K-Town

Because I enjoy the banter. Mostly, I come here because there are several good, knowledgable posters. I've learned a thing or two. Occasionally, people start irrelevant jabbing. And I'll admit I'm a sucker...........I chime in. No, you won't find me on other boards. Take a look. You ask me why I feel the need to defend myself against the rival. I guess you could ask why the rival feels the need to attack to begin with. Right? What do you care if I defend? Isn't that half the fun of message boards. Again, if we all agreed, then we'd have nothing but a board full of "what he said" posts. Oh, and I think it's "tongue IN cheek".

He answered a smart-ass question (about himself) with a smart-ass answer. He didn't begin a thread to talk about someone else's homosexuality. That's not what I'm talking about. Wow. Absolutely absurd homophobia by Jim in that chat. Any comments? Reaction? He was asked a gay question, and responded with a gay answer. Wow. I thought you were a defender of homophobia but as it turns out you are just a defender of Cardinals. Jim Edmonds is clearly a massive homophobe yet you give him a free pass while chastising this message board. What gives? Jim Edmonds didn't start this thread. Nor did he start the other one. Nor did he ask the gay question. He responded to a gay question, with a gay answer. I don't defend all Cardinals. Encarnacion is worthless. The numbers say so. Sidney Ponson has lived his life as a jerk. His history is well-documented. If there's founded criticism, then have at it. Making gay jokes isn't "founded criticism". It's nothing more than an attempt to get a reaction. Congrats.......... you've gotten one.

Same reason why there's very little chance that any other player is older than they say. Because there's ZERO evidence that he's older. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. So, because there is currently no evidence (actually none, nada, zip, zilch); that means there's very little chance? Numerous criminal cases throughout the country remain unsolved due to little or no evidence, yet the crimes were still commited. Crazy, huh? I think I'm getting this sarcastic condescending thing down too. Exactly what evidence could there be beyond the possibility of poorly forged documents? Are we going to do carbon dating? This argument is absurd. It's like me saying that Alex Rodriguez is Elvis Presley. I'd say that there's a pretty good chance that there is, since you can't prove otherwise. Right? There is NO reason to believe that he's falsifying his age.

He answered a smart-ass question (about himself) with a smart-ass answer. He didn't begin a thread to talk about someone else's homosexuality. That's not what I'm talking about. Wow. Absolutely absurd homophobia by Jim in that chat. Any comments? Reaction? He was asked a gay question, and responded with a gay answer.

Classy. Way to take the high road.

Cubs fans attacking Edmonds............ how original.

Same reason why there's very little chance that any other player is older than they say. Because there's ZERO evidence that he's older. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

He answered a smart-ass question (about himself) with a smart-ass answer. He didn't begin a thread to talk about someone else's homosexuality.

I sense some homerism in the room. Seriously, you don't have to be a homophobe to get a laugh out of this. Besides, the running Edmonds joke here transcended possible homophobia a looooonnngg time ago. And you can't deny Jim conducted himself like an ass in that web chat, and his defensive response isn't going to do anything to dissuade any future insinuations. It's not homerism. I don't make fun of people for the way they look or dress, whether they're hometown baseball players or bitter rivals. I don't really get a laugh out of it. I'm not offended by it, either. To me, it's a non-story. As pointed out earlier, the half-shirts are fairly prevalent in sports these days. And gay jokes pretty much ran out of gas in the 1990's. Being gay is more or less "ho hum" in this century. You're not privy to the context of that particular web chat. The guy who runs that forum hosts a tongue-in-cheek sports talk show in St. Louis. It's built on sarcasm and political uncorrectness. Personally, I thought that Edmonds answered the questions the same way that I would have. You ask a smart-ass question, and you get a smart-ass answer.

I sense a little homophobia in the room.

Wow. Is Dusty Baker in your league? :wink:

I know that is considered by the HOF voters, but it is so completely irrelevant. see Palmiero's GG when he was a DH, and Jeter's two GGs. and like I pointed out, Abreu every bit the defender, probably better, and racked up a bunch of stolen bases in his career. career OPS+ Abreu 138 Edmonds 138 so if you say yes to Edmonds, you have to say yes to Abreu, right? now is Bobby Abreu a sure fire HOFer? neither is Edmonds. Kirby Puckett got in with a career OPS+ of 124. Dave Winfield got in with a career OPS+ of 129. Carl Yastrzemski was 130. Reggie Jackson was 139, and never won a Gold Glove. Eddie Murray was 129. That doesn't mean that Edmonds is a lock, by any stretch. But you have to consider it.

Why is Guzman being demoted to AA? Just kidding........... good luck to the kid. Should be fun to watch!

To really torque us Cardinal fans?? :lol: You guys got Rolen in a similar way. True. But the Cards DID give up a legitimate player in Polanco. But you're right........ very similar.

