to co-3rd choices at +700 or 7/1. We were willing to fade McEwen because other than Barker he was the only recognizable name, but the action taken by Hamid and Wilson suggested some superior knowledge. It goes sometime in September.
We'll do some US Open tennis later this week and maybe some NCAA and NFL look-aheads.
Finally, Forego's meditation on mellow coaches was proved right by Newsmeat as our favorite football coach, Barry Switzer, was revealed to have ONLY given to Democrats.
Good Luck from Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar
Friday, August 24, 2007
CROSS-POST ON GAMBLING, MARKETS AND BUSH/KERRY 2004 FROM KELSO'S NUTS
As the Nikoli Davydenko allegations of match-fixing (lots of this on Forego's Nuts), i.e., retiring to Vassallo-Arguello in the 3rd set of a Sopot, Poland, tennis tournament, while having gone in as heavy favorite, bet against solidly pre-match, bet heavily even after having won first set 6-2, losing 2nd and winning 4-1 in 3rd, with every penny going on the low-ranked Vassallo-Arguello while down a set to the world's #4 may suggest something opposite to Jim Lampley's allegation in a Huffington Post comment of 2005, it also may not. The point -- and the rub -- is that money talks and bullshit walks. Again, anyone interest in a lively, layman's intro into this kind of analysis is encouraged to read the highly literate work, THE WISDOM OF CROWDS by New Yorker financial columnist James Surowiecki. [Conflict of interest alert here: Mr. Surowiecki is a friend of Kelso's.]
And here is the famous Lampley Huffington Post comment.
Who Really Won?
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
At 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Election Day, I checked the sportsbook odds in Las Vegas and via the offshore bookmakers to see the odds as of that moment on the Presidential election. John Kerry was a two-to-one favorite. You can look it up.People who have lived in the sports world as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election. And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.Many of the participants in this blog have graduate school educations. It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research and its uncanny accuracy and validity. We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, thaty's why there are identifiable margins for error. We know that margins for error are valid, and that results have fallen within the error range for every Presidential election for the past fifty years prior to last fall. NEVER have exit polls varied by beyond-error margins in a single state, not since 1948 when this kind of polling began. In this past election it happened in ten states, all of them swing states, all of them in Bush's favor. Coincidence? Of course not.Karl Rove isn't capable of conceiving and executing such a grandiose crime? Wake up. They did it. The silence of traditional media on this subject is enough to establish their newfound bankruptcy. The revolution will have to start here. I challenge every other thinker at the Huffington Post: is there any greater imperative than to reverse this crime and reestablish democracy in America? Why the mass silence? Let's go to work with the circumstantial evidence, begin to narrow from the outside in, and find some witnesses who will turn. That's how they cracked Watergate. This is bigger, and I never dreamed I would say that in my baby boomer lifetime.
Kelso will take this a step further, because Lampley is missing a few items that would tend to bolster -- or not depending on how you view where the playas (meaning Bushies) intensities were: money or power. Bush opened election day a -$1.25/+$1.15 favorite over Kerry meaning that if you thought Bush would win, you'd have to bet $1.25 to win $1, with your initial stake returned to you, of course. If you thought Kerry would win you could win $1.15 for every $1 you bet. Lampley has told you where the money went -- all to Kerry -- through 5PM Eastern Time on Election afternoon. Kelso had watched this very closely as a Kelso himself had laid -$1.70 to the dollar that Bush would win in 2004 the week after the "Mission Impossible" speech. Betting on this election straight up and in the futures market was available until the closure of the polls on the East Coast, around 9pm EDT. By that time the outright market had Kerry a 1/40 favorite, meaning if you thought Kerry would win, you would have to risk $40 to win $1. If you thought Bush would win you could have taken 30/1, meaning $1 on Bush would have returned you $30. The futures markets reflected the same. To "buy" Kerry you would have had to pay 97 pence to win 1 pound sterling. To "buy" Bush you could pay 5 pence to win 1 pound sterling. Millions and millons were changing hands on this, and the markets were telling you John Kerry would have his hand on the bible in January of 2005.
And we know what happened. Kerry did not even ask for an Ohio recount to which he was entitled. If anyone "knew" the fix was in, why then, to contradict Lampley, was there not late money back at huge odds for Bush? No one knows. Here are some possibilities.
1) The Ohio fix was indeed in, but to fix an election ex-ante is quite a different thing than stealing it ex-post as was alleged in Bush v Gore 2000 and Nixon v Kennedy 1960. It is much harder to do, would involve a lot of people acting in concert and would constitute very serious criminal activity, not just "politics." So, though the Republicans had it planned, they were afraid enough of a slip between the cup and the lip and decided not to bet back.
2) It was not Bush, but Kerry who was dumping. One can only speculate as to the reasons. He had put up his house to finance his campaign in early 2004. No one really knows what the financial arrangement between Kerry and his wife really is, and given the volume of wagers ON Kerry at short-odds, a Kerry sub-altern could easily have moved enough on Bush late without attracting attention so as to guarantee Kerry a very big financial score.
3) Everything was on the level. Kerry fought the campaign weakly (which he did) and fought the final hours weaker still, afraid perhaps of charges of race prejudice because the Ohio Secretary Of State, Republican Ken Blackwell's complexion matched the first syllable of his last name. Perhaps, Kerry feared embarrassment after Gore's experience and a "sore-loser" label felt worse to him personally and with regard to future ambitions -- even maintainance of his Senate seat -- more than he wanted to win.
We report. You are the "decider" and the "commander guy."
Good luck from Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar
And here is the famous Lampley Huffington Post comment.
Who Really Won?
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
At 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Election Day, I checked the sportsbook odds in Las Vegas and via the offshore bookmakers to see the odds as of that moment on the Presidential election. John Kerry was a two-to-one favorite. You can look it up.People who have lived in the sports world as I have, bettors in particular, have a feel for what I am about to say about this: these people are extremely scientific in their assessments. These people understand which information to trust and which indicators to consult in determining where to place a dividing line to influence bets, and they are not in the business of being completely wrong. Oddsmakers consulted exit polling and knew what it meant and acknowledged in their oddsmaking at that moment that John Kerry was winning the election. And he most certainly was, at least if the votes had been fairly and legally counted. What happened instead was the biggest crime in the history of the nation, and the collective media silence which has followed is the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil.Many of the participants in this blog have graduate school educations. It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research and its uncanny accuracy and validity. We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, thaty's why there are identifiable margins for error. We know that margins for error are valid, and that results have fallen within the error range for every Presidential election for the past fifty years prior to last fall. NEVER have exit polls varied by beyond-error margins in a single state, not since 1948 when this kind of polling began. In this past election it happened in ten states, all of them swing states, all of them in Bush's favor. Coincidence? Of course not.Karl Rove isn't capable of conceiving and executing such a grandiose crime? Wake up. They did it. The silence of traditional media on this subject is enough to establish their newfound bankruptcy. The revolution will have to start here. I challenge every other thinker at the Huffington Post: is there any greater imperative than to reverse this crime and reestablish democracy in America? Why the mass silence? Let's go to work with the circumstantial evidence, begin to narrow from the outside in, and find some witnesses who will turn. That's how they cracked Watergate. This is bigger, and I never dreamed I would say that in my baby boomer lifetime.
Kelso will take this a step further, because Lampley is missing a few items that would tend to bolster -- or not depending on how you view where the playas (meaning Bushies) intensities were: money or power. Bush opened election day a -$1.25/+$1.15 favorite over Kerry meaning that if you thought Bush would win, you'd have to bet $1.25 to win $1, with your initial stake returned to you, of course. If you thought Kerry would win you could win $1.15 for every $1 you bet. Lampley has told you where the money went -- all to Kerry -- through 5PM Eastern Time on Election afternoon. Kelso had watched this very closely as a Kelso himself had laid -$1.70 to the dollar that Bush would win in 2004 the week after the "Mission Impossible" speech. Betting on this election straight up and in the futures market was available until the closure of the polls on the East Coast, around 9pm EDT. By that time the outright market had Kerry a 1/40 favorite, meaning if you thought Kerry would win, you would have to risk $40 to win $1. If you thought Bush would win you could have taken 30/1, meaning $1 on Bush would have returned you $30. The futures markets reflected the same. To "buy" Kerry you would have had to pay 97 pence to win 1 pound sterling. To "buy" Bush you could pay 5 pence to win 1 pound sterling. Millions and millons were changing hands on this, and the markets were telling you John Kerry would have his hand on the bible in January of 2005.
