MLB 2022

[Dr. Medulla]

Which is the kind of attitude that scares the hell out of the czars of society. The idea of seeing the world as something other than some kind of giant marketplace is grit in the gears. It might not be revolutionary, but not seeing universal commodification as natural and just is a huge step away from the bonfire.

I think it is revolutionary. Their are no protests in the streets to quell by goon squad. Those czars of society have to be confounded. It's a perfect strike with the entire system already quite taxed. I have to applaud it and applaud it loudly. The essential worker is speaking and they want a seat at the table. I suggest a review of the subreddit antiwork, some good portraits of there. As a companion check out this Financial Times piece about the antiwork subreddit and the comments from baffled capitalists, good stuff.

https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/

https://www.ft.com/content/1270ee18-3ee ... f40940e644

Article is paywalled, unfortunately. But I've read comparable pieces, I assume, from restaurant owners bemoaning they can't find experienced staff, available at irregular shifts, and for shit pay. To which people regularly respond, if your business model only works on ground-up labour, you shouldn't exist. I remember in the 90s when comparable critiques like that were made by 20-something Xers, they were dismissed as slackers. Ideas don't die, tho, but can hibernate until better conditions arrive.

[weller259]

For some reason I was thinking he played on the Pirates but then I remembered the Mets did a lot of coke too.

As it turned out, yes they did quite a lot of coke, word was that was why the Cards traded Keith away, he was a "bad influence" due to his drug taking. Those Mets did a lot of drinking as well, note the incident in Houston in 86 where a few Mets got arrested after a night on the town there during a series in July. Those Mets were badass in every way. Most of us fans were not aware at that time about the drug issue but some of us had our suspicions, mostly with Gooden not Hernandez, but baseball people knew. That ESPN 30 for 30 on that Mets team revealed a few facts us fans never knew, like how the baseball commisioner even knew there were drugs in the Mets team but refused to "name names".
But us Mets fans most likely wouldn't have given a shit even if we did know because hey we were finally a winning team.
Which brought us to the Steroid era. More drugs, just different ones. People seemed less upset about Steroids back then as opposed to the coke.
There is a point here somewhere but i'm too conflicted to suss it all out. lol.

[Dr. Medulla]

For some reason I was thinking he played on the Pirates but then I remembered the Mets did a lot of coke too.

As it turned out, yes they did quite a lot of coke, word was that was why the Cards traded Keith away, he was a "bad influence" due to his drug taking. Those Mets did a lot of drinking as well, note the incident in Houston in 86 where a few Mets got arrested after a night on the town there during a series in July. Those Mets were badass in every way. Most of us fans were not aware at that time about the drug issue but some of us had our suspicions, mostly with Gooden not Hernandez, but baseball people knew. That ESPN 30 for 30 on that Mets team revealed a few facts us fans never knew, like how the baseball commisioner even knew there were drugs in the Mets team but refused to "name names".
But us Mets fans most likely wouldn't have given a shit even if we did know because hey we were finally a winning team.
Which brought us to the Steroid era. More drugs, just different ones. People seemed less upset about Steroids back then as opposed to the coke.
There is a point here somewhere but i'm too conflicted to suss it all out. lol.

I know it's formally inconsistent, but I don't have a problem with players doing blow or taking greenies, but I'm firmly opposed to steroids, HGH, and other muscle-building drugs. I know that they're all performance enhancing, but I just don't place amphetamines in the same objectionable camp.

I remember watching a Yankee game when Cone was in the booth, and the topic of, I think, religion and blue language came up. Michael Kay asked Cone if he played with moralists, and Cone, not missing a beat, said, "I never hung out with guys like that." I immediately thought of the Mets (tho he wasn't on the '86 team).

[revbob]

For some reason I was thinking he played on the Pirates but then I remembered the Mets did a lot of coke too.

As it turned out, yes they did quite a lot of coke, word was that was why the Cards traded Keith away, he was a "bad influence" due to his drug taking. Those Mets did a lot of drinking as well, note the incident in Houston in 86 where a few Mets got arrested after a night on the town there during a series in July. Those Mets were badass in every way. Most of us fans were not aware at that time about the drug issue but some of us had our suspicions, mostly with Gooden not Hernandez, but baseball people knew. That ESPN 30 for 30 on that Mets team revealed a few facts us fans never knew, like how the baseball commisioner even knew there were drugs in the Mets team but refused to "name names".
But us Mets fans most likely wouldn't have given a shit even if we did know because hey we were finally a winning team.
Which brought us to the Steroid era. More drugs, just different ones. People seemed less upset about Steroids back then as opposed to the coke.
There is a point here somewhere but i'm too conflicted to suss it all out. lol.