To really torque us Cardinal fans?? :lol:

A Cards Talk thread discussing rivals would have been filled with expletives (among other things). I agree. Cards Talk is FAR worse than anything I've ever seen on this board. It's an absolute joke. Pujols made a mistake. I think we all agree on that, so I'm not sure why there's so much dissention. He admits that he shouldn't have done it. That alone gives him more credibility than about 95% of today's ball players, in my opinion. Watching the game last night, I was reminded that he is the model team player. But yes, throwing the bat was out of line.

Dare I follow up into this thread? :wink: From an opposing viewpoint, D-Lee last year defended his teammates against booing and didn't show up opposing pitchers throughout an MVP-calibre year. No one had a problem with D-Lee. . . okay, I have to leave before I get too embroiled in this argument. He probably didn't show up the opposing pitchers because the opposing pitchers never felt the need to show HIM up. Is that possible? Again, Pujols didn't just show the pitcher up for the sake of showing him up. He's an MVP, and one of the greatest players to ever play the game. He deserves more respect than Perez gave him. I don't think it's unfair of him to demand that respect. He's earned it. If he made a habit of showboating, then maybe some of you could build a case against him. He did it ONE TIME, for ...... yes....... selfish reasons. Then he admitted that he shouldn't have done it. Relatively speaking, I think that most of you can find a whole slew of players to hate for REAL reasons before you dig up an imperfection of Albert Pujols' to hate him for. All I'm learning here is that some of you WANT a a reason to hate players, and will settle for any petty thing that you can find to attack them with.

If Pujols' run didn't mean anything, then why even finish the game? The Cards were down 7 runs in the 4th inning when he hit the home run, but to say that it meant NOTHING is going a little too far.

You realize that the pitcher did the showboating first, right? Pujols didn't start this thing. If a batter showboats, you expect your pitcher to retaliate. So when a pitcher showboats, shouldn't you expect the batter to retaliate?

I'm not sure that his image is fake. And I don't really see any "spin". He's a high-profile athlete....... whatever he does will be srutinized by somebody (if not by the local media, then by the national media). If there's a story to tell (negative or otherwise), it's going to be told. You should know enough about our head-hunting national sportswriters to realize that. Personally, I don't think anybody has ever claimed that he puts his head down and sprints around the bases after a home run (maybe you're thinking of Rolen?). If he were overly concerned about his image, he probably wouldn't have done what he did. He clearly had time to consider what the media's reaction would be, and he did it anyway. Personally, I'm not that upset to see the "humanistic" side of him. I disagree on two points; First, I think that both local and national media do try to only show his positive side. The media gives some guys a pass. For instance, many MJ fans weren't privy to his womanizing and other off the court antics until he was nolonger a superstar. One a smaller scale, much of the media, here in Chicago, gave Carl Everett (who isn't even a star) a pass because they liked the team he was playing for (and many of them have admitted it now that he's continued his antics in Seattle). Secondly, I disagree that he considered the media's reaction because he has gotten very little negative press with which to measure it against. Like I said before, I don't think it was the pay back, that he's admitted to, as much as the context within the game. It was a selfish move in a blow out which is why I think it has gotten so much exposure. I think it's just the opposite. I think that Pujols gives the media so little material to work with, so they take something like this and run run run with it. Heck, we're even doing it on this board. With anybody else, I think it wouldn't have even made the news. The context of the game is irrelevant. That's the point I was trying to make by including Zamrano in the original post. Nah, I disagree that the context of the game didn't matter. I also disagree that, my, reaction would be different for another player. I was watching that game live and thinking he was a tool for showboating during a blowout. I know I wasn't alone because of the flack he's gotten. I also recall several threads popping up at Cards Talk, questioning his sportsmanship, directly following the incident. Quite frankly, it reminded me of some of Sammy's hops during games where the Cubs were being overmatched. Do you also have a problem with Zambrano? I agree that I wouldn't want Pujols showing up pitchers every time he hit a home run, but I actually don't mind a LITTLE bit of his arrogance, in this case, considering that he had gotten similar treatment from the pitcher on a previous occasion. Yes, I have the same issue with Zambrano and I bring it up in game threads all the time. I also don't like the way Aramis poses (They are Cubs so I love them but I'm well aware that they are two of the most despised guys, among other fandoms, both because they are good and because of their penchant for celebration). Again, it's not so much the retaliation or display of arrogance that I mind because I think it's synonymous with sports and competition in general. I really think that if he'd done the flip on a walkoff homer there wouldn't have been any flack. Fair enough. Like I said, I'm not crazy about what Pujols did, either. Nor am I thrilled when Zambrano does his thing............ but, they are both human, I suppose.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm not sure that his image is fake. And I don't really see any "spin". He's a high-profile athlete....... whatever he does will be srutinized by somebody (if not by the local media, then by the national media). If there's a story to tell (negative or otherwise), it's going to be told. You should know enough about our head-hunting national sportswriters to realize that. Personally, I don't think anybody has ever claimed that he puts his head down and sprints around the bases after a home run (maybe you're thinking of Rolen?). If he were overly concerned about his image, he probably wouldn't have done what he did. He clearly had time to consider what the media's reaction would be, and he did it anyway. Personally, I'm not that upset to see the "humanistic" side of him. If you have never met and talked with him in person, you have no clue. Which is why I said "I'm not sure", unlike the original poster, who stated it as fact that his image was fake.

