Jump to content

Walk-Off

Members
  • Posts

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Walk-Off

  1. On 5/14/2021 at 3:16 AM, Wings said:

    Personally I think Fisher will end up selling the A's to Warriors owner Joe Lacob and a bunch of his rich buddies. They'll build a new ballpark at the Coliseum site and try to revitalize the area around it. A soccer specific stadium for the Oakland Roots might be included in a revitalized complex. 

     

    Under the ownership of Joe Lacob and some rich buddies of his, the Golden State Warriors moved out of an arena within the Coliseum campus in Oakland and into a new venue in San Francisco.  So, the idea that Lacob -- whether by himself, with his fellow co-owners of the Warriors, or with a different set of investment partners -- would buy the A's and keep them at the Coliseum site (even with a new stadium inside that property) makes no sense to me at all.

  2. @BBTV, yes, the A's gave Santa Clara County to the Giants back when the latter team wanted to move to that jurisdiction.  However, the fact that MLB has let the Giants keep Santa Clara County all to themselves well after the Giants exhausted all efforts to get a ballpark in that county, and especially long after the Giants built and moved into their current stadium within the city and county of San Francisco, suggests to me that the "MLB-endowed" label fits quite well after all.

    • Like 5
  3. On 5/13/2021 at 3:46 PM, beachperroAZ said:

    Why have the A's not tried other Bay Area municipalities in the East Bay?  They can't revive the Freemont project from 2006?

     

    From all that I have read on NewBallpark.org, a blog that has been chronicling the Athletics' quest for a new stadium since 2005, widespread "Not In My Back Yard" sentiments among residents and businesses across Fremont (particularly with regard to possible increases in road traffic) forced the A's to abandon their plans for "Cisco Field" (yes, naming rights were already sold) in that municipality.  By all appearances, the A's wanted a Fremont ballpark because, with the Giants still claiming exclusive ballpark construction rights in Santa Clara County, Fremont was the closest place to Silicon Valley where the A's could play while staying in Alameda County.  A desire for a maximum ability to tap into the wealth of both businesses and residents in Silicon Valley, which seems to be mostly in Santa Clara County and completely outside of Alameda County, is a very likely reason why the Athletics' ownership (then led by Lew Wolff, just as was the case during the pursuit of Fremont) tried and failed to prod MLB and the Giants into letting the A's move to San José, why the A's have appeared to act reluctantly in their attempts to get a new venue in economically weaker Oakland, and why the A's have shown no sign of trying to get a new ballpark in any East Bay locale other than Oakland or Fremont.

     

    On 5/13/2021 at 4:17 PM, Wings said:

    Getting John Fisher to sell the club would be the best option. There are few groups with deep pockets in the Bay Area that would buy the team in a instant and build their own ballpark.  

     

    While the Bay Area may have plenty of groups (or even individuals) who are wealthy enough to buy the A's, how many of those groups or people are willing to accept MLB's mandate that Alameda County and Contra Costa County be the only places in the Bay Area where the A's may play home games, while the Giants keep enjoying an MLB-endowed exclusive right to play home games in pretty much all of the economically strongest counties in the Bay Area?

    • Like 2
  4. 1 hour ago, GDAWG said:

    Texas Rangers games are seen in Houston on Bally Sports Southwest (formerly Fox Sports Southwest) and Astros games in DFW via AT&T SportsNet Southwest.  Not sure either team wants to split that even further with the A's.

     

    I could understand the Astros and the Rangers having a full overlap of regional television coverage back when those clubs played in separate major leagues; fans in both the Dallas-Fort Worth market and the Houston market could have frequent audiovisual access to the full spectrum of MLB teams, stadia, and styles of play without having to wait for national telecasts of games in whichever was the "other" league locally.  However, to this day, I have thought that such an arrangement has made far less sense ever since then-Commissioner Bud Selig forced the 'Stros to play in the same league (and especially the same division) as the Rangers.

     

    A relocation of the Athletics to either Austin or San Antonio is almost sure to be the death knell for the Astros' and Rangers' 100% Texas-wide presences on traditional linear TV services.  While MLB has required the A's and the Giants to locate their ballparks in different sections of the Bay Area for as long as those teams have shared that region, they have understandably had complete overlap in their regional TV territories throughout their coexistence by the Bay.  Thus, I think that no one should be surprised by an Austin Athletics or San Antonio Athletics franchise wanting regional TV exclusivity in at least their new Nielsen-defined market, even if it precludes opportunities for regional TV coverage in Big D, Cowtown, or H-Town.

