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
Sunday, August 26, 2007
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)