I'm not sure that his image is fake. And I don't really see any "spin". He's a high-profile athlete....... whatever he does will be srutinized by somebody (if not by the local media, then by the national media). If there's a story to tell (negative or otherwise), it's going to be told. You should know enough about our head-hunting national sportswriters to realize that. Personally, I don't think anybody has ever claimed that he puts his head down and sprints around the bases after a home run (maybe you're thinking of Rolen?). If he were overly concerned about his image, he probably wouldn't have done what he did. He clearly had time to consider what the media's reaction would be, and he did it anyway. Personally, I'm not that upset to see the "humanistic" side of him. I disagree on two points; First, I think that both local and national media do try to only show his positive side. The media gives some guys a pass. For instance, many MJ fans weren't privy to his womanizing and other off the court antics until he was nolonger a superstar. One a smaller scale, much of the media, here in Chicago, gave Carl Everett (who isn't even a star) a pass because they liked the team he was playing for (and many of them have admitted it now that he's continued his antics in Seattle). Secondly, I disagree that he considered the media's reaction because he has gotten very little negative press with which to measure it against. Like I said before, I don't think it was the pay back, that he's admitted to, as much as the context within the game. It was a selfish move in a blow out which is why I think it has gotten so much exposure. I think it's just the opposite. I think that Pujols gives the media so little material to work with, so they take something like this and run run run with it. Heck, we're even doing it on this board. With anybody else, I think it wouldn't have even made the news. The context of the game is irrelevant. That's the point I was trying to make by including Zamrano in the original post. Nah, I disagree that the context of the game didn't matter. I also disagree that, my, reaction would be different for another player. I was watching that game live and thinking he was a tool for showboating during a blowout. I know I wasn't alone because of the flack he's gotten. I also recall several threads popping up at Cards Talk, questioning his sportsmanship, directly following the incident. Quite frankly, it reminded me of some of Sammy's hops during games where the Cubs were being overmatched. Do you also have a problem with Zambrano? I agree that I wouldn't want Pujols showing up pitchers every time he hit a home run, but I actually don't mind a LITTLE bit of his arrogance, in this case, considering that he had gotten similar treatment from the pitcher on a previous occasion.

I'm not sure that his image is fake. And I don't really see any "spin". He's a high-profile athlete....... whatever he does will be srutinized by somebody (if not by the local media, then by the national media). If there's a story to tell (negative or otherwise), it's going to be told. You should know enough about our head-hunting national sportswriters to realize that. Personally, I don't think anybody has ever claimed that he puts his head down and sprints around the bases after a home run (maybe you're thinking of Rolen?). If he were overly concerned about his image, he probably wouldn't have done what he did. He clearly had time to consider what the media's reaction would be, and he did it anyway. Personally, I'm not that upset to see the "humanistic" side of him. I disagree on two points; First, I think that both local and national media do try to only show his positive side. The media gives some guys a pass. For instance, many MJ fans weren't privy to his womanizing and other off the court antics until he was nolonger a superstar. One a smaller scale, much of the media, here in Chicago, gave Carl Everett (who isn't even a star) a pass because they liked the team he was playing for (and many of them have admitted it now that he's continued his antics in Seattle). Secondly, I disagree that he considered the media's reaction because he has gotten very little negative press with which to measure it against. Like I said before, I don't think it was the pay back, that he's admitted to, as much as the context within the game. It was a selfish move in a blow out which is why I think it has gotten so much exposure. I think it's just the opposite. I think that Pujols gives the media so little material to work with, so they take something like this and run run run with it. Heck, we're even doing it on this board. With anybody else, I think it wouldn't have even made the news. The context of the game is irrelevant. That's the point I was trying to make by including Zamrano in the original post.

I'm not sure that his image is fake. And I don't really see any "spin". He's a high-profile athlete....... whatever he does will be srutinized by somebody (if not by the local media, then by the national media). If there's a story to tell (negative or otherwise), it's going to be told. You should know enough about our head-hunting national sportswriters to realize that. Personally, I don't think anybody has ever claimed that he puts his head down and sprints around the bases after a home run (maybe you're thinking of Rolen?). If he were overly concerned about his image, he probably wouldn't have done what he did. He clearly had time to consider what the media's reaction would be, and he did it anyway. Personally, I'm not that upset to see the "humanistic" side of him.