And we know what happened. Kerry did not even ask for an Ohio recount to which he was entitled. If anyone "knew" the fix was in, why then, to contradict Lampley, was there not late money back at huge odds for Bush? No one knows. Here are some possibilities.
1) The Ohio fix was indeed in, but to fix an election ex-ante is quite a different thing than stealing it ex-post as was alleged in Bush v Gore 2000 and Nixon v Kennedy 1960. It is much harder to do, would involve a lot of people acting in concert and would constitute very serious criminal activity, not just "politics." So, though the Republicans had it planned, they were afraid enough of a slip between the cup and the lip and decided not to bet back.
2) It was not Bush, but Kerry who was dumping. One can only speculate as to the reasons. He had put up his house to finance his campaign in early 2004. No one really knows what the financial arrangement between Kerry and his wife really is, and given the volume of wagers ON Kerry at short-odds, a Kerry sub-altern could easily have moved enough on Bush late without attracting attention so as to guarantee Kerry a very big financial score.
3) Everything was on the level. Kerry fought the campaign weakly (which he did) and fought the final hours weaker still, afraid perhaps of charges of race prejudice because the Ohio Secretary Of State, Republican Ken Blackwell's complexion matched the first syllable of his last name. Perhaps, Kerry feared embarrassment after Gore's experience and a "sore-loser" label felt worse to him personally and with regard to future ambitions -- even maintainance of his Senate seat -- more than he wanted to win.
We report. You are the "decider" and the "commander guy."
Good luck from Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
FOREGO GAVE HIM HIS CHANCE, BUT...
...MICHAEL VICK has by his own admission proven to be just the foul waste of protoplasm the conventional wisdom had him. Killing the dogs? Repulsive. Even though there's a presumption against incarceration for a first-time offender, Kelso is hoping Vick does indeed have to serve a custodial sentence.
The conventional wisdom is right now and then. It's wrong about Bonds. It's wrong about plenty of other crap, too. It was surely wrong that Kirby Puckett belongs in Cooperstown.
As for Vick, no prison rape jokes. No invective. The punishment should fit the crime. Vick's a cretin (guess that's kind of invective). Just hoping the Falcons can find another alternative to keep Dunn healthy.
--Good luck from Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar.
The conventional wisdom is right now and then. It's wrong about Bonds. It's wrong about plenty of other crap, too. It was surely wrong that Kirby Puckett belongs in Cooperstown.
As for Vick, no prison rape jokes. No invective. The punishment should fit the crime. Vick's a cretin (guess that's kind of invective). Just hoping the Falcons can find another alternative to keep Dunn healthy.
--Good luck from Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar.
Monday, August 13, 2007
GQ'S BOTTOM TEN PRO ATHLETES
Here's the link.
http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_4103
Here are Forego's individual comments, but first an overview. The inclusion of Kent, Mickelson and Pierzynski lend some credence to the story. It's not just one of those pick out all the black guys who make a lot of money.
10) LLEYTON HEWITT. Forego will always remember Hewitt not for the James Blake incident. People say stupid things all the time, but somehow when those stupid things are vaguely racial it's like double-plus taboo. Hewitt could well be an asshole though. We like him because we like very good athletes who are short in stature. Hewitt also produced one of Forego's best brags which was sadly short-circuited. When we priced the 2001 Hewitt-Sampras US Open final, we made Hewitt a -$1.90 favorite, yet the market had Sampras -$2.00, take back +$1.80 with Hewitt. We push in a large bet on Hewitt. Spend the afternoon and evening at a tomatoe crush and pasta dinner and enjoyed Hewitt's win, doing only the minimal bragging because the big bragging would surely come later in the week. That tennis final was played on September 9, 2001. Y'all know the rest.
9) A.J. PIERZYNSKI. Realtively obscure player to make the list like this for a mainstream publication like GQ. Hard to argue. We have no opinion one way or the other, except that he's the catcher on our fantasy team this year.
8) PHIL MICKELSON. Outstanding revenge his showing up in this. Some years back, Forego layed -$1.40 with Mickelson over Scott McCarron for the full tournament in the Las Vegas Invitational. Both made the cut but going into the final round, Mickelson was in 3rd place and McCarron was in 60th, 15 strokes adrift. Forego was something on the order of 10,000,000/1 odds-on to win. Mickelson fails to show up for the 4th round, citing the "flu." The "flu" as some have said was a $3 million loss at baccarat the night before, after which Phil just said "fuck it." He, apparently, didn't feel like it was worth his time to bother chasing a $500,000 first prize in the tournament. His failure to appear was grounds for a disqualification and Forego lost the bet. Three years ago, Mickelson and A-Rod decided to play a little club poker at one of Forego's favorite old spots, Club Broadway in Chelsea. The press followed and called the police who shut the place down, never to reappear. Phil Mickelson's charity according the PGA Media Guide: "THE FELLOWHIP OF FAITH MINISTRIES." Hypocritical asshole.
7) BONZI WELLS. Forego doesn't follow the NBA. No opinion.
6) MICHAEL IACONELLI. Forego doesn't follow American Bass Tournament fishing. No opinion.
5) KOBE BRYANT. Forego doesn't follow the NBA. No opinion. That won't prevent us from offering one though. Always struck Forego as something of an asshole.
4) CURT SCHILLING. Loved him when we had big bet on the 1993 Phillies to win NL East and Pennant. Loved him when we bet him, taking +$1.85 against Rudy Giuliani's Girls in the infamous "sock" game. Hate his politics. Glad to see the rumor about the bloody sock being a dub is still around. Great Curt Schilling joke Bostonians tell: Curt Schilling is a horse every5th day and a horse's ass the other 4.
3) KURT BUSCH. No interest in NASCAR whatsoever. No opinion.
2) BARRY BONDS. You all know Forego's views on Bonds. GQ can go fuck itself on this one.
1) TERRELL OWENS. Don't follow NFL to extent that Forego's aware of anything about Owens other than he's a first class receiver, though not a brilliant one.
OF THE HONORABLE MENTIONS...
JEFF KENT: His inclusion kind of puts the lie to Bonds for #2 because following the Kent-Bonds fight, the only player who offered support of Kent was Lance Berkman of the Astros. And they quote a Houston-based writer in the story, so Berkman's probably all wrong. Move Kent into the main list and take of the Bass Fisherman.
RANDY JOHNSON: This could all be true we have no opinion. The Unit was amazing at this best.
RASHEED WALLACE: NBA. No opinion. It is rumored he has a taste for White, female sports journalists so that could be the motivating factor behind his inclusion.
A-ROD: See the Mickelson entry on what we don't like about him. Otherwise, we proudly claim A-Rod as a Native Manhattanite and have appreciated seeing greatness.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Did Davydenko dump against Vasallo-Arguello. It sure seems that way. Especially as in the same week, there was unusual, and unusually large, betting against Konstantin Economidis in two very random first round matches. During the same week, the bookies could not give Andreev away despite his projected superiority over his opponent. Kelso was on the wrong side of the Davydenko match, and both Economidis matches. The right side with Andreev, but Andreev underperformed his projection by two service breaks in each of the first two sets. Some links.
http://myespn.go.com/conversation/story?id=2961187
http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2007-08-03/189.php
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=2965889
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/index
Good luck from Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar
http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_4103
Here are Forego's individual comments, but first an overview. The inclusion of Kent, Mickelson and Pierzynski lend some credence to the story. It's not just one of those pick out all the black guys who make a lot of money.
10) LLEYTON HEWITT. Forego will always remember Hewitt not for the James Blake incident. People say stupid things all the time, but somehow when those stupid things are vaguely racial it's like double-plus taboo. Hewitt could well be an asshole though. We like him because we like very good athletes who are short in stature. Hewitt also produced one of Forego's best brags which was sadly short-circuited. When we priced the 2001 Hewitt-Sampras US Open final, we made Hewitt a -$1.90 favorite, yet the market had Sampras -$2.00, take back +$1.80 with Hewitt. We push in a large bet on Hewitt. Spend the afternoon and evening at a tomatoe crush and pasta dinner and enjoyed Hewitt's win, doing only the minimal bragging because the big bragging would surely come later in the week. That tennis final was played on September 9, 2001. Y'all know the rest.
