cwsox

and Rios wastes a pinch bitting assignment in place of Crede

that was Day 7 of the happiest week of my life

I think he is feasting there...

sounds like derision to me... or is it only derision if one comments on St JosE6 but everyone else is fair game?

is he? wow! details, please!

not derision just if you are going to worship everything he does, tell it all - you are so defensive about him, says a lot I wish him every success in the world but I also don't see Jose playing and the Sox at .600 either as we have always been guarenteed happens Be nice if it did - I would love to have it happen this year but if you are going to worship St JosE6, I'll comment from time and time and it is not derision, just the adoring worship of ballplayers is humorous

and Frank drives in base stealer CLee! 4-1

18 June 2000, Sox did it to the Yankees, 9-0 end of 1st, final 17-4 Did every Sox hitter get a hit? Or was it all but 1? all 9 Sox batters got a hit in the first - some of them batted more than once but every Sox player got a hit in the 1st 18 June 2000

18 June 2000, Sox did it to the Yankees, 9-0 end of 1st, final 17-4

and batting into a double play, that would be Jose - hey, it rhymes! are we going to have these Jose minute by minute updates all season? then cover everything he does - (and doesn't do)

don't back down - K Rogers is crap despite whatever record he has right now

2-1 going into the bottom of the 7th - MB has been avoiding trouble all day, and needs to - sounds like CLee has had some good D today

keaddy, welcome, you foul mouthed bastard! Good to see another refugee from the MLB boards! Now just don't keep f***ing swearing with your usual s*** for brains vulgarity!

maggs

and you jinxed it - you no sooner post and they win

no rant at all SI1020, actually a well written position piece in which you differ from me and I from you but you have laid out much for common ground to be found, you have gotten beyond the cliches and into some real thoughts, and I suspect the fruit of that discussion would lead us to many areas of agreement and finding some here to fore undiscoved common ground, and some places where we differ and understand why and respect those reasons, enlightening to us both. And I apreciate your post. So thank you very much for your contribution to the discussion.

the policy has been around a long enough time that the Tigers violated it when they hired Phil Garner back in what, 99 0r 2000. The Cubs obviously complied with the policy of having an inclusive group of candidates so that when Baylor was fired, they had an inclusive pool to chose from and chose the white Bruce Kimm and all was happy because the process was followed. Which proves it is hire who you choose, just choose from a broad enough base so that it is not an automatic and non inclusive process. If a team has the process in place, an Art Howe can go to the Mets and Dusty Baker to the Cubs and Lou Pinella to the Tampa and all is well. And that is why the most outspoken supporter of the MLB process on this board, me, can be strongly in favor of firing KW. And all I ask is that the Sox make a thorough serach for the best replacement for GM. Interview from an inclusive pool of people that includes some talented folks who are getting finally a chance to show heir stuff as well as the usual suspects in this stuff, and make the decision. And if the process is followed, then who ets hired, we can feel good about. A side benefit - some one from a minority status who would never get an intervoew under the old way gets an interview this way and maybe isn;t really as qualified for the new position as the person who gets hired - but shows that he has good stuff and maybe gets in as an assitant or in some capacity to grow in experience - the process helps identify people with potential who can get slotted into lesser positions to develop experience. And that benefits everyone, for it helps identify talent. The Florida hiring of an elderly good old boy retread - not only were all minority candidates not interviewed, but neither were young white candidates - surely there are white candidates who could do better than professional loser McKeon. The inclusive hiring process identifies all of those outside of the process, minorities and white, so it will no longer be what it was - losing retreads like Garner going from team to team, baseball is full of that in its history - it is an affirmative action that works to identify all kinds of potential, minority and non minority. I faced this issue in the church synod to which I belonged when I was 25 and wanted to start an upward mobile track in the synod just as some spots were suddenly not automaticly filled by white males, now we had females white and minority and men of minority status and that meant that I lost some spots that would have been mine under the old system. I know what it is to lose under an inclusive system. But the new people were good, brought different perspectives, and I refined my skills and what I had to offer and got to where I wanted to go. And I did it far more equipped under the inclusive process than the old way, because the old way, it would have been mine by whiteness and maleness, the new way, I had to build my qualifications and my ability to relate to those outside my own circle. And the Church was blessed with the infusion of new people with new ideas and new perspectives and new thinking whom we never would have had had we stayed in drawing from the same gender/racial pool over and over. I see it in business all the time, too. The military and the major Fortune 500 companies are all behind the U of Michigan in the court case. They want quality to be identified and chosen through inclsuive methods because your pool of applicants is geater and thus you discover people with skills that would never have been found otherwise. CK: our office does not do civil discrimination suits (We refer them, althugh I stay current on the case decisions) so it does not bring mony to my pocket. A constant source of our office income is teens and 20s who drink and drive, open intox, minor in possession, posession of grass, bar brawls, public drunkenness, vomiting in public after alcohol excess - kind of like we have a sideline in treating the Michigan verson of the SnR crew!

You are entitled before you go on vacation! I'll miss you - really - I enjoy chatting with you. Have a great time!

Just as I read clujer's post, Fox had a great shot of Jacobs Field looking like a flood zone. I was working on stuff for tomorrow's service and nevr noticed the other thread on here about the postponement and having read that and this thread and what Fox guys just said, I have to think was planning on showing our game as scheduled as opposed to trying to dump us for the Ny market.

where is our June calendar? You made me clean up my desktop for the May one and now I don't get a new calendar? Oh, go have a great time!

since when does SnR need a game to do a broadcast?

It is Terry - somehow the name Gary Pendleton sounds like I have heard of that before too, but I can find nothing for a Gary Pendleton in MLB history. It is an interesting idea that I had never thought of, and I go along with Jason's questions. On the Atlanta site there is no link under Pendleton's name so I have no idea how long he has been coaching but he is 43 I think and has been retired since 98 or 99, so he may have a few years coaching somewhere. Or not, I can't tell from the Atlanta site.

The Mets/Braves game was late due to weather. When was our game postponed? Early today, or at gametime? Because at our supposed gametime, the Mets vs Atlanta game was being pushed on Fox, so I am wondering whether this is a replacemebnt game for our rainout or was Fox planning to show NY/Atlanta all along.

My tv listings are telling me that I should be watching the Sox playing at Cleveland. Yet I am watching Mets and Atlanta. What the f*** is up with this?

DK, didn't Pinella go to Tampa for family reasons? If he were available, what an interesting concept.