BREAKING: Sox Win Payment for Coaches, End Boycott

Update: MLB has relented and agreed to pay the stipend to coaches, training staff and support staff from both teams, according to the Boston Herald’s Rob Bradford, speaking on WEEI.

From the Boston Globe:

Red Sox third baseman Mike Lowell confirmed to the Globe that the team voted unanimously this morning not to make the scheduled trip to Japan or play its final spring training game against Toronto this afternoon unless the coaches, training staff, and equipment staff were going to be compensated for making the trip to Japan.

”When we voted to go to Japan, that was not a unanimous vote,” said Lowell, "but we did what our team wanted us to do for Major League Baseball. They promised us the moon and the stars, and then when we committed, they started pulling back. It’s not just the coaches, it’s the staff, the trainers, a lot of people are affected by this.

"I’m so super proud of this team. When we put it to a vote it was unanimous, we’re all in agreement that we’re not going to put up with this.”

Manager Terry Francona had told Red Sox coaches thay’d be getting a $40,000 stipend, then discovered otherwise. Curt Schilling says he was involved with negotiations on the issue, and insists there was an agreement in place to pay the coaches. Talks apparently are ongoing.

Considering the exhibition game is scheduled to start right now, I guess we’ll see what happens.

Update: NESN and WEEI are reporting the Athletics have also voted to boycott the trip if the coaches aren’t paid.

144 comments… add one
  • It’s over.
    The Red Sox have taken the field against Toronto.
    Whatever the solution, I bet the coaches are getting paid one way or the other.

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 11:54 am
  • I’m curious if the club agreed to pay the coaches itself, which would explain why Theo was involved in talks.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 11:55 am
  • Good for the Red Sox for standing up for the coaches.
    Thumbs down for LoHud, who seemingly lost his mind today while posting about this. But, I guess when you post to that crowd, you find whatever pun and button pushing remark you can come up with to keep them coming back.

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 11:55 am
  • Somehow spinning this into a rebuttal to Theo’s comments about the Japan trip, when Theo had absolutely nothing to do with the team sitting down, is irresponsible. But, I was expecting it anyhow.

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 11:58 am
  • I suppose this isn’t “bitching” either :)

    A YF March 19, 2008, 11:59 am
  • The Herald has some better-written info, making it clear the Sox had agreed to the stipend with MLB, and that other teams in previous Japan appearances had received the stipend for their coaches.
    So it looks the Sox are completely in the right, and MLB is completely in the wrong.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:02 pm
  • No, it’s not A YF, but I’m sure the Yankee players in 2004 just didn’t give a crap about the coaches, trainers and support staff that were getting stiffed.

    LocklandSF March 19, 2008, 12:02 pm
  • No, it most certainly is. But there is a huge difference between what the Red Sox did this morning, and what LoHud portrayed. Again, it’s to be expected from him.

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 12:02 pm
  • Apparently, the players are in the dugout, but not on the field.
    Listening to the EEI feed on XM, and they’re saying they don’t know if the game will start; it “certainly won’t start on time.”

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:03 pm
  • Well, Lowell does readily point out that the original vote [on whether to go to Japan] wasn’t unanimous. Now somehow all of the players wanting to back out because their coaches aren’t getting bonuses is a sign of positivity for the trip?
    This bitchin’ controversy really is a gift that keeps giving. They haven’t even lost any games yet! :)

    A YF March 19, 2008, 12:03 pm
  • Constiglione just said that it was between the players and MLB, and that the Red Sox front office had absolutely nothing to say in the matter beyond asking what the problem was.
    Now, it appears that the Red Sox team has left the field and went back to the duggout. They only came out for the Anthem, then went back in.
    So, apparently this isn’t resolved.
    Varitek has said that they’re not playing until MLB agrees to pay the coaches.

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 12:05 pm
  • They’re not bitching over going, A. You’re making up stuff to push buttons.
    If they pay the coaches, the Red Sox play. That’s not bitching about going to Japan in any way whatsoever.
    Hank is the gift that keeps on giving; this is a team standing up for their coaches and other support staff.

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 12:06 pm
  • Ah, yes, the Sox are in the right here even as they’re demanding to be treated differently than every other team.
    And yes the Yanks are the selfish ones, one day after visiting VT – something that got exactly zero positive commentary here.

    A YF March 19, 2008, 12:07 pm
  • Pete Abe is getting skewered by his own commenters for that hideous post of his.
    That’s far and away the worst piece of trash I’ve ever seen on his blog. He should be ashamed of himself.
    Sox will be go and sign autographs for fans if the game isn’t started by 12:30. Matsuzaka is going to start in a minor-league game, so he can still get his work in.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:08 pm
  • The Blue Jays have once again entered the duggout as if the game is going to take place. The Red Sox are also in the duggout as if the game is going to take place.
    Who’s pitching this game if it happens?