9) A.J. PIERZYNSKI. Realtively obscure player to make the list like this for a mainstream publication like GQ. Hard to argue. We have no opinion one way or the other, except that he's the catcher on our fantasy team this year.
8) PHIL MICKELSON. Outstanding revenge his showing up in this. Some years back, Forego layed -$1.40 with Mickelson over Scott McCarron for the full tournament in the Las Vegas Invitational. Both made the cut but going into the final round, Mickelson was in 3rd place and McCarron was in 60th, 15 strokes adrift. Forego was something on the order of 10,000,000/1 odds-on to win. Mickelson fails to show up for the 4th round, citing the "flu." The "flu" as some have said was a $3 million loss at baccarat the night before, after which Phil just said "fuck it." He, apparently, didn't feel like it was worth his time to bother chasing a $500,000 first prize in the tournament. His failure to appear was grounds for a disqualification and Forego lost the bet. Three years ago, Mickelson and A-Rod decided to play a little club poker at one of Forego's favorite old spots, Club Broadway in Chelsea. The press followed and called the police who shut the place down, never to reappear. Phil Mickelson's charity according the PGA Media Guide: "THE FELLOWHIP OF FAITH MINISTRIES." Hypocritical asshole.
7) BONZI WELLS. Forego doesn't follow the NBA. No opinion.
6) MICHAEL IACONELLI. Forego doesn't follow American Bass Tournament fishing. No opinion.
5) KOBE BRYANT. Forego doesn't follow the NBA. No opinion. That won't prevent us from offering one though. Always struck Forego as something of an asshole.
4) CURT SCHILLING. Loved him when we had big bet on the 1993 Phillies to win NL East and Pennant. Loved him when we bet him, taking +$1.85 against Rudy Giuliani's Girls in the infamous "sock" game. Hate his politics. Glad to see the rumor about the bloody sock being a dub is still around. Great Curt Schilling joke Bostonians tell: Curt Schilling is a horse every5th day and a horse's ass the other 4.
3) KURT BUSCH. No interest in NASCAR whatsoever. No opinion.
2) BARRY BONDS. You all know Forego's views on Bonds. GQ can go fuck itself on this one.
1) TERRELL OWENS. Don't follow NFL to extent that Forego's aware of anything about Owens other than he's a first class receiver, though not a brilliant one.
OF THE HONORABLE MENTIONS...
JEFF KENT: His inclusion kind of puts the lie to Bonds for #2 because following the Kent-Bonds fight, the only player who offered support of Kent was Lance Berkman of the Astros. And they quote a Houston-based writer in the story, so Berkman's probably all wrong. Move Kent into the main list and take of the Bass Fisherman.
RANDY JOHNSON: This could all be true we have no opinion. The Unit was amazing at this best.
RASHEED WALLACE: NBA. No opinion. It is rumored he has a taste for White, female sports journalists so that could be the motivating factor behind his inclusion.
A-ROD: See the Mickelson entry on what we don't like about him. Otherwise, we proudly claim A-Rod as a Native Manhattanite and have appreciated seeing greatness.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Did Davydenko dump against Vasallo-Arguello. It sure seems that way. Especially as in the same week, there was unusual, and unusually large, betting against Konstantin Economidis in two very random first round matches. During the same week, the bookies could not give Andreev away despite his projected superiority over his opponent. Kelso was on the wrong side of the Davydenko match, and both Economidis matches. The right side with Andreev, but Andreev underperformed his projection by two service breaks in each of the first two sets. Some links.
http://myespn.go.com/conversation/story?id=2961187
http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2007-08-03/189.php
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=2965889
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/index
Good luck from Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar
Monday, August 6, 2007
PAVEMENT IS BETTER THAN U2 HOW THAT RELATES TO SPORTS
Partial lyrics to "Stereo" by PAVEMENT ("Brighten The Corners," 1997)
Pigs, they tend to wiggle when they walk
the infrastructure rots
and the owners hate the jocks
with their agents and their dates
if the signatures are checked
you'll just have to wait
and we're counting up the instants that we save
tired nation so depraved
from the cheap seats see us
wave to the camera
it took a giant ramrod
to raze the demon settlement...
but Hi-Ho Silver ride
Interpret them as you will, but Forego is going to go Dennis Kucinich here and continue to use Barry Bonds and Michael Vick stories as "teachable moments."
Would men of every political stripe please look at the lyrics Forego has made bold in the passage above? This is where the canker gnaws, no? Every man thinks that but for one break here or one break there, he could be playing a sport at the najor -league level and would gladly do so at his present salary or even for free. And as much as he loves sports, he's jealous as hell. And then race comes into it. And then if alleged crimes comes into it, all the racial prejudices and jealousy become a toxic cocktail. So, no wonder men ALWAYS side with ownership over players as the default position, never mind during times when sports issues become new issues.
Forego means the vast majority of men, and not just wing-nuts. Even left-wing men, who have no problem with a religio-fascist and friend of Bush like Bono making billions of dollars, have more than a little problem with A-Rod or with Bonds or even with McGwire. How funny is that? Lots of inferences to draw here. "Uppity" comes to mind. That these three athletes are also very bright comes to mind. That they have been outspoken about their -- iconclastic, macho-culture smashing -- use of psychotherapy comes to mind. And then there's the money.
We're going deep into baseball history, economics, finance and tax law here, so either buckle your seat belt, or go elsewhere if this bores you. Bill Veeck, who was actually rather pro-player as owners go, came up with a win-win solution in the years following the Messersmith/McNally/Hunter (pick your case) which brought an end to baseball's "reserve clause" and brought in free-agency. Veeck, who always operated on a shoe-string budget, knew he was going to have problems keeping his White Sox at least somewhat competitive in this new era. So, he came up with a novel idea. Arguing that the players were not only employees of the team but also the product of the business, he ought to be entitled to deduct for tax purposes not only their salaries as current expenses but also that the players themselves should receive capital asset treatment under the IRS code as something akin to property, plant and equipment or inventory and he ought to be able to depreciate them under some agreed-to schedule, like, say the way racehorses or conveyor belts are treated in the code.
Veeck won his argument. So, for tax purposes a year of Alex Rodriguez's $25 million salary (let's simplify this and say the Yankees bear the whole load), is written of as a current expense and the player "Alex Rodriguez" would be a capital asset of the New York Yankees (again, for simplicity's sake, let's say the Yankees had his whole 6-year, $150 million contract, and were using a 5-year ACRS depreciation scheduled). Under this scenario, very roughly speaking, his contract would be his value as a capital asset discounted to its present value, let's say at 7%, which gives "Alex Rodriguez" a value of roughly $120 million. In Year 1 with the Yankees, 20% of that could be written off. In Year 2, 40%. And the remainder can be written off using double-declining balance system.
So, let's take a look at Year 2. The Yankees write-off $25 million for his salary as a current expense and 40% of his value as a capital asset as depreciation: $120 million X 40% = $48 million. My God, the man's paying the Yankees! That's $73 million in write-offs. And, puh-leeze, don't tell Forego that baseball teams lose money, least of all the Yankees.
Stephen Malkmus is probably right that the "owners hate the jocks" but they damned well shouldn't. Whether Joe or Josephine Sports-fan chooses to also hate the jocks is their business, but if they do, here's Forego's suggestion: they should stop following sports and maybe take up home-canning. Or stamp collecting. Or voting. Wait, on second thought, that last idea isn't so good. Scratch that.
Oh yeah, why is Pavement better than U2? Because the sky is high and pigs don't fly (the tend to wiggle when they walk). And because -- like -- Bono's a born-again butt-munch and...Stephen Malkmus is -- like -- cool.
Good Luck from Forego, a poor-skin head without a dollar
Pigs, they tend to wiggle when they walk
the infrastructure rots
and the owners hate the jocks
with their agents and their dates
if the signatures are checked
you'll just have to wait
and we're counting up the instants that we save
tired nation so depraved
from the cheap seats see us
wave to the camera
it took a giant ramrod
to raze the demon settlement...
but Hi-Ho Silver ride
Interpret them as you will, but Forego is going to go Dennis Kucinich here and continue to use Barry Bonds and Michael Vick stories as "teachable moments."
