FanDuel - WFBC

March 02, 2008

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss?: This NYT profile of the Brothers Steinbrenner by the author of The Bronx is Burning includes Hank's insistence that "Red Sox Nation" is a media creation. Login info for the NYT

posted by yerfatma to baseball at 08:29 AM - 71 comments

I'm excited to see Hank step up to the plate and demonstrate some of his old man's bluster. One of his shots is more serious than the others. George Mitchell led the steroids investigation while serving as a director of the Sox? You gotta be kidding me!

posted by rcade at 09:04 AM on March 02

The NYT had this posted on their website a few days ago. I would have put a link in SpoFi then, save for the length of the article. Nonetheless, it is well worth the read. It is somehow fitting that the bluster has been restored to the NY side of the Sox - Yankees rivalry. Larry Lucchino had been holding up the Boston side of the argument. I certainly hope that Hank Steinbrenner is not seriously questioning the integrity of Senator Mitchell. Mitchell's reputation among his Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle has always been one of honesty. It may also be noted that the Red Sox were one of the few teams that offered its own records for use in the Mitchell Report.

posted by Howard_T at 12:06 PM on March 02

Finally, the Yankees will be showing some fire again. George was getting too old to keep up with the fray, but Hank seems like he'll definitely keep things interesting. I'm really encouraged to get Hank in, sleepy Joe Torre out, and see Girardi focusing on giving the Yanks the edge on the field they've been missing for a few years now. As for Hank making the statements about the Red Sox, he wants to keep that rivalry kindled, and Epstein's recent statements about Mussina and some of the Yankees and their comments regarding opening the season in Japan were going to result in some type of response. Like it or not, this is what you get with the Steinbrenners. They want to make money, spend money, and win. As for the Mitchell Report, I'm so sick of that thing. The idea Mitchell, the director of the Red Sox, prepared the thing was ridiculous. That in no way means I question anything contained in it, but it's just so crazy how those things work out. There couldn't have been a member of Congress affiliated with the Royals or Pirates, but it had to be the Red Sox. This rivalry will be huge for decades.

posted by dyams at 12:26 PM on March 02

Dealing with his comments: 1. The term red sox nation wasn't created by espn, or bostons new ownership. 2. I travel quite a bit, and I see red sox gear everywhere. Hanks correct, there will always be more yankee gear, but that has more to do with the giant pull of new york than anything else. Boston's a small town compared to ny. 3. The whole espn loves the sox angle is rampant among many yankee fans. They truly believe that ESPN hates the yankees. They'll eat that comment up. Hank hasn't been able to shut his mouth about the red sox the entire off season. This is just one of many times he's blabbered about the yankees superiority over the sox (Lucchino took a ton of grief from yankee fans for saying far less). He's a giant windbag that talks before thinking. It has nothing to do with any sox comments (as dyams insinuates). This is what happens when one side of the rivalry finally steps up to the plate. The side that really never thought of the red sox (as I often hear) suddently can't get the sox off their minds. Ironically, this coincides with the opposite happening. If he was a red sox owner I'd be embarrassed but most yankee fans seem to be rooting him on. Which means he won't stop. This will end in one of two ways. The yankees will win a championship and hank will take all the credit, or they will not and he'll have a melt down. Should be interesting. They want to make money, spend money, and win. And run their mouths. The first three don't necessitate the fourth. The yankees didn't lose last year because Cashman wasn't running his mouth. They lost because their offense couldn't score as many runs as their pitching gave up. If they win this year it won't have anything to do with Hank bringing up the sox every few minutes. This reminds me of 2 or 3 years ago when george guaranteed a championship before the season. didn't happen, but no one called him on it because no one took him seriously to begin with. You can only run your mouth so often before you become something of a joke, a seinfeld character. I much prefer Henry's subtle response, though considering his intelligence advantage over hank that may be an unfair comparison.

posted by justgary at 05:01 PM on March 02

So again an exec makes an ass of himself. He sounds like the kid that got left out of the picture and says, "hey, what about me?". I just don't get it with him. Why would you go and make such remarks just because they have finally put all the nonsense of curses and bad memories behind them. I am glad that the Sox finally broke out with a couple of World Series championships. It's great for their fans that have suffered through years and years of failed seasons and empty finishes. I personally don't see any NY Yankee hats or shirts where I live, but I see an awful lot of the Red Sox merchandise.