     

    Finally, I think that a move to anywhere in Texas by the A's will put an unusually high level of pressure on MLB to realign across league lines.  The prospect of the A's becoming a third American League team in a Lone Star State without a National League franchise may irk at least some owners of NL clubs enough to call for a return of the Astros and/or even a shifting of the Rangers to the NL.

    • Like 1
  5. @GDAWG, if, by territorial rights, you mean regional television (and maybe also radio) rights, I am under the impression that the whole state of Texas is part of a TV territory shared by the Houston Astros and the Texas Rangers.  Unless I am mistaken, Astros games are on regional cable even in the Dallas-Fort Worth market, and Rangers games are on regional cable even in the Houston market.

     

    As I understand it, the MLB commissioner's office ordered a full overlap of those two teams' TV territories back when the second AL Washington Senators were seeking to move to North Texas.  This decision was made in order to preserve the Astros' freedom to syndicate their game telecasts to any willing local TV station in the DFW area and thus encourage the 'Stros to let the Metroplex have its own MLB club; an unwillingness by the Astros' ownership to sacrifice regional TV coverage in North Texas was a key reason why the DFW region was turned down for one of the 1969 MLB expansion franchises.

    • Like 5
  6. 3 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

    I’m not really sure why people are giving a strong yes to Portland if they’re going to give a no to hard no to Sacramento. The metro population is almost neck and neck, yet Portland is even more isolated. At least Sacramento is close to the Bay Area and the central valley to draw from.

     

    The top answer can be shortened to three words: Portland is richer.

     

    Specifically, Portland enjoys a lower unemployment rate and a higher rate of projected future job growth than does Sacramento.  More importantly, Portland's per capita, median household, and median family incomes are all above the US average.  Meanwhile, Sacramento is below the US average in all three of those income categories.  Finally, as best as I can tell, Portland has more businesses that can afford to pay for premium seats at and season tickets to a MLB team's games than does Sacramento.

     

    Also, in a way, Portland may be helped by being geographically more isolated than Sacramento.  If nothing else, part of the desire for a Portland team in MLB and particularly in the American League is to create a geographically close rival to the Seattle Mariners, who are decidedly the most remote MLB club at the moment.

    • Like 6
  7. 1 hour ago, GDAWG said:

     

    LAA vs. LAA on TV, in the same division.

     

    LAN (Angels) vs. LAT (Athletics) might work.

     

    With that said, I think that if and when the Greater Los Angeles region gains a third MLB franchise, such a team is most likely to play home games somewhere in the Inland Empire, which appears to be isolated enough from both Los Angeles County and Orange County to deliver a more or less captive audience to that ball club.  Other possibilities that I see are Long Beach (which tried to get the Angels both when Gene Autry wanted out of Chavez Ravine in the 1960s and when Arte Moreno got antsy about the team's long-term prospects in Anaheim a few years ago), the San Fernando Valley, or even Ventura County.

  8. 31 minutes ago, DukeofChutney said:

    Just a curveball question - what location would be the biggest surprise for the move?

     

    Among potential surprises that are big and yet plausible, I would go with Dave Kaval and company paying off the ownerships of both the Yankees and the Mets (and maybe paying off the Phillies' ownership also) and then moving the A's to the northeast quadrant of New Jersey.  Some studies have suggested that, from a financial standpoint, the New York City and Los Angeles television markets would each be able to support three MLB teams more easily than any currently MLB-free TV market in the United States would be able to support one MLB franchise.

    • Like 2
  9. 17 hours ago, Magic Dynasty said:

    A's options not named Las Vegas:

    Portland - ehhhh I don't think they'd build them a stadium

     

    The Portland area has two standing proposals now for a major-league-caliber baseball park.  A few weeks ago, the Portland Diamond Project's plan for an MLB venue at the Port of Portland's Terminal 2 gained a intra-metropolitan competitor in the form of a proposal for an MLB park within a hypothetical mixed-use development in Gresham, a suburb east of Portland.  Thus, the Athletics' owners could not only play the overall Portland metro area against any other possible relocation destination and/or Oakland, but could also pit the City of Portland proper against Gresham in the battle to give the A's the most attractive ballpark offer.