Would men of every political stripe please look at the lyrics Forego has made bold in the passage above? This is where the canker gnaws, no? Every man thinks that but for one break here or one break there, he could be playing a sport at the najor -league level and would gladly do so at his present salary or even for free. And as much as he loves sports, he's jealous as hell. And then race comes into it. And then if alleged crimes comes into it, all the racial prejudices and jealousy become a toxic cocktail. So, no wonder men ALWAYS side with ownership over players as the default position, never mind during times when sports issues become new issues.
Forego means the vast majority of men, and not just wing-nuts. Even left-wing men, who have no problem with a religio-fascist and friend of Bush like Bono making billions of dollars, have more than a little problem with A-Rod or with Bonds or even with McGwire. How funny is that? Lots of inferences to draw here. "Uppity" comes to mind. That these three athletes are also very bright comes to mind. That they have been outspoken about their -- iconclastic, macho-culture smashing -- use of psychotherapy comes to mind. And then there's the money.
We're going deep into baseball history, economics, finance and tax law here, so either buckle your seat belt, or go elsewhere if this bores you. Bill Veeck, who was actually rather pro-player as owners go, came up with a win-win solution in the years following the Messersmith/McNally/Hunter (pick your case) which brought an end to baseball's "reserve clause" and brought in free-agency. Veeck, who always operated on a shoe-string budget, knew he was going to have problems keeping his White Sox at least somewhat competitive in this new era. So, he came up with a novel idea. Arguing that the players were not only employees of the team but also the product of the business, he ought to be entitled to deduct for tax purposes not only their salaries as current expenses but also that the players themselves should receive capital asset treatment under the IRS code as something akin to property, plant and equipment or inventory and he ought to be able to depreciate them under some agreed-to schedule, like, say the way racehorses or conveyor belts are treated in the code.
Veeck won his argument. So, for tax purposes a year of Alex Rodriguez's $25 million salary (let's simplify this and say the Yankees bear the whole load), is written of as a current expense and the player "Alex Rodriguez" would be a capital asset of the New York Yankees (again, for simplicity's sake, let's say the Yankees had his whole 6-year, $150 million contract, and were using a 5-year ACRS depreciation scheduled). Under this scenario, very roughly speaking, his contract would be his value as a capital asset discounted to its present value, let's say at 7%, which gives "Alex Rodriguez" a value of roughly $120 million. In Year 1 with the Yankees, 20% of that could be written off. In Year 2, 40%. And the remainder can be written off using double-declining balance system.
So, let's take a look at Year 2. The Yankees write-off $25 million for his salary as a current expense and 40% of his value as a capital asset as depreciation: $120 million X 40% = $48 million. My God, the man's paying the Yankees! That's $73 million in write-offs. And, puh-leeze, don't tell Forego that baseball teams lose money, least of all the Yankees.
Stephen Malkmus is probably right that the "owners hate the jocks" but they damned well shouldn't. Whether Joe or Josephine Sports-fan chooses to also hate the jocks is their business, but if they do, here's Forego's suggestion: they should stop following sports and maybe take up home-canning. Or stamp collecting. Or voting. Wait, on second thought, that last idea isn't so good. Scratch that.
Oh yeah, why is Pavement better than U2? Because the sky is high and pigs don't fly (the tend to wiggle when they walk). And because -- like -- Bono's a born-again butt-munch and...Stephen Malkmus is -- like -- cool.
Good Luck from Forego, a poor-skin head without a dollar
Sunday, August 5, 2007
IN PRAISE OF MELLOW FOOTBALL COACHES
A tip of the cap to Matty Boy at http://lotsasplainin.blogspot.com/ for nice words about Bill Walsh.
Having suffered through two absolutely tragic New York Giant seasons under uber-disciplinarian Tom Coughlin's wretched coaching, it's time to praise some of the mellow guys. Jeez, Coughlin's supposed to be such a disciplinarian, so why the fuck does his offensive line mess up the snap-count so often? Why does he sit his best players to "teach them a lesson"? Why hasn't he done a better job protecting the health of Shockey? It's too depressing to even get into. Coughlin's a dildo who built an entire career on one random play: yeah, Flutie, BC, 1984. He couldn't be an assistant to the special teams coach under Bill Walsh.
Matty boy covered most of the main points about Walsh's intelligence, humanity and organizational gifts, but for one. He left a system in tact such that another normal adult, George Seifert, could step in and run that system equally well. The 49ers always figured out something, didn't they? Recalling a game during the 1992 season with both Montana and Young hurt. So, whaddaya know? The Niners are good as gold with Shaun Musgrave at QB. Walsh and Seifert after him ALWAYS had a plan. They always focused on what their players did well as opposed to what the did poorly. They had brilliant talent at times: Rice, Lott, Montana, Young, to be sure, but how did they figure out Rathman? Jeez, how did they figure out Rice to begin with? And Ronnie Lott surely wasn't the only player in the defensive secondary of the great Niner teams. How about Hicks? We could go on, but we don't want to steal Matty's thunder on Walsh.
Now, with the full disclosure that Forego is a Wes grad and a native New Yorker, we'll mention Bill Belichick and Eric Magini only briefly. These guys are cool, great coaches, and brilliant iconoclasts. The book's only 2/3 written on Belichick and we're on page 1 of the Magini story.
Let's have a look at some of the other non-control-freak-Hall-Of-Fame coaches.
May we all remember just how great a coach Barry Switzer was, please? The Wikipedia entry link follows and has the details -- and we understand that according to Bill O'Reilly Wikipedia has a "liberal bias" -- but one story always stood out for Forego with regard to Switzer. This story made Forego extra happy that Switzer got a chance (admittedly blown to some extent) for super-glory as Dallas Cowboys' head coach. It concerns a now-forgotten running back at Oklahoma named Marcus Dupree. The story's really too long for a blog, so look it up. The short version is that there were a number of scandals that involved Dupree and the media did its usual racist number, but Barry Switzer stuck by that kid every step of the way, when the easy course as Head Coach of Oklahoma would have been to do the opposite.
We love Hank Brown at UT and Mike Leach at Tech, and the former not just for "the game" against USC. The stories of these two college coaches are available everywhere and if you like your college coaches to be winners, cool, and iconoclastic, you got them here.
Good luck from Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar
Having suffered through two absolutely tragic New York Giant seasons under uber-disciplinarian Tom Coughlin's wretched coaching, it's time to praise some of the mellow guys. Jeez, Coughlin's supposed to be such a disciplinarian, so why the fuck does his offensive line mess up the snap-count so often? Why does he sit his best players to "teach them a lesson"? Why hasn't he done a better job protecting the health of Shockey? It's too depressing to even get into. Coughlin's a dildo who built an entire career on one random play: yeah, Flutie, BC, 1984. He couldn't be an assistant to the special teams coach under Bill Walsh.
Matty boy covered most of the main points about Walsh's intelligence, humanity and organizational gifts, but for one. He left a system in tact such that another normal adult, George Seifert, could step in and run that system equally well. The 49ers always figured out something, didn't they? Recalling a game during the 1992 season with both Montana and Young hurt. So, whaddaya know? The Niners are good as gold with Shaun Musgrave at QB. Walsh and Seifert after him ALWAYS had a plan. They always focused on what their players did well as opposed to what the did poorly. They had brilliant talent at times: Rice, Lott, Montana, Young, to be sure, but how did they figure out Rathman? Jeez, how did they figure out Rice to begin with? And Ronnie Lott surely wasn't the only player in the defensive secondary of the great Niner teams. How about Hicks? We could go on, but we don't want to steal Matty's thunder on Walsh.
Now, with the full disclosure that Forego is a Wes grad and a native New Yorker, we'll mention Bill Belichick and Eric Magini only briefly. These guys are cool, great coaches, and brilliant iconoclasts. The book's only 2/3 written on Belichick and we're on page 1 of the Magini story.
Let's have a look at some of the other non-control-freak-Hall-Of-Fame coaches.