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 12:08 pm
  • Seriously, the Sox front office is staying out of this? Even as 500k from them clears up the “problem” (wholly created by their players).

    A YF March 19, 2008, 12:09 pm
  • Also, Brad, it’s pretty cleat that Pete A over at LoHud was joking, even most of the people that have written comments support the Red Sox actions over there. Which is odd, because they are some of worst Yankee fans usually.

    LocklandSF March 19, 2008, 12:10 pm
  • According to the Herald (via Terry Francona), the Yankee coaches were paid in 2004, A, so you can shut your flame-baiting trap now.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:10 pm
  • Yes. The Virginia Tech thing. That was awesome of them to do. Should they get a medal? Perhaps honorary doctorates to all the players who agreed to play? Maybe a huge NY in center field hand crafted from the finest woods available on this Yankee planet.
    Game is delayed until 12:30 per the PA announcer at the game.

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 12:11 pm
  • A YF, you really don’t get it do you? It’s not just about the money, it’s about MLB keeping their promises. Jesus man, open your eyes.

    LocklandSF March 19, 2008, 12:11 pm
  • Were the A’s coaches scheduled to get paid this year?

    A YF March 19, 2008, 12:11 pm
  • Didn’t read like joking to me, Lockland. Paritularly the false equivalency between Theo’s “bitching” comment and the vote taken today…
    Varitek says: “There are a lot of things that have gone on and have fallen by the wayside a little bit, and this really can’y.”
    Sounds like the agreement with MLB has changed in more ways than one, and this was the last straw.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:12 pm
  • Man, I’m sorry I missed the humor then. To me, he was appealing to the knuckle draggers.

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 12:12 pm
  • Promises? Why is it that the A’s coaches were not promised to get paid? So the Sox got it wrong, but they’re right?

    A YF March 19, 2008, 12:13 pm
  • A YF, you really don’t get it do you?
    No, he gets it just fine. But getting it, and being able to take it for face value are two completely different things. Hence, the 500K statement which hasn’t been reported anywhere.

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 12:14 pm
  • How do you know that? How do we know what the A’s are doing right now? Are they on the plane to Japan? Maybe they just don’t care about their coaches?

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 12:16 pm
  • I wonder if each team negotiated separately. It sounds like the Sox negotiated the $40,000, and when the A’s said they weren’t getting any, it made Francona double check.
    Billy Beane was informed of the boycott by the Globe, and then apparently (based on the way the story’s written) was asked when the A’s knew the coaches wouldn’t get paid:
    “I first found out about it yesterday when I dinner with my manager Bob Geren, and he told me about it,” Beane said. “I think everyone on our staff, from what I was told was disappointed. I think that’s safe to say.”
    So it looks like both teams were blindsided by this.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:16 pm
  • It’s simple math, really:
    12 coaches x 40k = 500k
    You really think they have any more than 12 coaches and staff intricately tied to on-field operations?
    Seriously, I get “it” just fine. For a team that was manning up for this trip, we’re hearing an awful lot about it.

    A YF March 19, 2008, 12:17 pm
  • A YF, the Sox players are backing up their coaches and trainers, most of whom could really use the $40,000. Your team’s coaches and trainers were paid for their trip in 2004, so your opinion that the Red Sox are ‘bitching’ is pretty silly.
    If the Yanks were stiffed one year you bet your ass the Yankees players would defend their staff.

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 12:17 pm
  • For a team that was manning up for this trip, we’re hearing an awful lot about it.
    Yes, because they’re standing up for guys who get paid as little as $30,000 per year. Those evil, evil Red Sox. I guess when you root for the Yankees, screwing the little guy just isn’t as big a deal to you. (here’s my winky face so you can’t respond to that: ;-)
    Players have left the dugout.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:20 pm
  • Also, considering the $40K has always been given in the past, it’s not unreasonable to say that both teams probably assumed that they would still be getting it. This is like Clark Griswold’s boss not giving out the Christmas bonuses in Christmas Vacation!

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 12:20 pm
  • EEI confirms that Billy Beane also didn’t know his coaches weren’t being paid until last night.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:21 pm
  • A YF, you’re so wrong it’s absurd, even most of the knuckle dragging idiots at LoHud see this for what it is, how could you be so blind?

    LocklandSF March 19, 2008, 12:22 pm
  • Good call Paul. If a certain payment is given out consistently in the past, it’s not unreasonable to assume that it would continue to be paid. I wonder, were the Padres’ and Dodgers’ employees paid for their recent trip to China?
    Considering how much revenue MLB has gained over the last

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 12:23 pm
  • Good call Paul. If a certain payment is given out consistently in the past, it’s not unreasonable to assume that it would continue to be paid. I wonder, were the Padres’ and Dodgers’ employees paid for their recent trip to China?
    Considering how much revenue MLB has gained over the last few years I’m shocked that they would cut back on something like this.