posted by Mickster at 06:34 PM on March 02

Wow, justgary, his comments have really hit a nerve with you. You say Yankee fans rooting him on will make him keep talking, but I feel people who root against the Yankees crying about what he says will be what makes him say more. I much prefer Mussina's subtle response to Epstein saying he (Mussina) bitched about playing in Japan, used having to go their as a crutch ("Yeah, we used it as an excuse for winning the division," Mussina said), and that he was a "bad apple" by saying "You need a comment from me about him calling me a bad apple? I don't have one." Intelligent responses can come from any direction, I guess.

posted by dyams at 06:40 PM on March 02

George Mitchell led the steroids investigation while serving as a director of the Sox? You gotta be kidding me! Yeah, it's definitely questionable and definitely a conflict of interest, though it's not as though the report didn't name any Red Sox. It just didn't name any Red Sox that mattered. Wow, justgary, his comments have really hit a nerve with you. Oh come on, the guy says some things that obviously aren't true and it must be sour grapes on gary's part?

posted by yerfatma at 07:34 PM on March 02

Oh come on, the guy says some things that obviously aren't true and it must be sour grapes on gary's part? Who said anything about "sour grapes?" I just don't understand why he's so shocked and upset about the comments Steinbrenner made. Is this the first time anyone has made ridiculous comments? And yerfatma, it's great how your link is to a nine-page story on Steinbrenner, his Sox comments aren't made until about the final paragraph on page nine, but practically everyone want to go directly to the link with that has only to do with those comments. You posted this wanting an argument about the comments, so here it is. It's just a little funny how some Sox fans want to retain that "loveable loser" and "Us against the World" identity even though they've now won two of the last four World Series. The Sox are the team with the target on their backs now, so get used to the slams.

posted by dyams at 07:52 PM on March 02

1. The term red sox nation wasn't created by espn, or bostons new ownership. I always had the sense that it was coined by someone at the Globe...maybe Shaughnessey? It annoyed me as one of those "I'm going to invent a nickname" things at the time, which makes me think maybe it was Shaughnessey, who can annoy the bejebers out of me by just existing and pretending to be a writer. Anyway, methinks Hank has a fundamental misunderstanding of what the "nation" in "Red Sox Nation" refers to (hint, Hank...nobody ever said that the whole US of A is gaga over the Red Sox).

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:54 PM on March 02

Funny that Theo Epstein trashed a hotel room after losing Jose Contreras. Knowing what we know now of course. As far as the Red Sox Nation thing, Hank is wrong to insinuate that there are not Red Sox fans all over the U.S. Here in Chicago, after Cubs (by a wide margin) and then White Sox gear, Boston gear is the most common I see. But, Red Sox NationTM (with the official membership cards, chance to bid on priority seating, etc.) is clearly a creation of this ownership regime and a very effective marketing ploy.

posted by holden at 07:56 PM on March 02

Definitely, Hank doesn't understand the definition of Nation in Red Sox Nation. The current ownership did take the existing "Red Sox Nation" and trademark it, probably to protect their brand and obviously, profit. I really wish they'd back off of it a bit, it's irritating the hell out of me.

posted by jerseygirl at 08:09 PM on March 02

it's great how your link is to a nine-page story on Steinbrenner, his Sox comments aren't made until about the final paragraph on page nine, but practically everyone want to go directly to the link with that has only to do with those comments. You posted this wanting an argument about the comments, so here it is. Meh, the whole article is good, but the comment is definitely notable, enough so the Globe had a reaction piece the day before official publication of the NYT article. It's been getting a lot of play here in New England and a bit on ESPN. I don't know that I was "wanting an argument", but have at it.

posted by yerfatma at 06:45 AM on March 03

I don't know that I was "wanting an argument", but have at it. There aren't many topics that get members fired up like Yanks/Sox. Maybe it's that I, myself, am ready to argue because I'm just so glad baseball is starting back up. By "baseball" I'm mainly talking anything about the game that Congress currently isn't involved in.

