Arkady Renko

Woah, was this Dr. Z or Peter King saying this stuff??

There's nothing wrong with the Yankees doing whatever it takes to win within the existing framework in baseball. I do not begrudge them for this. I also do not begrudge Yankee fans wanting the best financial situation for their team. However, even if the Reds, Devil Rays, Royals and other small market teams did spend all that they could, they still would be maybe at most a third of the Yankee payroll. As a baseball fan, you have to see that the current financial disparities make it much more difficult for most small-market teams to remain competitive. Certainly small market teams can compete if they have very good management, but they are much less likely to consistenly be good and have much smaller margin for error. Make a mistake on your DH/1B if you are the Yankees, you just sign someone new for another 15 million next time. If you are the Royals, that 15 million mistake can set back your team for years due to gauranteed contracts. The importance of local television revenue makes it difficult for a revenue sharing system like the NFL, but a few things can be done to improve the situation without dramatically altering revenue sharing. 1. Implement a rookie salary cap so that small market teams can draft players based on talent, not based on signability. 2. Put in a minimum salary cap so that small market teams cannot just pocket luxury tax and shared revenues. 3. Cut down the large markets by increasing the number of teams located in the major media markets.

I suppose, but the land is being given to them. Are construction workers just paid a lot more or does the graft make the difference?

Reminds me of when NYPIRG came calling to my house one day in the form of idealistic young college student. Him: "Isn't it terrible that your tax dollars are paying for the superfund clean-up and not the companies." Me: Yeah, that sucks. Him: "Don't you think someone should do something about it." Me: Sure Him: "Would you like to donate $50 dollars or more? Me: No Him: *Angrily stomps away* What I was thinking was my tax dollars are being wasted cleaning up this crap, why should a whole bunch more be wasted to try to get someone else to clean it up themselves. Either way, money comes out of my pocket.

Supposedly the old field will remain with less seats for use for youth, high school and college baseball perhaps. Part of it will also be a museum. I hate the Yankees, but this relatively small amount of money that the taxpayers are spending is good considering the Jets fiasco. Besides, baseball is more likely to have a positive economic impact than football. You know, though, Camden Yards only cost 110 million in the early 1990s. Have materials really become that much more expensive?

Don't ignore yourself, pamper yourself! You deserve a break from caring for others. Here's what you should do instead. 1. Have a facial! 2. Get your nails done! 3. Chocolate, chocolate! 4. Go the beach! 5. Take a pleasant bike ride! 6. Read a novel! 7. Notice yourself all over a stack of hard core pornography!

Why would you expect any other results? 1. Most football fans have never heard of Losman, let alone know how to pronounce his name. 2. The Bills did not make the playoffs last year and lost supposed key cogs Pat Williams and Jonas Jennings. Convential wisdom among many fans and talking heads is that the Bills will be mediocre. 3. Cowboys fans want to believe that Bledsoe will get them somewhere and thus to bolster this belief they need to tear down the Bills, the team that let him go. 4. The Bills being in the playoffs means one less spot for any other team and unobjective partisans will thus will vote against the Bills making the playoffs. 5. The Patroits fans think we are joke due to our poor performance agains them. 6. Some people hate the Bills because of losing money betting on them or something in the Super Bowl. 7. There are a lot of asshats out there. Bills can shut people up by doing well this year, so this does not overly bother me.

Begging doesn't always work, Ed.

People cannot vent a little bit when something like this happens? I would recommend he not obsess about this too much and do constructive things to move on, but saying that this half-serious thread just "legitimizes" his anger is rather patronizing.

Haha, I have seen that one. Petered out a bit at the end, though...

Bets on how long before someone gives the cliched response type like the following: "Why is America so concerned about sex in popular culture which is a beautiful and natural act while unconcerned about violence on TV which is horrible and destructive."

As a zombies rights activist, I am against movies that stereotype zombies as only interested in brains. They like poetry, handgliding and bread baking as well.

Whatever you do, stay on message and stay on the plan. What is the message and what is the plan? The plan is to initiate no contact with her anymore. If she gets in touch with you, act happy and make it seem like you are enjoying life more without her. Never say that you miss her or anything like that. Sleep with new and exciting girls. Only allow getting back to her if you are sure you want this and if she is the one suggesting it, not you. Rinse. Repeat.

I have never had a girl bang another guy while I was with her as far as I know, but I doubt being dumped for that reason is better. Whatever you do, do not talk to this succubus or say anything you will later regret. She will act all upset and turn the tables and make you look like the bad guy for being so cruel. It is a standard trick that women use in order to escape guilt for a breakup, which is their number one goal. She will do whatever she can to manipulate you into the bad guy. Too many here have ignored this advice and repeated my mistake.

The solution to any stupid argument is to have some crippled kid put the two of you in a lock-in at the rec center and say "come on". Therapy is overpriced compared to this time-tested solution.

They do look pretty ugly, to be honest. I am sure they are not too comfortable as well. When did the whole championship ring thing start anyway? I would prefer something a little less gaudy myself. Something besides a ring of any sort.

I figured it would be, but I notice it more now that I do a lot more interstate driving than I did in the past.

You know when you are driving pretty fast on the highway and you start to feel the wind pull you in one direction or the other? Do accidents ever get caused by the wind spinning you out?

It was RJ. He talks about this in the thread about the picture and the accompanying article.

I wish some idiot at another network would hire him away to do something I won't watch and ESPN can begin to perhaps slowly return to being about sports and not hype. A man can dream, can't he?

I find her attractive on TV, I will say. And yes, a byline pic doesn't do her justice. I have heard her on talk shows too and she seems nice based on that.

No, she wasn't just handed the job. She did have to pay her dues. However, that does not change how ESPN's staff policy philosophy favors women over men. Would Rachel Nichols have gotten where she is without this? Very likely, I would say. Would a man of equal talent have an even more difficult time? Probably. Some of the preference comes from the idea that a hot woman will attract male viewers and that having women more-involved in general, will broaden ESPN's appeal to females. In the past, things might have been different but this is how this company operates currently.

Best picture I could find: http://espn.go.com/i/magazine/new/rachel_nichols_65x90.jpg

I do not necessarily think Rachel Nichols is very bad though, nor do I want to throw the women interested in sportcasting under the bus. I question whether they should have such an obvious preference however.

They do hire men, but the hire rate for women applicants is many times higher than it is for men. Rightly or wrongly, ESPN wants to have maximum gender balance with their on-air talent.