Gothamite

And Coyote Death Watch 2.0 marches onward.

For sale?

I think that's wrong, too.

I'm not familiar, but the use of the word "scandal" indicates to me that such behavior wasn't exactly celebrated.

Thanks for the kind words.

To add my 2cents to this. I see where both of you are coming from, but to that point if your going to try and hang mac then you have to hang EVERY player or coach who has ever sold their championship ring.

I don't think the two situations are analogous at all.

Unless there are players who are ordering extra rings specifically to sell on the secondary market.

I don't begrudge anyone selling their own property. If Mac, or Aaron Rodgers, or the pro shop day shift manager wants to sell their own ring, that's their business. I'm only objecting to him setting up a little cottage industry selling first-run rings to people not entitled to order them on their own.

Am I alone in thinking it's dumb to celebrate an NL/AL Championship? IMO it would serve as a reminder that the players/team lost in the WS, nit won in the LCS.

In all other sports I agree with you (I don't want to hear anything about "winning" the 1997 NFC championship), but baseball is different.

Because of the history, the historical nature of the leagues, winning a pennant is a major goal in and of itself. Not the ultimate goal, but still a very significant one, and one worthy of celebrating.

I have no problem with using the share's benefits for your own personal beneft, information and the like.

I have a huge problem with you selling those benefits to other people, even if you're not making a large profit.

Come now. While you may not be passing others off as shareholders, you are facilitating the claim. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

And I never claimed you were making a profit. I've seen your ad before; I know you're looking to break even at best with a barter. Nor did I claim that you were violating any rules or bylaws.

My choice of words was deliberate. While it may not be illegal or prohibited, I'm not sure that it's particularly cool to do so. We paid for our shares, and therefore the right to certain (precious few) benefits that accompany them. Selling those benefits to others just seems... wrong.

But perhaps that's all just me. Frankly, I hesitated mentioning it in the past, and only through repeated observances thought it merited at least a quick note. I don't think I need mention it again.

Mac, I'm not sure it's particularly cool to be selling shareholder rings.

If you fellas don't mind me asking what did those rings cost?

Shareholder rings start at $399 for White Lustrium® and cubic zirconia, and go up to $2400 for 10k white gold and diamonds.

Interestingly enough, it seems that there is going to be actual re-alignment in mlb, with the Brewers going back to the AL, having never been very comfortable in the NL Central, and then a re-alignment making 6 divisions with five teams in each.

After re-alignment is implemented inter league play will then be implemented on a season long basis, instead of the current lame system.

Re-alignment is scheduled to take place inside of three years.

There has been no legitimate talk whatsoever of the Brewers going back. They were always more of an NL city, they've established far more of a rivalry with the other NL Central teams than they ever did with the AL teams, and no way would they want to. Don't believe every article by some blogger that give the reason "they were in the AL so they should go back" as a legitimate source of what's gonna happen. Nobody who has at least some grasp of the reality of what this may bring believe the Brewers are going back into the American League.

Beat me to it.

The Brewers love being in the NL. Milwaukee loves them being in the NL.

Any talk of the Brewers "having never been very comfortable in the NL Central" is mere projection on a blogger's part.

Yeah, I like the ring as well, but that might be a little over the top.

Hope he's leaving room for the next one.

I said "it's not that liberals hate hockey" right at the top of the page, though. It's just a certain type of content consumer who has serious objections to the culture of hockey, especially vis-a-vis basketball and soccer.

I'm still it buying it.

Sure, there may be a couple. But in any meaningful number? I doubt it.

There's a certain strain of liberals who absolutely detest hockey and all that it supposedly "stands for."

Not buying this. Not in any significant number.

I don't think that ad is too far off. What many of us would (perhaps unfairly) consider to be a "hard core liberal" might detest professional sports in general, or at the very least, consider ice hockey (in most of America) to be a sport played by senator's sons (basically a sport played by the the silver-spoon fed privileged kids, who tend to come from conservative families.)

you guys are generalizing at cross-purposes.

He says the hard-core liberal considers himself too sophisticated for the barbarism of hockey. You say the hard-core liberal looks down on hockey as the sport of the rich and privileged. Those don't exactly go hand-in-hand.

This smacks of the same generalizing we see here about "alla you guys love the retro and hate everything modern."

You can find one jerk who'll agree with any bizarre position (it is the interwebs, after all). But in any meaningful number?

I admit that hockey fans have a blue-collar stereotype. But even if true, "blue-collar" doesn't necessarily mean "conservative".

There's a certain strain of liberals who absolutely detest hockey and all that it supposedly "stands for."

Not buying this. Not in any significant number.

I didn't realize they were still playing the Little World Series.

I dont know enough about the Arizona gift clause, but seems that subsidizing a private company to the tune of $25,000,000 every year would violate it.

I was 10 minutes away from keeping my team.

I'm not sure that I agree with you 100% on your police work there, Lou.

yeah, how do you figure?

But "National Champions"?!

I'd tend to agree. There have been so many failed expansion/relocation markets that the burden of proof on new ones should be high.

Isn't the Milwaukee market even smaller than Pittsburgh, and losing jobs rapidly? Is Milwaukee even really a good 3-sport town anymore let alone 4-sports?

Milwaukee's DMA is smaller than Pittsburgh's, but I think that's a bit deceptive because... unlike the Bucks... an NHL club could realistically expect to draw significant TV viewership (and on the weekends, attendance) from Madison and Green Bay/Appleton.

As far as the economy, it's not exactly bustling, but it is quite stable (stable being a highly relative term by today's standards, of course). The rapid job loss that characterized Milwaukee in the 80s and 90s plateaued in the 2000s and there has been some small, but notable job growth in the healthcare and alternative energy industries. In fact, Milwaukee has quietly become a player in the former due to the presence of Aurora and Covenant.

Now, Milwaukee/Wisconsin is definitely NOT a 4-sport market. Had we gotten an NHL team in the early 90s, the Bucks would likely have moved by now. But the fact that the Bucks, can still pull middle-of-the-road attendance with next to no community presence and as pathetic as they've been in recent memory is proof that this is indeed a 3-sport market.

All that said, I think we can hold off on the NHL-to-Milwaukee speculation at least until the Senator announces he's looking for a buyer for the Bucks (which may happen soon since he's retiring next year).

I think you're right on all counts. I think Milwaukee would be a great NHL market, but it would come at the expense of the Bucks.

Then again, Wisconsin has a proud and rich Civil War tradition, so if Columbus doesn't want the Blue Jackets there's a home out there where they wouldn't even have to change the name.

Yep, the same template as the shareholders ring.

Lambeau Field is a missed opportunity.

I put up pics of the Packers season ticket holder rings.

Blogspot apparently doesn't like hotlinking, so I'll move them to Photobucket soon.

1923: $5

1935: ?

1950: $25

1997: $200

Next time: who the heck knows?

Depends.

How long can Glendale afford to write a yearly $25,000,000.00 check?

Fuzzy Thurston to auction off his Super Bowl 2 ring to pay taxes..wish I could buy it to give it back to him. It's a shame.

http://www.sportsrageous.com/former-packer-to-auction-off-ring-from-super-bowl-ii-06-26-2011

Actually, the ring has been seized and is being sold off by the IRS to satsfy part of his debts.

I love Fuzzy, but he sure seems to have brought this on himself. The business practices he and his partners were guilty of are abhorrent at best, and he could have settled this debt decades ago for relative pennies on the dollar.

So yeah, I wish I could buy it, but as much as I appreciate his service in green and gold I don't think I'd give it back to him if I did.