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 12:23 pm
  • Oh I get the math, A. It’s the idea you followed it with that’s LoHudish.

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 12:23 pm
  • Incidentally, this reminds me of the 1918 World Series, when players found out the league was splitting their World Series shares among far more teams than in the past. (Of course, players were paid so little back then that was actually a big deal). The Red Sox threatened to strike the remainder of the World Series, and tried to negotiate with ownership and a plastered AL President Ban Johnson.
    Fans booed and didn’t understand the reasons for the delay (considering the players greedy), and eventually the players agreed to play. with just a delay in one of the games.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:25 pm
  • A YF is just looking for any justification to point fingers at the Red Sox. If roles were reversed I think most of us SF’s would applaud the Yankees for sticking up for their coaches and trainers.
    According to the article:
    “Sox player representative Kevin Youkilis spent time during the pre-game hours discussing the situation with Vernon Wells, who holds the same position for the Blue Jays.”
    Since when has Youk been the “Player representative”?

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 12:25 pm
  • Matsuzaka is going to pitch a minor league game today instead of this last game, so that’s one bullet missed.
    John Lester isn’t traveling to Japan with the team, but rather keeping him on scedule he’s going to pitch a game here tomorrow, then join them later over there.

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 12:25 pm
  • Also, according to the Sox players, they weren’t assuming the coaches would be paid. They actually negotiated the payment into the agreement to go to Japan. So, really, it’s just a matter of contract law, isn’t it? MLB broke their agreement, thus the Sox are under no obligation to go to Japan — which might make it a challenge for MLB to force a forfeit of those two games.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:27 pm
  • Exactly, Atheose. This isn’t about the Red Sox players getting paid – sure, $40K is always nice, but it’s chump change to Manny and even Dustin and the rest of the pre-arbitration crew wouldn’t miss it that much. But for the coaches, it’s a really significant amount of money, especially given the current state of the economy – most of them aren’t getting paid anywhere near what Francona is, let alone someone like Manny.
    If MLB actually promised the coaches $40K and then backed out of it, I’d frankly be disappointed in the team if they didn’t do something like this, and I’d expect the Yankees to do the same. There is no reason for an organization with the resources of Major League Baseball to be this cheap about the coaching staff of two teams it’s pushing across the ocean to promote the sport, and they should not be allowed to get away with promising a whole bunch of crap and then backing out at the last minute.

    Micah-SF March 19, 2008, 12:27 pm
  • Interesting, Brad. Poor Lester, getting left behind and having to travel 18 hours by himself!

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 12:27 pm
  • Dave Magadan:
    “To see how the players backed us and how they feel about the work that we do, that meant a lot,” Magadan said. “It means a lot. Sometimes we feel like you can have a thankless job, but when things like that are done, you really appreciate and get a feeling for how the players feel about us.”
    A YF, I suppose you still feel this is just about the team “bitching” about having to go to Japan? Right?

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 12:31 pm
  • Apparently MLB also backed out of allowing families to come on the trip, and the A’s are considering joining in the boycott.

    Micah-SF March 19, 2008, 12:33 pm
  • “Yes, because they’re standing up for guys who get paid as little as $30,000 per year.”
    Right cause this is the only time we’ve heard about the Sox ahaving problems with the trip.
    “If roles were reversed I think most of us SF’s would applaud the Yankees for sticking up for their coaches and trainers.”
    Just like so many of you applauded the VT visit yesterday.

    A YF March 19, 2008, 12:34 pm
  • NESN and EEI reporting the A’s also voted to boycott.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:34 pm
  • Just reported, A’s agree to boycott too.
    So suck on that A YF!

    LocklandSF March 19, 2008, 12:35 pm
  • So, A, does this qualify as Oakland “bitching” about the trip, as well? Never mind. No need to answer. You’ve lost any shred of credibility you had on this site.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:36 pm
  • A YF, will you shut up about the VT thing? If you want to complain about the VT trip not being mentioned on the site, blame one of the YF admins for not putting up a thread. You’re somehow attributing that to the SF’s on this site, and it just makes you look more like a horse’s ass.
    Also, you keep saying that we’ve heard a lot of bitching about the Japan trip. Can you give me one source? Just one? Seriously, you sound more and more rediculous every day.