May we all remember just how great a coach Barry Switzer was, please? The Wikipedia entry link follows and has the details -- and we understand that according to Bill O'Reilly Wikipedia has a "liberal bias" -- but one story always stood out for Forego with regard to Switzer. This story made Forego extra happy that Switzer got a chance (admittedly blown to some extent) for super-glory as Dallas Cowboys' head coach. It concerns a now-forgotten running back at Oklahoma named Marcus Dupree. The story's really too long for a blog, so look it up. The short version is that there were a number of scandals that involved Dupree and the media did its usual racist number, but Barry Switzer stuck by that kid every step of the way, when the easy course as Head Coach of Oklahoma would have been to do the opposite.
We love Hank Brown at UT and Mike Leach at Tech, and the former not just for "the game" against USC. The stories of these two college coaches are available everywhere and if you like your college coaches to be winners, cool, and iconoclastic, you got them here.
Good luck from Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
GETTING NO LOVE ON THIS BLOG, SO WE'LL SETTLE FOR HATE
Time to weigh in on Michael Vick issue. Forego believes that dear friend "Country" who is the single biggest dog lover in the world gives permission, consdering he gave Forego vintage book on game-cockery for Forego's 40th.
NAACP has also warned against rush to judgment, so there.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Ag.ZfDuOcxsdXUzk4XdqWnX.uLYF?slug=ap-vick-naacp&prov=ap&type=lgns
First of all, as Forego recalls, in the United States Of America a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury of peers. Forego could be mistaken about this but as a trade association and "corporate-person" without anti-trust exemption, neither the NFL nor the Atlanta Falcons may do anything to prevent Mr. Vick from earning a living at his chosen work wihtut cause unless he is found guilty or pleads guilty, and they especially may not do so in concert. Forego is not sure if the practice of professional dog-fighting is even a Federal offense. Without any knowledge we are presuming it is illegal in the states of Georgia and West Virginia, though. We are also not sure if either the NFL or Atlanta Falcons football club may prevent Mr. Vick from pursuing his main trade in another state, should he be found guilty and after having served his sentence.
Second of all, we understand this story is news, but why does it get more prominence than recent Bush administration executive orders granted the executive dictatorial powers and the right to full asset-seizure of anyone on U.S. soil for any reason without due process?
Third of all, what's really the big deal? Here are some truths about dog-fighting. The breeding, owning, training and entry into matches of professional fighting dogs is not what everyone reflexively thinks it is. These are not street fights to the death. These dogs are not penned up in veal cages when not fighting. The training process is very specfic and most trainers use pretty standard techniques. The idea is to build the dog's hind-quarter strength as a puppy by tying a heavy object to the tail and having the dog walk ever-increasing distances dragging the object. As the puppy develops, the trainer will begin the fighting preparation practice. The first job is to discover whether the dog is an aggressor or a defender. This is done by donning soft gloves and play-fighting with the dog. The dog's stylistic response will show which type of fighter he or she is.
As the puppy matures, he or she will have safe sparring matches with muzzles and wrapped and padded paws against dogs of the opposite and same styles. Whatever weakness in the dog's fight the trainer observes, that trainer will attempt to correct those flaws by having the dog spar with only the type of dogs whose styles exploit those flaws, again with muzzles and padded paws.
The owners of these dogs have no interest in underfeeding or mistreating the dogs. The dogs are their livelihood. A top-class male can be worth $50,000 or more and a top-class bitch can yield hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars over th e course of a fighting and breeding career. An aside, for reasons Forego is not clear on, breeders like to delay breeding after one or two cycles of estrus following the bitch's fighting career or if she isn't trained to fight, the reach of sexual maturity.
The fighting dog's career is managed much like a boxer's. They participate in short fights in early career, progressing to longer bouts with maturation. The single worst thing an owner/trainer can do financially and with regard for the dog's health is accept "street challenges" from another owner who has lower-level dogs. A well-trained fighting dog would be a heavy favorite to win that fight, but could easily get hurt in the process. In other words, "ego" has no place in that world.
Forego understands that during the course of many professional dog-fights, dogs do indeed die or receive serious injuries. Forego does not know what becomes of trained dogs who are injured and have neither breeding value nor fighting value, nor does Forego know if dog's deemed to have no earning potential are indeed killed. If so, if Forego were a judge in the Vick case, and Vick were to be found guilty, Forego would consider that very much an augmenting factor in deciding Vick's sentence.
Fourth of all, Forego has never witnessed nor bet on nor even seen a video of a professional or amateur dogfight.
Fifth of all, these dogs are bred to fight. For sweet baby Jesus's sakes, the young men and women in the U.S. military and least of all those in the National Guard were NOT bred to fight! May we please have some sense of proportionality. If given an ultimate choice of being either a professional fighting dog or serving in the infantry in Iraq or Afghanistan, Forego would choose the former. At least, in the former case, he has a fair chance to survive intact, a clearly defined mission and career-path, and the support and training of those in charge. And $13 million unguaranteed dollars be damned. Please make a case that professional dog fighting is less brutal that professional football. Former NFL player and persistant players' advocate Dave Meggesey, in a critque of Players' Association head Gene Upshaw has said that professional football has taken away its players' right to be middle-aged. The actuarial tables bear this out. An NFL career of average length takes the player from youth to old age to an earlier-than-average death for an American male of equivalent circumstance, without the benefit of many years of retirement. It is a bit hard for Forego to see the (is ontological the right adjective? maybe philosophical or effective would be better) difference between Michael Vick and a top-flight professional fighting dog in terms of treatment by their "masters." Which brings up the non-political point (finally) of this post...
Please look at these links to the NFL careers of QBs Michael Vick and Daunte Culpepper (both high First Round draft picks).
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5448/career;_ylt=AiPveL1P8FVmECGITIxK.AH.uLYF
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4659/career;_ylt=AiPveL1P8FVmECGITIxK.AH.uLYF
Now, compare them to the careers of Matt Hasselbeck and Trent Green (both late round draft picks).
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4416/career;_ylt=AiPveL1P8FVmECGITIxK.AH.uLYF
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/2547/career;_ylt=AiPveL1P8FVmECGITIxK.AH.uLYF
There is something Forego does not know -- and using Hasselbeck and Green as comps -- is not begging the answer Forego wants at all. At their best, Vick and Culpepper were brilliant, absolutely deserving of a high draft pick. Their key stats, passing yards per attempt and rushing yards per carry, put them at the very elite of both QBs and RBs in the same season. Essentially, in drafting these two players, Atlanta and Minnesota were getting excellence -- no, superiority -- at two positions for the cost of one pick: Quarterback and Tailback if you will. In Vick's case, his running also allowed some relief for the brilliant, yet small and injury-prone, running back Warrick Dunn.
What stands out about both Vick and Culpepper's careers (aside from scandal and we've discussed that too much already with regard to Vick), is just how much injury they endured. It is not hard to draw the conclusion that the injuries were related to having to be both a passer and a runner.
Hasselbeck and Green, however, as traditional pocket-passers have been quite durable and have always been among league leaders in passing yards/attempt.
The question, therefore, for an NFL team with a high #1 draft pick, is it better to take a player like Vick with that high pick knowing the team will get instant improvement versus taking a top prospect at a different position and trying to "invent" a Hasselbeck or Green with a later round pick, knowing that this stratety would be for rebuilding, not for instant results?
Forego does not know the answer. He does not have the time or inclination to study the question. But somebody out there must know.
Good luck from Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar.
NAACP has also warned against rush to judgment, so there.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Ag.ZfDuOcxsdXUzk4XdqWnX.uLYF?slug=ap-vick-naacp&prov=ap&type=lgns
First of all, as Forego recalls, in the United States Of America a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury of peers. Forego could be mistaken about this but as a trade association and "corporate-person" without anti-trust exemption, neither the NFL nor the Atlanta Falcons may do anything to prevent Mr. Vick from earning a living at his chosen work wihtut cause unless he is found guilty or pleads guilty, and they especially may not do so in concert. Forego is not sure if the practice of professional dog-fighting is even a Federal offense. Without any knowledge we are presuming it is illegal in the states of Georgia and West Virginia, though. We are also not sure if either the NFL or Atlanta Falcons football club may prevent Mr. Vick from pursuing his main trade in another state, should he be found guilty and after having served his sentence.
Second of all, we understand this story is news, but why does it get more prominence than recent Bush administration executive orders granted the executive dictatorial powers and the right to full asset-seizure of anyone on U.S. soil for any reason without due process?