posted by dyams at 07:07 AM on March 03

Dyams, AMEN on your last contribution. The Tigers are going to quietly beat the hell out of both the Red Soxs and the Yankees. And American League fans don't forget Cleveland. I love the conversation on this thread.

posted by sportnut at 08:17 AM on March 03

There aren't many topics that get members fired up like Yanks/Sox. Maybe it's that I, myself, am ready to argue Doesn't it get old though? The arguing?

posted by jerseygirl at 09:49 AM on March 03

What jerseygirl said. If there's something new and different, fine...but mostly the threads are created by the same ol' haters finding a new iteration of the same ol' dead horse to beat.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:02 AM on March 03

Doesn't it get old though? The arguing? Call it arguing, or just differing opinions, but a person's beliefs in their opinion and point of view is what keeps this site going. If people don't have emotion regarding certain topics discussed here, it would get boring rather quickly.

posted by dyams at 10:05 AM on March 03

Yeah but the arguing always has a sort of "attack" spin on it that gets really tiresome and kind of flies in the face of what we've put together as Sportsfilter.

posted by jerseygirl at 10:14 AM on March 03

Maybe you have to ask the person who posted this item (yerfatma), but I kinda feel a new person in charge of the Yankees (Hank), taking over and immediately getting things going with their biggest rivals is new and different. Henry's reaction was fairly unique, too.

posted by dyams at 10:19 AM on March 03

Right, dyams, but this wasn't about what yerfatma posted...it was about what you posted, to wit: There aren't many topics that get members fired up like Yanks/Sox. I'm in agreement with jerseygirl. Getting fired up is one thing; getting fired up over the same thing a hundred times is another. I also feel that there's a difference between a genuine rivalry and the over-hyped, marketing-driven version of it that Yanks-Sox seems to have turned into. It's almost like we who are fans of one of the teams can't even speak for ourselves any more -- there are so many bandwagon-jumpers, media-heads, and people from god knows where busy telling us what we think and feel. (and, btw, I didn't mean by my earlier comment to call yerfatma a hater)

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:33 AM on March 03

but this wasn't about what yerfatma posted Of course it wasn't. Why do you think he posted the stories then? What reaction was he expecting? I respond to his post and I'm the one who's arguing and bordering on out-of-line? I realize you messed up refering to yerfatma as a "hater," but this is exactly the point (problem) some have with this site. Arguments are fine, posts are fine, etc., as long as they are initiated by certain members.

posted by dyams at 10:39 AM on March 03

I just don't understand why he's so shocked and upset about the comments Steinbrenner made. Come on. Shocked? He's George's son trying to live up to daddy's image. Probably a little too hard as one of the minor yankee owners said in the article. And upset? I couldn't care less what Hank has to say. Not only doesn't he know where the term came from, he doesn't know what it means. That's funny stuff. Here's what I feel strongest about (but again, not upset): 1. Schilling has always had a loud mouth, especially when it comes to the yankees. Yankee fans (and many sox fans) hate that schilling comes across as a blowhard. Schilling is also a borderline hall of fame player who has pretty much back up his words on the field. Lucchino is famous for his evil empire remark. Again, much hated by the yankees. He's also part of the ownership that brought two championships to boston after 86 years. You have no idea, unless you read a lot of blogs, which I do, how much yankee fans and pundits hate both of them for their frequent comments. Yet, here comes Hank. He's had nothing to do with the yankees until this off season. He's accomplished nothing at the Major League level, and yet I'm hearing nothing but praise for the guy that simply says whatever comes to his mind. But that's fans, isn't it? We're hypocritical on both sides. 2. The rivalry is intense because of what happens on the field. The outcome is determined on the field. If the yankees had won in 04 and 07 would hank have ever made those remarks? No. The sox wouldn't be on his radar. The rivalry depends on both teams being good, not on the words of a guy that just showed up running his mouth. He comes across, at least this off season, as a guy that loves attention finally getting his moment in the sun. Maybe he'll lead the yankees to 10 championships in the next 20 years. I don't know. But right now he's coming off too stupid for me to care about.

