boywiththorninside

Bernie was asked how he felt about the contract situation, he responded. I disagree that Bernie couldn't have gotten a contract somewhere. Perhaps he couldn't get the cash he wanted, but he could have gotten a deal. I view the Bernie thing completely differently than you. That's fine. I can live with that. I, as well as some other Yankee fans I know, feel Bernie got a raw deal. It's just our opinion, but thanks for letting me know how dumb of an opinion it is. After all, what are message boards for?

Bernie - Sports Illustrated Odd man out? Williams gets camp invite but no guaranteed deal Posted: Wednesday January 31, 2007 Bernie Williams' great Yankees career just might end with a soap opera he didn't bargain for. SI.com has learned that the Yankees have made Williams a standing offer to come to spring training as a non-guaranteed, nonroster invite. While this wasn't anything close to what he was hoping or looking for, all indications are that he is considering the proposal. Williams still could decide to retire, too. But the third option, which is to sign a better deal with anoth

Again, my main problem is how this matter was largely handled through the press. If there's not that spot for him, tell him so privately. Don't let it be known that if he wants to audition, he can. Asking a guy like Bernie, publicly, to audition is insulting. It's enough of a blow to the guy that the team probably doesn't want him back. To tell the press that he's welcome to try out for the team is salt in the wound. This always rubbed me the wrong way. Bernie won a lot of games and hit a lot of post-season home-runs for that team.

Bernie was done as a centerfielder, but he could have still been useful as a DH or simply off the bench. The guy's bat was still decent. He also wasn't making outrageous contract demands. But, more importantly, I think publicly inviting him to audition for a spot at spring training after all he had done for that team was disrespectful. If there's not a spot for him, tell him so privately, but don't make it a public spectacle - which it was here in NY on talk radio, etc. It's not so much what they did - yes, he was an aging player - it was how they did it. Is that silly for me to think Be

I'm watching Joe's press conference now and it's apparent how much the Yankees are going to miss this guy. It's been said so many times, but the guy is pure class. Funny too. I'm so down on the Yankees organization right now. Would it have killed them to offer Joe two years? Last year they treat Bernie like crap, this year it's Joe. Deep down I don't, but there is a part of me that would like to see Mariano and Posada tell Cashman, Randy Levine and the young Steinbrenner's to go f-themselves and go sign with the Mets. Oh, well. I guess all things, except the Rolling Stones and the Simpson

Does Dice-K pitch game 7?

Terrible etiquette, MattZ. As punishment I want you to spend the next two hours reading Sasha Frere Jones' articles and reviews.

I like that Tweedy makes use of the alternate "Live 1975" lyrics. I also like the "Desire"-era violin accompaniment. Sounds great to me. As do the others.

A-Rod: player/manager I could live with either Mattingly or Girardi. Girardi would probably be better, but Mattingly was my favorite player as a kid. Bobby Valentine's name is being put out there too. Probably by Bobby Valentine.

...and when Giuliani is elected President he will be named head of FEMA.

EDIT: Torre turned down the offer.

True. I think that's why people aren't going that crazy about it - it's Manny. If Varitek or someone else said it, I might go crazy for a bit and I'm not even a Sox fan.

Joe Torre is coming back for a year, option for second year.

Manny does seem to have a rational and sane view of the world, and he is certainly able to put baseball in its proper perspective. However, nobody wants to hear this. There is nothing rational and sane about sports fandom. As a fan, I need to believe the players care to be able to care myself. I need that illusion. Manny's comment makes it sound as if he doesn't care, and completely destroys that illusion. That's the last thing fans who spend god knows what on tickets, who put up with the traffic to get to a stadium, who devote months to cheer for and follow a team, want to hear. Yes, in the g

I didn't start the thread, but I made that observation. I was born after his initial great run (Astral - Veedon) so maybe my perspective is skewed. All I know is I feel he has a body of work that stands comfortably alongside many of his contemporaries, and yet he doesn't seem to share the same acclaim. The kids today seem to love Dylan, the Beatles, the Who, the Stones, etc. Van Morrison? Not so much. I don't hear his name mentioned nearly as often. I'm not saying Van Morrison has wallowed in obscurity, I just feel, in comparison to others of similar accomplishment, he gets somewhat overlooked

Did Pedroia pull an A-Rod last night and try to slap the ball out of someone's glove? I didn't see it, but people are calling up about it on Mike and the Mad Dog.

I'm sure I'd eventually get bored, but that doesn't sound half bad. In my perfect world, every band would have a hint of Jagger/Richards.

Whenever this is discussed I always think of that famous quote from Justice Stewart about the difficulty of defining what is pornography: "I know it when I see it." That's how I feel about "indie" music. I couldn't give you a clear definition of what it is, but I know it when I hear it. To me, it's a sound (and unfortunately also often a look) and the independent or major label distinction has no relevance. I understand this way of thinking can be insulting to a certain ethos, but it's the way I've come to approach the "indie" question.

Looking at that list, I can see your point. There are definitely some albums on there that I forgot about and that I did enjoy (Justice, Panda Bear, Elliott Smith). Maybe that's also part of the problem for me - I get lost in the sheer volume of music that is available. Before I give one album the full attention that it deserves, I'm on to the next thing. You win. 2007 was not as dire as I first made it out to be. Not my favorite year, but I do see there was quality stuff out there. Now, back to the Kinks.

I'm not trying to be confrontational and I hate to be the guy who has to disagree, but what where the records released this year that you expect, or think deserve, to stand the test of time? There have been records I've liked on first or second listen this year, but none have consistently kept my attention or demanded my repeated listening. I'm not challenging anyone's opinion, I'm just looking for suggestions of records I should, maybe, reevaluate or give a second chance. For me, 2007 was the year I was forced to rediscover "classic" rock. And that's not necessarily a complaint. I'm

I don't mean to be Frere-Jones' defense attorney here, but the "too white" thing was my oversimplification of his thesis. Frere Jones never directly says that, and I was being somewhat facetious in my original post. I didn't mean to be offensive - I hope I wasn't - and I didn't mean to misrepresent what Frere-Jones has to say. I tend to agree with your conclusion that great, original Amercian music is indebted to both black and white influences. Nonetheless, I'd encourage you to read the piece. You'll probably hate it - that seems to be the majority opinion - but don't avoid it simply becau

Wow. I really did not mind that article. Though I would like to go on record as saying that I don't believe the lyrics to YHF are "embarrassing poetry," as Frere Jones does. I love those lyrics and that album.

Like most people who write for the New Yorker, he's pretty hit or miss for me. I didn't mind this piece.

Another journalist, another critique of "indie" rock - it's too white and has lost rock's rhythm and soul roots. There is a Wilco mention on page 3. Interesting read. New Yorker - "Indie" Rock: A Paler Shade of White

I also really liked the LCD Soundsystem and David Vandervelde records. And some of the new Wilco. The thing with the new stuff is that, for me, it doesn't endure. I'm over it really quickly. I mean, the new Radiohead has only been out a week and I haven't put it on in days. I liked it when I first listened to it, but nothing has compelled me to put it back on. A lot of new releases are like this for me. It's probably a personal thing and I shouldn't indict all new music, but this is a fairly recent occurrence. In the recent past I would listen to new releases as if they were old classics. I'd