    • Like 2
  10. On 5/11/2021 at 6:09 PM, rams80 said:

    We've got maybe Charlotte and maybe Montreal east of the continental divide as "plausible" markets.  I think MLB could brick those quite nicely if need be.

     

    Presently, Montréal seems more plausible to me than Charlotte, if only because of an active campaign led by Stephen Bronfman, an heir to the Seagram distillery fortune and the son of the original owner of the Expos.  While Charlotte has been rumored for years as a potential home of an MLB team -- thanks largely to both a metro area with steady population growth and the continued financial pull of the city's banking industry (especially the national juggernaut that is Bank of America) -- I am not aware of any serious, clearly organized movement for an MLB franchise in or near the South's Queen City.  In fact, I dare say that Raleigh has currently the most substantive and most tangible campaign for an MLB club anywhere in North Carolina (replete with a #RaleighOnDeck hashtag) ... even if most of the boosters of that project seem to be local hipsters whose individual and collective net worths are middle-class at best.

     

    On 5/11/2021 at 6:13 PM, MJWalker45 said:

    Is Nashville still in play? Apparently that's where people think Cleveland is moving to. 

     

    Is Nashville still in play?  Hmmm ...

     

    https://mlbmusiccity.com

     

    https://nashville-stars.myshopify.com

     

    https://twitter.com/NashvilleStars

     

    https://instagram.com/nashvillestarsbaseball

     

    https://facebook.com/NashvilleStarsBaseball

     

    As for Cleveland's MLB club moving anywhere, I see two major hurdles:

     

    1. Ohio's "Art Modell Law" forces pro sports teams playing at publicly funded venues in that state "to either get agreement from their home town to play most home games elsewhere, or give six months’ notice of their intention to move and allow locals a chance to buy the team."
    2. From what I have read, while Cuyahoga County's government is on track to pay off its debt on Progressive Field by the end of the 2023 season, it may not be exactly clear as to whether the Cleveland MLB team would become free to exit its lease of that ballpark at that moment, or would have to wait a certain number of years afterward before being allowed to play home games elsewhere.  If the latter is true, then the Cleveland MLB franchise would be in a predicament much like that of the Tampa Bay Rays, who are still contractually bound to Tropicana Field through the 2027 season even though the City of St. Petersburg's government paid off the debt on that facility a few years ago.
  11. 1 hour ago, McCall said:

    You also gotta think about the Rays. What are they gonna do? That 2027 end of lease is not far away, especially when you consider selecting locations and stadium plans. Seems like the A's are always suspected to stay in the west and the Rays in central/east.

     

    At this point, the idea that the Athletics and the Rays will stay on their respective current sides of North America if and when they move has become a common cliché when journalists, bloggers, radio talk show hosts, podcast hosts, et al. speculate about MLB's future geography.  If I had to guess, such an assumption is based on a belief that MLB is unwilling to realign in order to accommodate a transcontinental relocation of a team.

     

    However, a serious problem with this premise -- and part of the dilemma that Rob Manfred and the overall MLB power structure face when dealing with these two teams' ballpark situations -- is that the A's are free to leave RingCentral Coliseum three years sooner than the Rays are allowed to vacate Tropicana Field.  So, what will happen if, sometime between 2024 and 2027, whatever person or group owns the A's at that time determines that a metropolitan area located east of the Continental Divide, or even someplace that is also east of the Mississippi River, is the best new home for that franchise?  Will Manfred and his minions dare to tell the Athletics' ownership, "Sorry, but the only places where you may move the A's are Las Vegas; Portland, Oregon; Sacramento; Salt Lake City; or Vancouver" and have the gall to say to political and business leaders in that easterly locale, "Sorry, but you'll have to wait till either we expand again or one of our teams in the eastern two-thirds of North America is willing and able to move, whichever comes first" in response to such a situation?

     

    Anyone who wants the A's to remain in Oakland, wishes that the Rays keep playing in the Tampa Bay area, desires that both of those teams stay put, or yearns for an MLB club in a place that is currently without such a team will need to buckle up.  This could be the start of a few bumpy years of geographic uncertainty across Major League Baseball.

    • Like 1
  12. If only to play devil's advocate, I wonder if a key reason why Comcast / NBCUniversal has been reserving ever more of the most alluring Premier League games for Peacock is a belief that the most fervent non-Hispanic US fans of soccer in general and of top-flight European club soccer competitions in particular are more likely -- and, more importantly, tend to be more willing -- to watch video programming on Internet-and-mobile-app-based, on-demand streaming services such as Peacock and, conversely, are less likely and tend to be less willing to subscribe to traditional cable-based or satellite-based, linear multichannel television services (including, obviously, Comcast's own cable operations).