posted by justgary at 10:51 AM on March 03

Can we get back to the article and skip the in-fighting? You jumped me for focusing on a tidbit in the article and now you want to navel-gaze about how the site handles Sawx/ Yanks? I'd rather discuss your initial comments about Hank's attitude may change the tone and dynamic of the AL East. On preview: that was in response to dyams' comment.

posted by yerfatma at 10:52 AM on March 03

For the record, I'm fine with the post. Some others don't seem to be. I was the one who initially was discussing the post. Those others were "navel-gazing" about how Sox/Yanks posts come off. Back to the original topic, I think Hank does want the attention. He's a Steinbrenner, and he probably figures the Yankees were at their best when his Dad was at his most boisterous. And, just like with George, I realize many of the comments will be ridiculous. I have to agree in part because it seems the thing the Yanks are missing is intensity, no matter how it's generated. They have the talent to win 90-something games and make the playoffs, but they need to regain that edge. That's why Hank wanted Girardi over Mattingly. Mattingly appeared to be a Torre clone; very laid-back. What I don't know is just how much Hank will impact Girardi during the season, and how their relationship will fare. Justgary mentions a rivalry is intense because of what happens on the field. The fans, front office, media, etc. have almost as much of a hand in the rivalry.

posted by dyams at 11:06 AM on March 03

I have to agree in part because it seems the thing the Yanks are missing is intensity, no matter how it's generated. But can a guy who just shows up create it? Can a guy who has had nothing to do with the ball club come in and create intensity for guys like arod and jeter? I doubt it. Now Girardi, that might be different since he has a track record they respect (though I feel with all this intensity talk we're getting close to 'firejoemorgan' territory). And if the yankees are successful this year it should be remembered that hank wanted half of your young arms traded for santana. The fans, front office, media, etc. have almost as much of a hand in the rivalry. All those are a product of what happens on the field. If the sox finish in last there is no rivalry, no matter what the media does. If the yankees finish forth hank can flap his gums all day long, it won't matter. No rivalry. Those things matter only because of what happens on the field, and because of that fall far below in terms of importance. Everything feeds off what happens on the diamond. And yes, some fans would hate the other team no matter what the records of the teams, but a true rivalry in the sense that we have today.

posted by justgary at 11:18 AM on March 03

But can a guy who just shows up create it? Truthfully, probably not. But I don't think Hank (or George before him) believes that. It's just something George hasn't been able to provide in recent years. It's hard for me to put my finger on, but something just has to change with the team's attitude. Maybe the players on this roster can't respond to Hank's verbage like Munson, Jackson, Rivers, etc. could in the late 70s. But the present team's playoff demeanor leaves a lot to be desired. it should be remembered that hank wanted half of your young arms traded for santana. I'm still not all that sure. He was dangling these guys, but only as long as the Sox were also dangling Lester, Buchholz, Ellbury, whoever. It all seemed like a poker game filled with bluffs. In the end, for whatever reason, they decided to hang onto Hughes, Kennedy and, of course, Chamberlain, and I'm happy they did. Of course, if Santana goes on to lead the Mets to a championship and win the Cy Young in the process, who knows how that will play out. We'll probably see Hank's true feelings regarding the trade-not-made at that point, and he'll send Cashman packing.

posted by dyams at 11:30 AM on March 03

I just don't see an owner being able to have a positive effect on a team like George may have had back in the day. True free agency changed the dynamic between owners and players. And are you really excited to have an owner deciding how to utilize Chamberlain? Isn't that what scouts, coaches and GMs are for? I suppose if it works for Angelos it might work anywhere.

posted by yerfatma at 11:41 AM on March 03

And are you really excited to have an owner deciding how to utilize Chamberlain? That's one of the reasons I can't believe Chamberlain's starting the year in the bullpen. I can't say I disagree with that move, but it doesn't seem like what Hank would want. Having all his young stable of arms in the rotation to start the year seems like the only way he, in his mind, could justify not getting Santana. But, like his Dad, he'll always have things figured out so when things begin to crumble he'll have a full list of fall-guys.

posted by dyams at 11:58 AM on March 03

Back to the original topic, I think Hank does want the attention. While the article put most of its focus on Hank Steinbrenner, the really interesting part of it was the whole Steinbrenner family dynamic. It almost seemed like a real-life equivalent to the old Dallas TV series from several years ago (1978 - 1991). Hank and his brother are like JR and Bobby. Then you have the sisters and their husbands (and/or ex-husbands) all playing into the mix. Forget about Sox Yankees. The real fun is Steinbrenner vs Steinbrenner.