Third of all, what's really the big deal? Here are some truths about dog-fighting. The breeding, owning, training and entry into matches of professional fighting dogs is not what everyone reflexively thinks it is. These are not street fights to the death. These dogs are not penned up in veal cages when not fighting. The training process is very specfic and most trainers use pretty standard techniques. The idea is to build the dog's hind-quarter strength as a puppy by tying a heavy object to the tail and having the dog walk ever-increasing distances dragging the object. As the puppy develops, the trainer will begin the fighting preparation practice. The first job is to discover whether the dog is an aggressor or a defender. This is done by donning soft gloves and play-fighting with the dog. The dog's stylistic response will show which type of fighter he or she is.
As the puppy matures, he or she will have safe sparring matches with muzzles and wrapped and padded paws against dogs of the opposite and same styles. Whatever weakness in the dog's fight the trainer observes, that trainer will attempt to correct those flaws by having the dog spar with only the type of dogs whose styles exploit those flaws, again with muzzles and padded paws.
The owners of these dogs have no interest in underfeeding or mistreating the dogs. The dogs are their livelihood. A top-class male can be worth $50,000 or more and a top-class bitch can yield hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars over th e course of a fighting and breeding career. An aside, for reasons Forego is not clear on, breeders like to delay breeding after one or two cycles of estrus following the bitch's fighting career or if she isn't trained to fight, the reach of sexual maturity.
The fighting dog's career is managed much like a boxer's. They participate in short fights in early career, progressing to longer bouts with maturation. The single worst thing an owner/trainer can do financially and with regard for the dog's health is accept "street challenges" from another owner who has lower-level dogs. A well-trained fighting dog would be a heavy favorite to win that fight, but could easily get hurt in the process. In other words, "ego" has no place in that world.
Forego understands that during the course of many professional dog-fights, dogs do indeed die or receive serious injuries. Forego does not know what becomes of trained dogs who are injured and have neither breeding value nor fighting value, nor does Forego know if dog's deemed to have no earning potential are indeed killed. If so, if Forego were a judge in the Vick case, and Vick were to be found guilty, Forego would consider that very much an augmenting factor in deciding Vick's sentence.
Fourth of all, Forego has never witnessed nor bet on nor even seen a video of a professional or amateur dogfight.
Fifth of all, these dogs are bred to fight. For sweet baby Jesus's sakes, the young men and women in the U.S. military and least of all those in the National Guard were NOT bred to fight! May we please have some sense of proportionality. If given an ultimate choice of being either a professional fighting dog or serving in the infantry in Iraq or Afghanistan, Forego would choose the former. At least, in the former case, he has a fair chance to survive intact, a clearly defined mission and career-path, and the support and training of those in charge. And $13 million unguaranteed dollars be damned. Please make a case that professional dog fighting is less brutal that professional football. Former NFL player and persistant players' advocate Dave Meggesey, in a critque of Players' Association head Gene Upshaw has said that professional football has taken away its players' right to be middle-aged. The actuarial tables bear this out. An NFL career of average length takes the player from youth to old age to an earlier-than-average death for an American male of equivalent circumstance, without the benefit of many years of retirement. It is a bit hard for Forego to see the (is ontological the right adjective? maybe philosophical or effective would be better) difference between Michael Vick and a top-flight professional fighting dog in terms of treatment by their "masters." Which brings up the non-political point (finally) of this post...
Please look at these links to the NFL careers of QBs Michael Vick and Daunte Culpepper (both high First Round draft picks).
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5448/career;_ylt=AiPveL1P8FVmECGITIxK.AH.uLYF
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4659/career;_ylt=AiPveL1P8FVmECGITIxK.AH.uLYF
Now, compare them to the careers of Matt Hasselbeck and Trent Green (both late round draft picks).
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/4416/career;_ylt=AiPveL1P8FVmECGITIxK.AH.uLYF
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/2547/career;_ylt=AiPveL1P8FVmECGITIxK.AH.uLYF
There is something Forego does not know -- and using Hasselbeck and Green as comps -- is not begging the answer Forego wants at all. At their best, Vick and Culpepper were brilliant, absolutely deserving of a high draft pick. Their key stats, passing yards per attempt and rushing yards per carry, put them at the very elite of both QBs and RBs in the same season. Essentially, in drafting these two players, Atlanta and Minnesota were getting excellence -- no, superiority -- at two positions for the cost of one pick: Quarterback and Tailback if you will. In Vick's case, his running also allowed some relief for the brilliant, yet small and injury-prone, running back Warrick Dunn.
What stands out about both Vick and Culpepper's careers (aside from scandal and we've discussed that too much already with regard to Vick), is just how much injury they endured. It is not hard to draw the conclusion that the injuries were related to having to be both a passer and a runner.
Hasselbeck and Green, however, as traditional pocket-passers have been quite durable and have always been among league leaders in passing yards/attempt.
The question, therefore, for an NFL team with a high #1 draft pick, is it better to take a player like Vick with that high pick knowing the team will get instant improvement versus taking a top prospect at a different position and trying to "invent" a Hasselbeck or Green with a later round pick, knowing that this stratety would be for rebuilding, not for instant results?
Forego does not know the answer. He does not have the time or inclination to study the question. But somebody out there must know.
Good luck from Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
BARRY BONDS, SERGIO "EL LABIO" GARCIA, WINKY WRIGHT
Forego's not sure exactly what Bonds did that was so terrible. He's cranky to be sure, but my god man, in addition to inherting a prodigious baseball talent from his father, Bobby, Barry also inhertited a tendency towards chemical depression. What a tragedy that Bobby Bonds chose to self-medicate himself to an early grave via the bottle.
For whom exactly is Barry Bonds supposed to be a role model? Who could ever "be like Barry."
In addition to inheriting his father's athletic ability and brooding personality, Barry Bonds was also born into a life of privilege and blessed with an IQ well, well above average. Oh, yeah, he's also the greatest POSITION PLAYER (meant to include fielding and overall productivity, not just home run power) in baseball history. Through 2005, on Mike Gimbel's RPA ratings (tm) which wash out the distortive effects of home park, era in which he player played, etc., (meaning IF Bonds was using steroids in a "steroid era" his rating is adjusted for that), Bonds was just slightly behind Babe Ruth for the #1 spot. Bonds, however, has had 3 outstanding seasons since then and will probably have a few more to come.
Moreover, in 1995, the last season before the so-called "Steroid Era" began, when Barry Bonds was still thin, he was 6 1-2 WINS better than the median starting National League Left-Fielder, Jeff Conine. The next best of these comparisons for that year were peak Mike Piazza versus the median starting National League Catcher, a peak Todd Hundley at 3 WINS.
Forego will listen to an argument that Ruth's amazing pitching makes him hard to catch for #1 and will also listen to the argument that maybe Josh Gibson of the Negro Leagues was actually the greatest because the Negro League standard of play was so much higher than the Majors at the time and it's unlikely that anyone's going to come close to Gibson's HR record.
So, in Barry Bonds, you have a very intelligent man born to wealth and privilege who at worst is the 3rd best baseball player of all-time. How many people fit that overall profile? FDR, DeKlerk, Jacob Bernoulli? Certainly. Felix Mendelsson and Peyton Manning, maybe. Anybody else? Forego's probably missing four or five. Anybody think FDR and DeKlerk were particularly cuddly? Apparently not. Mendelsson probably fails the Bonds analogy anyway in that he wasn't as good a composer as Bonds is a bsseball player. Jacob Bernoulli was an asshole by historical account. Is there anything paricularly role-modelish or loveable about Peyton Manning? Fuck, no.
Barry Bonds is what he is -- the best player Forego has had the privilege to watch play live. And Forego, Jr., could pick way worse role models than Barry Bonds, believe. Dick Cheney? Harry Reid? Joe Lieberman? Bonds'll do.