I know it's formally inconsistent, but I don't have a problem with players doing blow or taking greenies, but I'm firmly opposed to steroids, HGH, and other muscle-building drugs. I know that they're all performance enhancing, but I just don't place amphetamines in the same objectionable camp.

I remember watching a Yankee game when Cone was in the booth, and the topic of, I think, religion and blue language came up. Michael Kay asked Cone if he played with moralists, and Cone, not missing a beat, said, "I never hung out with guys like that." I immediately thought of the Mets (tho he wasn't on the '86 team).

David Cone is cool!

And I feel the same way as you on PEDs.

[Dr. Medulla]

For some reason I was thinking he played on the Pirates but then I remembered the Mets did a lot of coke too.

As it turned out, yes they did quite a lot of coke, word was that was why the Cards traded Keith away, he was a "bad influence" due to his drug taking. Those Mets did a lot of drinking as well, note the incident in Houston in 86 where a few Mets got arrested after a night on the town there during a series in July. Those Mets were badass in every way. Most of us fans were not aware at that time about the drug issue but some of us had our suspicions, mostly with Gooden not Hernandez, but baseball people knew. That ESPN 30 for 30 on that Mets team revealed a few facts us fans never knew, like how the baseball commisioner even knew there were drugs in the Mets team but refused to "name names".
But us Mets fans most likely wouldn't have given a shit even if we did know because hey we were finally a winning team.
Which brought us to the Steroid era. More drugs, just different ones. People seemed less upset about Steroids back then as opposed to the coke.
There is a point here somewhere but i'm too conflicted to suss it all out. lol.

I know it's formally inconsistent, but I don't have a problem with players doing blow or taking greenies, but I'm firmly opposed to steroids, HGH, and other muscle-building drugs. I know that they're all performance enhancing, but I just don't place amphetamines in the same objectionable camp.

I remember watching a Yankee game when Cone was in the booth, and the topic of, I think, religion and blue language came up. Michael Kay asked Cone if he played with moralists, and Cone, not missing a beat, said, "I never hung out with guys like that." I immediately thought of the Mets (tho he wasn't on the '86 team).

David Cone is cool!

And I feel the same way as you on PEDs.

Cone does have that rape allegation in his past (dismissed, but, well, he's a pro athlete, so the threshold for innocence is higher to me). But he was a guy I loved watching pitch—he wasn't that good when he was with the Sox, but I still loved his starts—and he's been really good in the booth. He's on the jockish side, but he gets baseball metrics. The book he did with Roger Angell is quite good, too.

[weller259]

For some reason I was thinking he played on the Pirates but then I remembered the Mets did a lot of coke too.

As it turned out, yes they did quite a lot of coke, word was that was why the Cards traded Keith away, he was a "bad influence" due to his drug taking. Those Mets did a lot of drinking as well, note the incident in Houston in 86 where a few Mets got arrested after a night on the town there during a series in July. Those Mets were badass in every way. Most of us fans were not aware at that time about the drug issue but some of us had our suspicions, mostly with Gooden not Hernandez, but baseball people knew. That ESPN 30 for 30 on that Mets team revealed a few facts us fans never knew, like how the baseball commisioner even knew there were drugs in the Mets team but refused to "name names".
But us Mets fans most likely wouldn't have given a shit even if we did know because hey we were finally a winning team.
Which brought us to the Steroid era. More drugs, just different ones. People seemed less upset about Steroids back then as opposed to the coke.
There is a point here somewhere but i'm too conflicted to suss it all out. lol.

I know it's formally inconsistent, but I don't have a problem with players doing blow or taking greenies, but I'm firmly opposed to steroids, HGH, and other muscle-building drugs. I know that they're all performance enhancing, but I just don't place amphetamines in the same objectionable camp.

I remember watching a Yankee game when Cone was in the booth, and the topic of, I think, religion and blue language came up. Michael Kay asked Cone if he played with moralists, and Cone, not missing a beat, said, "I never hung out with guys like that." I immediately thought of the Mets (tho he wasn't on the '86 team).