posted by Howard_T at 12:24 PM on March 03

The real fun is Steinbrenner vs Steinbrenner. I think the whole Steinbrenner family thing is one of the reasons why Donald Trump is so enamored with them. I guess people like myself will never know what it's like growing up in that type of environment. It must have been different to say the least.

posted by dyams at 12:35 PM on March 03

The yankees didn't lose last year because Cashman wasn't running his mouth. They lost because their offense couldn't score as many runs as their pitching gave up. Holy shit - It's Tim McCarver. 3. The whole espn loves the sox angle is rampant among many yankee fans. They truly believe that ESPN hates the yankees. They'll eat that comment up. ESPN.com sure does. If by "ESPN.com" you're actually talking about Peter Gammons and Bill Simmons. There might be a dog in that fight. Do I have anything else to add to this thinly veiled pissing contest? Only that I hope to God that one of these teams isn't going to the post-season. Only to test the theory that it means there will be less coverage of the two teams. Somehow - I'm not 100% in agreeance. The current ownership did take the existing "Red Sox Nation" and trademark it, probably to protect their brand and obviously, profit. Egads. That's not quite the grassroots fandom it purports to be. Were I a Red Sox fan, I'd probably be a tad disgusted by this yankee-ish move. (Note - may be unfair to the Yankees, who seem to treat their fans pretty well.)

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 04:12 PM on March 03

I'm still not all that sure. He was dangling these guys, but only as long as the Sox were also dangling Lester, Buchholz, Ellbury, whoever. Well, I'm only going on whats been written, and his comments since have kind of had a 'I'm not sure we did the right thing' edge to them, and that's after it was all done with santana going to the mets. If things don't work out this year I can see hank pretty much taking over. That would probably not be a good thing for new york.

posted by justgary at 04:56 PM on March 03

Were I a Red Sox fan, I'd probably be a tad disgusted by this yankee-ish move Nah. (Note - may be unfair to the Yankees, who seem to treat their fans pretty well.) as do the Red Sox and I am sure other teams.

posted by jerseygirl at 06:33 PM on March 03

Only that I hope to God that one of these teams isn't going to the post-season. Only to test the theory that it means there will be less coverage of the two teams. Somehow - I'm not 100% in agreeance. Weedy, I would have posted on this earlier, but I was one of the SpoFites who complained earlier about the percentage of pro New England threads. That said, I'm glad you said this.

posted by hawkguy at 07:44 PM on March 03

ESPN.com sure does. If by "ESPN.com" you're actually talking about Peter Gammons and Bill Simmons. There might be a dog in that fight. Yes, if you eliminate the entire face of ESPN to those two people, if ESPN = Gammons and Simmons I might see your side. That's not quite the grassroots fandom it purports to be. Were I a Red Sox fan, I'd probably be a tad disgusted by this yankee-ish move. Every club has a fan club. Blue Jays. The twins. The cardinals have Cardinals Nation. The only difference, and the gripe among boston fans, is that 'red sox nation' was used long before they decided to take the name. but I was one of the SpoFites who complained earlier about the percentage of pro New England threads. My front page goes down to feb 11. There is not a single red sox thread, unless you consider this one about the yankees about the red sox. The only other new england threads are about belichick 'cheating'. That's not really pro, is it? Your front page must be very different than mine. So please, can you give me a percentage so that we can try and correct it?

posted by justgary at 08:09 PM on March 03

The only difference, and the gripe among boston fans, is that 'red sox nation' was used long before they decided to take the name. Just how long was it, exactly? Are we talking decades or dog years? Unless my memory is way faulty, I think the truth's a lot closer to the latter than to the former (not that it really matters, I just don't recall hearing the phrase before the '04 season). My front page goes down to feb 11. There is not a single red sox thread For pete's sake. February, gary. The fact that there isn't a single Red Sox thread on your front page owes little to restraint and lack of homerism, and much to the fact that February is the month when the snow in New England (my part of it, at least) starts to cover the first floor windows. I mean, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with hawkguy, but this is a pretty cheezy way to shoot down an observation that Red Sox and Yanks get more than their fair share of front page play. If the contention is bogus, you ought to be able to refute it without resorting to a strapped chicken like this.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:45 PM on March 03