But for argument's sake -- though it's absurd to consider Barry Bonds in the same light -- let's say Bonds is supposed to be a role-model for African-American children, and somehow failed miserably at a task that was not appropriate for him nor did he ask for. OK, let's have a little peek at two famous athletes who just before the BALCO case became a big deal were in fact considered role models for disadvantaged inner-city African-American youth and were making far, far more in earnings and endorsement deals than Bonds was at the time: VENUS AND SERENA WILLIAMS. Remember them? The numbers #1 and #2 players in the world. America's sweethearts with all their talk about "the Lord" and their huge endorsement deals. Forget that both of them are dumb as a couple of fenceposts and probably couldn't beat Barry Bonds at Scrabble if Bonds played his tiles open and only had access to 1/8 of the letter bag. Jeez, Forego's not fully convinced either Williams sister can actually read. But physically? Neither Williams sister was much smaller than Bonds is and both were much bigger than the Bonds of the 1990s.
But that's just invective and anecdotal stuff. Let's have a little dance, though, shall we? Here's the data link.
http://home17.inet.tele.dk/wta/
Some highlights. In 2003, when the public first became aware of BALCO Venus Williams played 37 matches,with a 31-6 record including the two famous "suspicious" losses to her sister in the Australian Open and Wimbledon, in which she had opened a -140 favorite, and was bet down to +110 underdog amid suspicions that Richard Williams had punted a few million sterling on the "winner". It was not a great year for her, as she did not win any big events and disappeared following the Wimbledon loss. 2004 found her with a 51-14 record, no major wins and a "walkover" injury loss to Chandra Rubin, though, to Ms. V. Williams's credit, she did make it through the year's schedule. It's all downhill from there. In 2003, Serena Williams had perhaps her best year, going 42-3 and "winning" two majors: Australia and Wimbledon. She, too, disappeared following her Wimbledon "victory." 2004 was a little worse for her than 2003 had been. In 2005, she went 22-9 including an injury walkover loss. Nothing good's happened since. That's not exactly true. A normally pro-portioned Venus Williams did win Wimbledon this year, but you all get the point. Senator and Ambassador Mitchell, as you have subpoenaed Mr. Bonds, would it not be a terrible idea to subpoena the Williams sisters as well? Or do they still move too many racquets, sneakers and tennis gear? We'll leave it to Scotland Yard and the Southern Bookmakers' Association of The United Kingdom to deal with their adoring father.
As for yesterday's British Open finale, what can be said that hasn't already been said about Sergio Garcia? This: His new nickname, replacing "El Nino," ought to be "El Labio" (The Lip).
Forego having suffered along offers condolences to the world's tiny cadre of elite boxing handicappers for losses backing Oscar De La Hoya against Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and Ronald "Winky" Wright against Bernard Hopkins. Such is life. it's the hardest way to make an easy living.
--Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar
For whom exactly is Barry Bonds supposed to be a role model? Who could ever "be like Barry."
In addition to inheriting his father's athletic ability and brooding personality, Barry Bonds was also born into a life of privilege and blessed with an IQ well, well above average. Oh, yeah, he's also the greatest POSITION PLAYER (meant to include fielding and overall productivity, not just home run power) in baseball history. Through 2005, on Mike Gimbel's RPA ratings (tm) which wash out the distortive effects of home park, era in which he player played, etc., (meaning IF Bonds was using steroids in a "steroid era" his rating is adjusted for that), Bonds was just slightly behind Babe Ruth for the #1 spot. Bonds, however, has had 3 outstanding seasons since then and will probably have a few more to come.
Moreover, in 1995, the last season before the so-called "Steroid Era" began, when Barry Bonds was still thin, he was 6 1-2 WINS better than the median starting National League Left-Fielder, Jeff Conine. The next best of these comparisons for that year were peak Mike Piazza versus the median starting National League Catcher, a peak Todd Hundley at 3 WINS.
Forego will listen to an argument that Ruth's amazing pitching makes him hard to catch for #1 and will also listen to the argument that maybe Josh Gibson of the Negro Leagues was actually the greatest because the Negro League standard of play was so much higher than the Majors at the time and it's unlikely that anyone's going to come close to Gibson's HR record.
So, in Barry Bonds, you have a very intelligent man born to wealth and privilege who at worst is the 3rd best baseball player of all-time. How many people fit that overall profile? FDR, DeKlerk, Jacob Bernoulli? Certainly. Felix Mendelsson and Peyton Manning, maybe. Anybody else? Forego's probably missing four or five. Anybody think FDR and DeKlerk were particularly cuddly? Apparently not. Mendelsson probably fails the Bonds analogy anyway in that he wasn't as good a composer as Bonds is a bsseball player. Jacob Bernoulli was an asshole by historical account. Is there anything paricularly role-modelish or loveable about Peyton Manning? Fuck, no.
Barry Bonds is what he is -- the best player Forego has had the privilege to watch play live. And Forego, Jr., could pick way worse role models than Barry Bonds, believe. Dick Cheney? Harry Reid? Joe Lieberman? Bonds'll do.
But for argument's sake -- though it's absurd to consider Barry Bonds in the same light -- let's say Bonds is supposed to be a role-model for African-American children, and somehow failed miserably at a task that was not appropriate for him nor did he ask for. OK, let's have a little peek at two famous athletes who just before the BALCO case became a big deal were in fact considered role models for disadvantaged inner-city African-American youth and were making far, far more in earnings and endorsement deals than Bonds was at the time: VENUS AND SERENA WILLIAMS. Remember them? The numbers #1 and #2 players in the world. America's sweethearts with all their talk about "the Lord" and their huge endorsement deals. Forget that both of them are dumb as a couple of fenceposts and probably couldn't beat Barry Bonds at Scrabble if Bonds played his tiles open and only had access to 1/8 of the letter bag. Jeez, Forego's not fully convinced either Williams sister can actually read. But physically? Neither Williams sister was much smaller than Bonds is and both were much bigger than the Bonds of the 1990s.
But that's just invective and anecdotal stuff. Let's have a little dance, though, shall we? Here's the data link.
http://home17.inet.tele.dk/wta/
Some highlights. In 2003, when the public first became aware of BALCO Venus Williams played 37 matches,with a 31-6 record including the two famous "suspicious" losses to her sister in the Australian Open and Wimbledon, in which she had opened a -140 favorite, and was bet down to +110 underdog amid suspicions that Richard Williams had punted a few million sterling on the "winner". It was not a great year for her, as she did not win any big events and disappeared following the Wimbledon loss. 2004 found her with a 51-14 record, no major wins and a "walkover" injury loss to Chandra Rubin, though, to Ms. V. Williams's credit, she did make it through the year's schedule. It's all downhill from there. In 2003, Serena Williams had perhaps her best year, going 42-3 and "winning" two majors: Australia and Wimbledon. She, too, disappeared following her Wimbledon "victory." 2004 was a little worse for her than 2003 had been. In 2005, she went 22-9 including an injury walkover loss. Nothing good's happened since. That's not exactly true. A normally pro-portioned Venus Williams did win Wimbledon this year, but you all get the point. Senator and Ambassador Mitchell, as you have subpoenaed Mr. Bonds, would it not be a terrible idea to subpoena the Williams sisters as well? Or do they still move too many racquets, sneakers and tennis gear? We'll leave it to Scotland Yard and the Southern Bookmakers' Association of The United Kingdom to deal with their adoring father.
As for yesterday's British Open finale, what can be said that hasn't already been said about Sergio Garcia? This: His new nickname, replacing "El Nino," ought to be "El Labio" (The Lip).
Forego having suffered along offers condolences to the world's tiny cadre of elite boxing handicappers for losses backing Oscar De La Hoya against Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and Ronald "Winky" Wright against Bernard Hopkins. Such is life. it's the hardest way to make an easy living.
--Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar
Thursday, July 12, 2007
PEAK OBAMA?
WE NEED SOME HELP HERE
Forego will get to the point later but first a few questions: (1) voters of any and all stripes but please try to self-identify, if you were voting in the Democratic primary or caucus in your state would you prefer Obama to Clinton, Edwards or Gore? (2) is your state densely populated? (3) does anyone know specifically any good "moderate" Democratic chat-rooms, something offiliated with -- say -- The New Republic, The DLC, etc.? (4) if you knew that Obama had strong ties to big pharma and big insurance would that make a difference? (5) If you lean right and thought that Obama was equally religious to any of the Republicans and was probably somewhere to Giuliani's right on social policy and slightly to his left on the war, has voted with Bush on the big stuff with the liberals on the small stuff what you do?