I agree with you on the steroid/amphetamine thing as well, i'm not crazy about amphetamines but that is just not on the same level as steroids. I don't really care about so-called recreational drugs being used, they are only human after all.
David Cone while with the Mets I think it was 1991, definitely in that time frame anyway, he was accused of masturbating in the bullpen at Shea stadium, I can't remember all the details, so he has always been known to be a bit freaky, i'm truly amazed he's getting work at ESPN. He was great as a Met, pitched his ass off for them, but his broadcasting gig is not something I forsaw for his post-playing days.
Michael Kay is a disaster though, other than John Sterling, he is the absolute worst announcer. Horrible.

[Dr. Medulla]

David Cone while with the Mets I think it was 1991, definitely in that time frame anyway, he was accused of masturbating in the bullpen at Shea stadium, I can't remember all the details, so he has always been known to be a bit freaky, i'm truly amazed he's getting work at ESPN. He was great as a Met, pitched his ass off for them, but his broadcasting gig is not something I forsaw for his post-playing days.

Which reminds me of The Mick:

Michael Kay is a disaster though, other than John Sterling, he is the absolute worst announcer. Horrible.

I admit that I'm a distinct minority in being a non-Yankees fan who doesn't mind Michael Kay. He's an obvious homer, but he's fairly knowledgeable and works well with his booth. He may not be elite, but he's well above average. John Sterling, however, is a semi-sentient blob of inanity.

[BostonBeaneater]

I did a lot of coke.

[revbob]

I did a lot of coke.

You're no Met!

[Dr. Medulla]

I did a lot of coke.

You're no Met!

I can see Dave legging out a triple, but missing and first and second in the process.

[BostonBeaneater]

I did a lot of coke.

You're no Met!

I'm Mr. Met!

[BostonBeaneater]

I know it's formally inconsistent, but I don't have a problem with players doing blow or taking greenies, but I'm firmly opposed to steroids, HGH, and other muscle-building drugs. I know that they're all performance enhancing, but I just don't place amphetamines in the same objectionable camp.

I am all for performance enhancing dope for ballplayers, particularly HGH and the types of drugs that promote quick healing. I'm cool with letting a bunch of millionaires be petri-dishes for the rest of use. When I'm 70 I'd like to be loaded up with HGH on the regular.

[Dr. Medulla]

I know it's formally inconsistent, but I don't have a problem with players doing blow or taking greenies, but I'm firmly opposed to steroids, HGH, and other muscle-building drugs. I know that they're all performance enhancing, but I just don't place amphetamines in the same objectionable camp.

I am all for performance enhancing dope for ballplayers, particularly HGH and the types of drugs that promote quick healing. I'm cool with letting a bunch of millionaires be petri-dishes for the rest of use. When I'm 70 I'd like to be loaded up with HGH on the regular.

I'm an old-fashioned moralist on this kind of stuff, a rare dip into romanticism.

[revbob]

I know it's formally inconsistent, but I don't have a problem with players doing blow or taking greenies, but I'm firmly opposed to steroids, HGH, and other muscle-building drugs. I know that they're all performance enhancing, but I just don't place amphetamines in the same objectionable camp.

I am all for performance enhancing dope for ballplayers, particularly HGH and the types of drugs that promote quick healing. I'm cool with letting a bunch of millionaires be petri-dishes for the rest of use. When I'm 70 I'd like to be loaded up with HGH on the regular.

I'm an old-fashioned moralist on this kind of stuff, a rare dip into romanticism.

Me too but Dave makes a persuasive argument.

[Dr. Medulla]

I know it's formally inconsistent, but I don't have a problem with players doing blow or taking greenies, but I'm firmly opposed to steroids, HGH, and other muscle-building drugs. I know that they're all performance enhancing, but I just don't place amphetamines in the same objectionable camp.

I am all for performance enhancing dope for ballplayers, particularly HGH and the types of drugs that promote quick healing. I'm cool with letting a bunch of millionaires be petri-dishes for the rest of use. When I'm 70 I'd like to be loaded up with HGH on the regular.

I'm an old-fashioned moralist on this kind of stuff, a rare dip into romanticism.

Me too but Dave makes a persuasive argument.

I guess if I want to make a serious push back at what he says is that if that becomes the standard for pro performance, it'd necessarily filter down to younger and younger ages. A twelve-year-old who seems kinda talented might feel pressured to start doping to have a chance to compete at higher levels. It's already a destructive race of abuse as kids are expected to build muscle at earlier ages, with kids who have no chance of reaching the pros fucking themselves up on that dream.