Just how long was it, exactly? From what I've read 1986. I didn't say that because I don't care. I'm not one of the ones up in arms over the name. this is a pretty cheezy way to shoot down an observation that Red Sox and Yanks get more than their fair share of front page play. Oh whatever. He just threw out an observation. He didn't back it up, gave no proof, but I'm suppose to give a statistical analysis to disprove his point? For pete's sake. February, gary. And he's complaining in FEBRUARY. What month should I look at? August? O.k. Here's august. How many red sox threads do you see? I see zero. Is that good enough? I've heard this complaint enough that I'm basically numb to it. On a board where anyone can post whatever they feel like posting this shouldn't be a problem. If it's a good link, it's a good link. But if there are complaints I'd like to see someone back it up. But I never get that. Instead I hear the same complaints over and over. Edit: Checked Jun 07. Zero sox threads also. There was 2 in July. Unless I missed any, and I could have missed one or two, that's 2 in 3 months. There is no problem.

posted by justgary at 09:13 PM on March 03

Users who think there's too much Sox/Yankees should post great stuff on the other teams and sports. Preferably from local papers and other sites we wouldn't see if we didn't live there. Personally, I think we'll be missing this rivalry when one or both of the teams goes in the crapper. But can a guy who just shows up create it? Can a guy who has had nothing to do with the ball club come in and create intensity for guys like arod and jeter? Hank could help that team by being the lightning rod for criticism. Feeding the New York media's insatiable appetite for Yankees news is part of the challenge of winning there.

posted by rcade at 06:29 AM on March 04

The fact that there isn't a single Red Sox thread on your front page owes little to restraint and lack of homerism, and much to the fact that February is the month when the snow in New England (my part of it, at least) starts to cover the first floor windows Agree 100%, so doesn't that make it a strange time to complain about all the "pro-New England" threads? Especially in one ostensibly about a New York team?

posted by yerfatma at 06:56 AM on March 04

Hank could help that team by being the lightning rod for criticism. Feeding the New York media's insatiable appetite for Yankees news is part of the challenge of winning there. Good point.

posted by dyams at 07:28 AM on March 04

justgary: From what I've read 1986. I didn't say that because I don't care. I'm not one of the ones up in arms over the name. Really? That surprises me. I moved to Boston in '88, lived there until 2000, and read the Globe daily, but perhaps I somehow managed to overlook it. Oh whatever. He just threw out an observation. He didn't back it up, gave no proof, but I'm suppose to give a statistical analysis to disprove his point? Ignoring it was always an option. I've heard this complaint enough that I'm basically numb to it. Why not just ignore it, then? yerfatma: Agree 100%, so doesn't that make it a strange time to complain about all the "pro-New England" threads? Especially in one ostensibly about a New York team? I think you need to look at hawkguy's statement in context, above (in response to Weedy's comment). It wasn't really what it's being snippetized to represent here.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:55 AM on March 04

when one or both of the teams goes in the crapper. From your keyboard to God's ears.

posted by tommytrump at 08:25 AM on March 04

lbb, I'm going to go with the Ignore option from here on out, but I'd love to know what your point is.

posted by yerfatma at 09:12 AM on March 04

yerfatma, talking in small font so no one will overhear...hawkguy was responding to Weedy and saying that he had refrained from commenting that he'd be happy if either Yanks or Sox didn't make the playoffs this year because he had earlier complained about the high number of "pro new England threads". So, it was basically, "What you said, Weedy, and here's why I didn't say it." IOW, justgary was responding to something that may have happened in the past but wasn't happening here.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:25 AM on March 04

LBB, thanks. I think I probably should have just kept my mouth (keyboard) shut. But that very well explains my train of thought.