If you are thinking that this really belongs on the Kelso's Nuts site, think again. FOREGO'S NUTS is not an ideological site. It's about getting the best of it. In that sense, it probably is an idelogical site and an extreme right-wing one! Obama's 2nd financial disclosure of $37mm has shaken the gambling and futures markets. The In-Trade Democratic Nominee sub-market of Tradesports has Hillary Clinton at 43p-in-the-pound in the futures which impounds a +1.33/1 outright price in the discrete market. Obama is 38p-in-the-pound, +1.63/1. The others -- even Gore and Edwards -- are rags.
One must not make too much of this, however. In-Trade is very, very thin. Betfair -- which uses a futures/outright hybrid -- has as closest to market clearing prices: Clinton, +1.12/1; Obama +2.10/1. Betfair is a little deeper than In-Trade as to volume. A bigger place still which uses the hybrid method has Clinton +1.21/1; Obama +2.40/1, with Gore and Edwards far from rags.
All opinions welcome. Real steam preferred.
Good luck from Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar
Forego will get to the point later but first a few questions: (1) voters of any and all stripes but please try to self-identify, if you were voting in the Democratic primary or caucus in your state would you prefer Obama to Clinton, Edwards or Gore? (2) is your state densely populated? (3) does anyone know specifically any good "moderate" Democratic chat-rooms, something offiliated with -- say -- The New Republic, The DLC, etc.? (4) if you knew that Obama had strong ties to big pharma and big insurance would that make a difference? (5) If you lean right and thought that Obama was equally religious to any of the Republicans and was probably somewhere to Giuliani's right on social policy and slightly to his left on the war, has voted with Bush on the big stuff with the liberals on the small stuff what you do?
If you are thinking that this really belongs on the Kelso's Nuts site, think again. FOREGO'S NUTS is not an ideological site. It's about getting the best of it. In that sense, it probably is an idelogical site and an extreme right-wing one! Obama's 2nd financial disclosure of $37mm has shaken the gambling and futures markets. The In-Trade Democratic Nominee sub-market of Tradesports has Hillary Clinton at 43p-in-the-pound in the futures which impounds a +1.33/1 outright price in the discrete market. Obama is 38p-in-the-pound, +1.63/1. The others -- even Gore and Edwards -- are rags.
One must not make too much of this, however. In-Trade is very, very thin. Betfair -- which uses a futures/outright hybrid -- has as closest to market clearing prices: Clinton, +1.12/1; Obama +2.10/1. Betfair is a little deeper than In-Trade as to volume. A bigger place still which uses the hybrid method has Clinton +1.21/1; Obama +2.40/1, with Gore and Edwards far from rags.
All opinions welcome. Real steam preferred.
Good luck from Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
"Shirts And Skins"
WELCOME TO FOREGO'S NUTS
"I'm not interested in sports" has become too frequent a refrain around Kelso's Nuts. As the mighty Nuts Army aims please all, henceforth all discussion of sports, gambling, and finance will be the province of Kelso's younger twin brother, Forego, leaving Kelso to continue to offer the usual windy crap opinions on current events, culture, international affairs and that sort of stuff. The pole-star of the Nuts Empire is that everything is or should be fungible -- meaning every good, service, or future event can be quantified and priced in turn meaning that there is theoretically some number of grosses of Heinz 57 Ketchup that you would accept in exchange for your right to sleep with the partner of your dreams or that you would trade for your vote for Barack Obama in your local Democratic primary (many grosses, one teaspoon, respectively for Forego) -- there will of course be crossover. An example would be the large bet on Gore to win the presidency that was placed in Europe this spring.
In the main, however, we'll keep the sports/finance/quant stuff in County Forego and the political/cultural in County Kelso.
And so, we bring Kelso's All-Star game musings over to County Forego, and continue to ponder the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.
As usual we have a cooling off period with sports and was anyone watching the same MLB All-Star Game Kelso was? Did it not seem like Tony LaRussa was trying his damnedest to lose that game? OK, Peavy throws 5 ground balls (one single, one error) in the first inning and is yanked. Leyland leaves Haren in for two even though he's up in the zone with everything and gives up an early run. Just that one extra inning pitched by Haren ultimately gave Leyland the choice of Putz, K-Rod or Jenks to close plus use Okajima to knock out any lefty hitter LaRussa might have had in his pocket. Speaking of left-handed pitchers, why did LaRussa only carry one -- Wagner? Why did Sanchez and Hardy bat against right-handed pitchers yet Albert fucking Pujols sat on bench? This must be the result of some intra-Cardinal feud between LaRussa and Pujols much like the genuis's feud with Rolen in last year's post-season. And with the National League leading by a run going in to the 5th inning what was Ken Griffey, Jr., the worst defensive regular in MLB still in the outfield -- a huge outfield? Did anyone see him running with iron anklets after Ichiro's I-T-P HR? Any other NL outfield holds that to a stand-up double or a triple to be generous. Beltran could have held it to a single. Guess LaRussa wants Cleveland to beat the NL WS team because without Carpenter and with Kip Wells getting the ball every 5th day the Redbirds will struggle to beat Cincinnati for last.
It's probably better just to give the links, but there's something kind of similar about these teams.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ATL/1990.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TBD/2007.shtml
And if you can figure it out, and you have one hair on your ass, you might be able to buy your kid a year in college.
Oh Jeez, we did skins, but forgot shirts. No end to Iraq or Afghan Wars. Iran toss-up. Venezuela dark-horse. So, we're are still long oil for our Nuts and are trying madly to get short dollars cheaply.
Good Luck From Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar
"I'm not interested in sports" has become too frequent a refrain around Kelso's Nuts. As the mighty Nuts Army aims please all, henceforth all discussion of sports, gambling, and finance will be the province of Kelso's younger twin brother, Forego, leaving Kelso to continue to offer the usual windy crap opinions on current events, culture, international affairs and that sort of stuff. The pole-star of the Nuts Empire is that everything is or should be fungible -- meaning every good, service, or future event can be quantified and priced in turn meaning that there is theoretically some number of grosses of Heinz 57 Ketchup that you would accept in exchange for your right to sleep with the partner of your dreams or that you would trade for your vote for Barack Obama in your local Democratic primary (many grosses, one teaspoon, respectively for Forego) -- there will of course be crossover. An example would be the large bet on Gore to win the presidency that was placed in Europe this spring.
In the main, however, we'll keep the sports/finance/quant stuff in County Forego and the political/cultural in County Kelso.
And so, we bring Kelso's All-Star game musings over to County Forego, and continue to ponder the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.
As usual we have a cooling off period with sports and was anyone watching the same MLB All-Star Game Kelso was? Did it not seem like Tony LaRussa was trying his damnedest to lose that game? OK, Peavy throws 5 ground balls (one single, one error) in the first inning and is yanked. Leyland leaves Haren in for two even though he's up in the zone with everything and gives up an early run. Just that one extra inning pitched by Haren ultimately gave Leyland the choice of Putz, K-Rod or Jenks to close plus use Okajima to knock out any lefty hitter LaRussa might have had in his pocket. Speaking of left-handed pitchers, why did LaRussa only carry one -- Wagner? Why did Sanchez and Hardy bat against right-handed pitchers yet Albert fucking Pujols sat on bench? This must be the result of some intra-Cardinal feud between LaRussa and Pujols much like the genuis's feud with Rolen in last year's post-season. And with the National League leading by a run going in to the 5th inning what was Ken Griffey, Jr., the worst defensive regular in MLB still in the outfield -- a huge outfield? Did anyone see him running with iron anklets after Ichiro's I-T-P HR? Any other NL outfield holds that to a stand-up double or a triple to be generous. Beltran could have held it to a single. Guess LaRussa wants Cleveland to beat the NL WS team because without Carpenter and with Kip Wells getting the ball every 5th day the Redbirds will struggle to beat Cincinnati for last.
It's probably better just to give the links, but there's something kind of similar about these teams.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ATL/1990.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TBD/2007.shtml
And if you can figure it out, and you have one hair on your ass, you might be able to buy your kid a year in college.
Oh Jeez, we did skins, but forgot shirts. No end to Iraq or Afghan Wars. Iran toss-up. Venezuela dark-horse. So, we're are still long oil for our Nuts and are trying madly to get short dollars cheaply.
Good Luck From Forego, a poor skin-head without a dollar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)