     

    Whether it is fair or not, a common stereotype of non-Latinx fans of soccer in the United States is that they tend to be from either the Millennial generation (a.k.a. Generation Y) or Generation Z, and a widespread stereotype of both Millennials and Generation-Z-ers is that they tend either to be disillusioned former subscribers to cable-based or satellite-based multichannel TV services ("cord-cutters") or to have never had such subscriptions ("cord-nevers").  Another seemingly heavily accepted stereotype aimed at both Millennials and Gen-Z-ers is that such people tend to regard cable TV and even subscription-based satellite TV as costing too much money at best and as using disgustingly unreliable technology, having unbearably bad customer service, being flooded with channels dominated by mindlessly derivative "reality" entertainment programs, and being simply too old-fashioned at worst.

     

    For these reasons, I suspect that if Comcast / NBCU were maintaining the pre-Peacock status quo with regard to Premier League coverage in the United States, many of the most hardcore fans of soccer across the nation would be complaining about needing to get a cable or satellite subscription that they deem to be overpriced, and then having to accept a lot of unwanted channels, just to have access to attractive Premier League games on NBCSN ... when those same US fans can spend much less money to watch comparably interesting Bundesliga and Serie A games on ESPN+ and/or UEFA Champions League games on CBS All Access (soon to be renamed Paramount+).  As much as it may disappoint those of us who have loved how both NBCSN and the over-the-air NBC network have covered the Premier League, a steady shift of games to Peacock may well be needed in order for Comcast to save face with much of the Premier League's US fandom and for the Premier League to stay relevant among US devotees of European club soccer.

  13. 3 hours ago, _J_ said:

    Honestly? A team named the presidents would be tied to whoever is in the office. Is it unfair? Possibly, but the first thing that would come to mind is whoever is in office at the time. All of the other ones manage to be abstract concepts.

     

    On the other hand, someone who dislikes whoever is the President of the United States at the moment, but is a fan of a Washington Presidents team, might display a sign at a game or post an image on social media that has a picture of the POTUS with a caption like "THIS is NOT my President!" next to a team pic with a caption such as "THESE are MY Presidents!"  Also, just imagine the many American Revolution-inspired chants and memes that could be created if a Washington team nicknamed the Presidents plays for a championship against a team with a monarchic nickname.

     

    2 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

    I'd even suspect that takes Senators off the table.  Even in 2004 or whenever the Expos moved, government is too polarizing at this point.  In 1901 or whenever the original Senators were named, it was probably received better than it would be today.

     

    From what I remember, the notion of changing the Expos' nickname to the Senators was opposed by Washington, D.C.'s local political establishment not so much because of any general sense of polarization regarding the federal government, but rather because of ongoing displeasure over the District of Columbia's lack of representation in the United States Senate.  At least one politician in that city suggested Grays, the nickname of a Negro League baseball team that split many of its seasons between Pittsburgh and the District, as a better identity for the team, so the eventual branding of the Washington Nationals may very well have been a compromise between Senators and Grays.

    • Like 2
  14. I have never understood why Presidents has never seemed to be a popular choice for a nickname for any sports team based in Washington, D.C., let alone the frontrunner in the debate over what should be the new nickname for Washington's NFL team.  A Washington Presidents identity would be an excellent way to convey leadership without having to resort to a monarchic (e.g. Kings, Monarchs, Royals), feudal (e.g. Barons, Dukes), or military (e.g. Admirals, Colonels, Generals) theme.  Also, with particular regard to the apparently most likely new nicknames for the Washington Football Team, Presidents would be less generic than (Red) Wolves, be more relevant to D.C. than Red Tails, avoid the awkwardness that a singular noun like Alliance would have, and be free of the Brandiose-style gimmickry of a Seals brand with a Navy SEALs theme.