posted by hawkguy at 10:36 AM on March 04

I think we'll be missing this rivalry when one or both of the teams goes in the crapper. And so will baseball. The fact that they inspire either love or hate is something few other teams bring to the table. Really? That surprises me. I moved to Boston in '88, lived there until 2000, and read the Globe daily, but perhaps I somehow managed to overlook it. I don't think it came into prominence until the late 90s early 2000, so that's not surprising. In my list I failed to include yankee universe, though it hasn't caught on very well. Why not just ignore it, then? You're right, I should. And this isn't the place to debate it anyway. It's simply frustrating to hear this complaint over and over without anything to back it up. So until someone can I'll just assume it's a figment of their imagination and ignore it.

posted by justgary at 11:47 AM on March 04

Now here's some real haters!

posted by dyams at 12:13 PM on March 04

A group of men — some with Irish accents Ah, the ever important details.

posted by yerfatma at 12:30 PM on March 04

Sounds familiar.

posted by justgary at 12:54 PM on March 04

Sounds familiar. Are you sure about that?

posted by goddam at 01:36 PM on March 04

Ah, I said it sounded familiar. I didn't read the follow ups. That said, neither one of those articles is conclusive. They're simply going by what one of the accused said. But I'll leave it alone. I'm not sure what dyams link was doing here anyway other than trying to stir up shit.

posted by justgary at 02:05 PM on March 04

Every club has a fan club. Blue Jays. The twins. The cardinals have Cardinals Nation. The only difference, and the gripe among boston fans, is that 'red sox nation' was used long before they decided to take the name. And I agree with that gripe. Because it's no longer the property of the fans. It's not uncommon or such, it's just the usual bullshit. Teams ask for loyalty from fans and preach about their place in the community and so much other smoke - and then can't squeeze a loyal, community-living supporter hard enough. I mean, I'm not losing sleep over it - but it should be seen for what it is. Kind of... unfortunate. I suppose it really only affects the hardcore fan. The one who actually sees value in their fandom. Pretty much a one-way street, that. Ah, the days of these franchises doing business differently, or having appeal based on different criteria would seem over. Both can just overcome personnel mistakes at will. Never a bad contract in either town. Ah, hell. My team spends $100MM for third place every year. Makes a fella want to punch every damned Red Sox fan he sees. Especially when they show up en mass at my ballpark and proceed to out cheer my team's fans. Stupid sexy Champions.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:22 PM on March 04

Couldn't agree more Weedy. It was a clear indication from Dr. Charles and the gang in the publicity department that the bandwagoneers and casual Fenway visitors were far more important than those of us who follow the team regardless. "For $15, buy yourself membership into 'Red Sox Nation'". Obviously the hard-core fans just move on, but I wonder how often you can co-opt something your audience has made valuable for you and sell it to anyone who cares to pay. God, I won't miss that fat grinning bastard.

posted by yerfatma at 03:28 PM on March 04

I suppose it really only affects the hardcore fan. That's where I disagree. I'm a hard core fan. It doesn't affect me. It's stupid and silly, and I would never join, but I'm not losing sleep over it. Then again I don't piss and moan over the 'pink hatters' either, so I'm probably in the minority.

posted by justgary at 03:34 PM on March 04

Then again I don't piss and moan over the 'pink hatters' either, so I'm probably in the minority. You have company in that minority. Let the pink hatters spend the big bucks on the mostly bad seating at Fenway. Let them buy all of the overpriced licensed merchandise. Let them spend their $15 for their Red Sox Nation cards. It all adds to the flood of green that fills the coffers of the team. That means that Boston can go out and get better players, can re-build their minor league structure so that it produces quality from within, and continue contending in the AL East. So thank you, Nation. Keep feeding the beast, and I will enjoy watching the games on TV and catching an occasional game on the road. As things are structured now, it's the only way for most of us. As long as the team remains a perennial contender, I'm happy with it.

posted by Howard_T at 04:01 PM on March 04

It never bothers you when someone who clearly shows up mid-season and only for the last 5-10 years starts spouting about all the heartache they've been through? Gary, I'd say it's significantly easier to not be bothered from a thousand miles away, simply because you don't have to see them everywhere you go out (which is in no way discounting your experience, I just mean I'm jealous). Whereas there's just something wrong with Howard, obviously.

posted by yerfatma at 04:23 PM on March 04

But I'll leave it alone. I'm not sure what dyams link was doing here anyway other than trying to stir up shit. So I try to "stir up shit" and, of course, you have to post something similar? From one shit-stirrer to another, I guess. For the record, my story was in the news today. I put it in because people earlier in this thread wanted to label individuals as "haters" due to their comments, of all things, when this stuff pales in comparison to the cruelty and B.S. of real haters.

posted by dyams at 06:10 PM on March 04

So I try to "stir up shit" and, of course, you have to post something similar? From one shit-stirrer to another, I guess. You're completely right. It was my mistake to respond to your shit stirring.

posted by justgary at 06:15 PM on March 04

I put it in because people earlier in this thread wanted to label individuals as "haters" due to their comments, of all things, when this stuff pales in comparison to the cruelty and B.S. of real haters. My fault for assuming. I apologize.

posted by justgary at 06:30 PM on March 04

Wow, it's too bad those quoted in that story have such deep-rooted resentment with regards to Yankee Stadium. It seems most any sports fan would revel in any opportunity to walk the grounds of one of the most storied places in sports. If I had was told I was going to be part of some sort of event that would take place on the field at Fenway, I'd freakin' love it. They'd probably have to throw me out because I'd be running into the green monster, jumping into the seats down the line in right, pretending I'm running down a ball near the bullpen in center, etc.

posted by dyams at 06:32 PM on March 04

My fault for assuming. I apologize. I do to. My post wasn't meant to start anything. It's just something I came across today. I really don't try to make any (or hardly any) of my posts have a nasty, mean tone, but I'm sure there are times they'll come off that way.

posted by dyams at 06:35 PM on March 04

Wow, it's too bad those quoted in that story have such deep-rooted resentment with regards to Yankee Stadium Agreed. And the bitching sounds totally made up. If you don't want to graduate there, don't go. They'll mail the diploma.

posted by yerfatma at 07:38 PM on March 04

Ancher, who grew up in Upton, Mass. said receiving her diploma at Yankee Stadium would be tantamount to “betraying my roots.” “I can’t even describe how I would feel if I had to stand there among all these Yankees fans who are happy to be there. It would almost be a hollow ending,” said said. "Whine! I busted my ass for 4 years in New York and have mixed feelings about doing the walk to get my diploma because it's going to be in Yankee Stadium!" I don't know how your delicate sensibilities survived in New York for 4 years, Petunia. Get a grip on your life.

posted by jerseygirl at 08:08 PM on March 04

I don't know how your delicate sensibilities survived in New York for 4 years, Petunia Petunia. Love it.

posted by dyams at 08:12 PM on March 04

Whereas there's just something wrong with Howard, obviously. Yeah, there's plenty wrong with me. It's mostly called "old age". I guess I've mellowed a lot over the years, because some things that would have driven bonkers a few years ago just seem to roll on by now. I have lately said "to each his own". Man, have I slipped!

posted by Howard_T at 08:33 AM on March 05

That's just the kind of soft-heartedness that'll get us all killed.

posted by yerfatma at 09:08 AM on March 05

When we don't insult each other in Sox - Yanks threads, the terrorists win.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 10:10 AM on March 05

Gary, I'd say it's significantly easier to not be bothered from a thousand miles away, simply because you don't have to see them everywhere you go out You're right. I have a different experience. Anyone I see with a boston cap immediately wants to know where I'm from (if I'm wearing a 'B' somewhere). 8 out of 10 times they're from the boston area. After talking to them for a while about half of that 8 knows nothing about the team, though they say they're big fans. It seems to be their connection to their past. The other 4 know every detail. The biggest problem I'd have with fake fans if I lived near boston is the demand for tickets that they cause, not that I could afford it anyway. 7 out of the 8 tell me how they love boston and would love to return but couldn't take the weather any longer. Wimps.

posted by justgary at 11:54 PM on March 05

Suuure there's no bias in Bristol.

posted by goddam at 12:20 AM on March 06

Frickin' sweet! With the Yanks in the Central, the East is gonna be a cakewalk! Manny can go to [insert fictitious dead family member here]'s funeral every other week if he wants to, and Schill can finally devote more time to his blog!

posted by The_Black_Hand at 09:22 AM on March 06

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.