  15. Here is my proposal for a 32-team, eight-division setup for Major League Baseball, assuming that all existing teams stay where they are:

     

    • American League
      • East Division
        • Baltimore Orioles
        • Boston Red Sox
        • New York Yankees
        • Toronto Blue Jays
      • North Division
        • Chicago White Sox
        • Cleveland Guardians (renaming)
        • Detroit Tigers
        • Minnesota Twins
      • South Division
        • Dallas-Fort Worth Rangers (renaming)
        • Kansas City Royals
        • Nashville Stars (expansion)
        • Tampa Bay Rays
      • West Division
        • Anaheim Angels (renaming)
        • Arizona Diamondbacks (league swap)
        • Oakland Athletics
        • Seattle Mariners
    • National League
      • East Division
        • New York Mets
        • Philadelphia Phillies
        • Pittsburgh Pirates
        • Washington Nationals
      • North Division
        • Chicago Cubs
        • Colorado Rockies
        • Milwaukee Brewers
        • St. Louis Cardinals
      • South Division
        • Atlanta Braves
        • Cincinnati Reds
        • Houston Astros (league swap)
        • Miami Marlins
      • West Division
        • Los Angeles Dodgers
        • San Diego Padres
        • San Francisco Giants
        • Vancouver Maroons (expansion)

     

    With this alignment, and particularly with the placement of expansion teams, geographic symmetry is paramount:

    1. A switch of leagues between the Astros and the Diamondbacks not only brings the NL back to Texas, but also gives the AL a presence in the Mountain West.
    2. A Vancouver NL expansion franchise endows the Senior Circuit with both a return to Canada and a presence in the Pacific Northwest.
    3. A Nashville AL expansion franchise means that, at last, the Junior Circuit has a team in a southeastern state other than Florida.
    4. Each league's East division consists solely of teams located both north of the Potomac River and east of the State of Ohio.
    5. Each league's South division has one team apiece in Texas, Florida, a second southeastern state, and the Lower Midwest.
    6. Each league's West division includes a Pacific Northwest club and contains only teams located west of the Continental Divide.
    • Like 2
  16. @Jamesizzo, if you want an NBA with four divisions of eight teams apiece and you want to revive the Seattle SuperSonics, then I can think of two better ways to make that happen.

    1. Let all existing clubs stay where they are, forgo an NBA version of the Kentucky Colonels and thus enable the Memphis Grizzlies to play in the Central Division, and grant expansion franchises to both Seattle and another locale in the Pacific Time Zone; or
    2. force a reversal of the ethically questionable relocation that created the Oklahoma City Thunder and thus give the original SuperSonics franchise back to Seattle, have the Memphis Grizzlies play in the Midwest Division, and put expansion teams in both Louisville and someplace in the Pacific Time Zone.

     

    The NBA's new team out west could be

    • in Las Vegas,
    • a third chance taken on San Diego (a former home of the Clippers and, before that, the original home of the Rockets),
    • a third team in the Greater Los Angeles region (The Vancouver Grizzlies' last owner, Michael Heisley, gave some thought to bringing that team to Anaheim before he chose Memphis as the Grizz' new home in 2001, and the Sacramento Kings came close to becoming the Anaheim Royals nearly a decade ago.),
    • a second team in the San Francisco Bay Area (Around the same time that Sacramento was on the brink of losing the Kings, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison tried to buy the current New Orleans NBA club and, despite his public denial of a desire to relocate that team, was heavily rumored at the time to have wanted to shift that franchise to San José.), or
    • a brand-new franchise for Vancouver.
    • Like 2
  17. 3 minutes ago, the admiral said:

    Snyder will probably have the NFL give ESPN a call. Can't have an official partner of the league playing the Voldemort game with them. Tiptoeing around it is one thing, doing a listicle with the name and logo missing probably drew too much attention. 

     

    As the home of Sunday night NFL games since 2006, NBC is also "an official partner" of the NFL, yet the NBC-owned Pro Football Talk website has gotten away with making the bare minimum of mentions of the Washington team's nickname for many years now.  These days, pretty much the only places in which one will find that nickname mentioned within PFT are in tags for articles and in comments by some readers of the site.

  18. On 5/17/2020 at 9:18 AM, nelroy78 said:

    https://www.mlb.com/news/featured/the-story-of-the-los-angeles-browns-changed-baseball-forever
     

    An alternate history based on if the St. Louis Browns had moved to Los Angeles in the early 1940s.

     

    —The A’s move to San Francisco

    —The Dodgers move to Dallas

    —The Giants move to Minnesota

    —The Astros are in the AL from the start as an expansion team

    —Baltimore Orioles are AL expansion team in 1961

    —California Angels are NL expansion team instead of AL in 1961

    —Mets lose 1969 World Series to LA Browns (my favorite)

    —The Senators move to Atlanta (we would have won 1987 and 1991 World Series...over the Braves in 1991, oh the irony)

    —The Milwaukee Braves stay in Milwaukee

    —The Seattle Pilots never move, but the original San Diego Padres (wearing blue and red instead of brown and orange) do move to Washington to become the Stars in 1974 as what almost happened in real life, and the Padres are reborn in the Mariners’ spot in the AL in 1977

     

    If, in this alternate timeline, (a) Clark Griffith died at more or less the same moment in time as in our history and still left the Washington Senators to his nephew, Calvin Griffith, and (b) Calvin still retained ownership of that team for at least two decades, then I think that the younger Griffith would have been very unwilling either to relocate the Senators to Atlanta at any point in his ownership or to wait until 1966 to move the team anywhere far away from Washington, D.C.

     

    Among the things that we have come to learn about Calvin Griffith is that, on at least one occasion, he

     

    1. accused black people -- the predominant residents of the neighborhoods surrounding the Washington Senators' ballpark and, historically, a large percentage of the population of the whole District of Columbia -- of being generally unwilling to attend baseball games regularly, and
    2. admitted that he was thrilled that the whole state of Minnesota had presumably only a few thousand black inhabitants when the Senators became the Twins in 1961.

     

    Thus, in a world where the Minneapolis-St. Paul area somehow gained an MLB club before the Senators could move to that region, I think that Calvin Griffith would have passed up a city as heavily black as Atlanta -- especially if, just as in our world, the federal government had banned racial discrimination in both employment and public accommodations by the time that Atlanta had an MLB-ready stadium -- in favor of a comparably populous MLB-free area in the United States (or even in Canada) with a much higher ratio of white residents to black residents.  Specifically, Buffalo (one of the cities proposed for a team in pro baseball's stillborn Continental League, and a decidedly larger city in the late 1950s and early 1960s than today), Denver (the tentative home of another Continental League club), Toronto (where a third CL team would have played), Montréal (Calvin Griffith's hometown), and even Indianapolis and Seattle all strike me as being far more likely destinations for a Washington Senators team under his particular ownership than Atlanta.

     

    Finally, I cannot help but suspect that Calvin Griffith was a hardened enough racist that he would have sought to move the Senators out of Washington, D.C. as soon as possible after he inherited the team, even if Baltimore still did not have its own MLB franchise and even if neither the AL nor the NL had expanded yet.  In that case, I think that, in the early 1960s in this parallel universe, each league still adds two teams, the NL still grants a franchise to New York City to fill the void left jointly by the Giants and the Dodgers, and the AL still bestows a franchise upon Houston.  However, the NL would have had trouble deciding whether its other planned expansion club for the early Sixties would compete with the Browns for fans in Los Angeles or exploit and avenge the AL's departure from D.C.  Meanwhile, the AL would have felt a lot of pressure in the earliest part of the 60s to say no to any bid from Baltimore and instead put a new team in the District before the NL could do so.

    • Like 2
  19. https://ballparkdigest.com/2020/02/07/rob-manfred-backs-rays-pursuit-of-split-season-plan/

     

    Commissioner Manfred, have you no shame?

     

    I am sorry, but I cannot think of much else to say about the person presumably in charge of the whole of MLB granting an official, public blessing to Sternberg's complexity-inducing, greed-laden, hubris-laden, almost certainly fan-alienating plan for the future of the Rays.

    • Like 3
  20. 31 minutes ago, mr.nascar13 said:

    So by the NAL's logic, not having proper security and having players/cheerleaders getting robbed in the middle of the game is more detrimental to the league's image than said team not coming back on the field after literally being robbed.

    Did you mean to type "less detrimental" instead of "more deteimental," @mr.nascar13?  It seems rather obvious to me that the Cobras' refusal to play the rest of that game infuriated the NAL's leadership more than did the security being presumably weak enough to enable the theft of things belonging to various Cobras personnel.

    • Like 2
  21. 29 minutes ago, rams80 said:

     

    Because the city is pronounced "Woostah"

    The irony is that while most New Englanders seem to pronounce "Worcester" in a way that has the first syllable's vowel matching the "short 'oo'" found in "good" or "wood," the announcer in the video revealing the WooSox's identity seems to pronounce the vowel in the first syllable of "WooSox" as the "long 'oo'" that is heard in "food" or "mood."

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.