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 12:36 pm
  • Yup, much easier yesterday to debate A-Rod – again.
    All I’m saying is that for a team that’s been told to “Cowboy Up” about this trip, the different stories just keep showing up. Worse for their projected “toughness”, this isn’t the first time two teams have opened in Japan ;)

    A YF March 19, 2008, 12:37 pm
  • Yes, A YF, they weren’t happy about it (and there’s no way in hell all the Yankees fans were happy about it either), but they were actually going to go. Until MLB decided to screw the coaches and trainers.
    Also, your “waaaaah, waaaaaaaah, you didn’t all show up to lavish praise on our team for the good thing we did so I’m going to sneer at your team for the good things they’re doing” schtick is getting really old and does nothing but make you look like a whiny troll.

    Micah-SF March 19, 2008, 12:37 pm
  • “Yes, because they’re standing up for guys who get paid as little as $30,000 per year.”
    Who’s fault is this?
    Man, there’s still a lot of anger in RSN. Sad really. I say we’re hearing a lot about this trip, and I get attacked, viscously, left and right. Meanwhile, I’ve never come close treating anyone here like that. Good job fellas.

    A YF March 19, 2008, 12:40 pm
  • A, this is a final warning. You are willfully flaming this thread. If you do not stop immediately, we will be forced to remove your comments. You’ve made your points. Unless you have something new to add to this conversation, you need to be quiet.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:40 pm
  • Er, ‘all Yankees players’ were happy about it.
    Anyway, good to hear the A’s voted unanimously to join in this as well. MLB should be ashamed of itself.

    Micah-SF March 19, 2008, 12:40 pm
  • All I’m saying is that for a team that’s been told to “Cowboy Up” about this trip, the different stories just keep showing up. Worse for their projected “toughness”, this isn’t the first time two teams have opened in Japan ;)
    Once again you’re making broad generalizations based on ZERO fact. All I want is one link, one source. Give us some proof that the Red Sox have been complaining and maybe, for once, we won’t immediately think that you’re flamebaiting.

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 12:41 pm
  • Ignore the troll, gentlemen. Ignore the troll.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:42 pm
  • A YF, you have finally proven beyond a shadow of doubt that are total and complete ass.

    LocklandSF March 19, 2008, 12:42 pm
  • Kudos to Oakland joining in the boycott. Now that this isn’t just a one team sit-in I think MLB caves.

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 12:44 pm
  • Take a deep breath and count to 10 fellas. You’re world champions.

    A YF March 19, 2008, 12:45 pm
  • All we have are the players’ opinions on the matter, which are obviously going to be biased. We know absolutely nothing for a fact. Let’s just all back off until actual concrete information is released, eh?
    However, A YF is right on one account: several Red Sox players have publicly stated their displeasure about going on the trip. Theo was a fool for talking trash about a player then, and is twice the fool now that some of his players also have voiced their displeasure (this was before the boycott issue was even thought of). I think we can all agree on that.

    AndrewYF March 19, 2008, 12:45 pm
  • Also, if both teams boycott, it looks like a forfeit isn’t likely — unless both teams start off 0-2 (which would be odd, to say the least).

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:45 pm
  • I support what the Sox and A’s did here and Id expect the yankees would have done the same.
    To say the yankees didnt give a crap in 2004 seems like a cheap shot to me. Is there any proof for this?
    Also, anything but praise for what the yankees did by going up to VT yesterday just isnt right. It was a great thing to do and the organization and the players should be applauded for it. You dont have to like the time but it was a great gesture on their part. There is no reason to conflate it with this situation either….

    sam-YF March 19, 2008, 12:49 pm
  • several Red Sox players have publicly stated their displeasure about going on the trip
    This is completely untrue. The closest they’ve come is saying they’d rather not make the trip (and I believe only one or two has even said that), but that they’re fine with going and understand the importance of doing it. That’s far from “displeasure”.
    And there is frankly no rational connection to be made with such a sentiment and standing up for your coaches and support staff — particularly now that both teams have done it.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:49 pm
  • True, Paul. Perhaps there will be games added to the schedule.

    AndrewYF March 19, 2008, 12:49 pm
  • “This is completely untrue. The closest they’ve come is saying they’d rather not make the trip”
    Which is precisely what expressing displeasure means. They understand the importance of it and will go, but are publicly telling the media they are not happy about it. Can we just agree that Theo was outrageously foolish for calling out Mussina?

    AndrewYF March 19, 2008, 12:51 pm
  • You morons, even Theo admits it was a foolish thing to say and he immidiately apologized for it.
    Hank, on the other hand, says stupid and foolish things every day and NEVER apologizes for it.
    How do you not see the difference?

    LocklandSF March 19, 2008, 12:55 pm
  • Lowell’s quote was meant to show the team’s solidarity behind the coaches and trainers, not to emphasize that people were unhappy about going to Japan.
    And for the record, voting against a trip to Japan and “publicly complaining about it” are two completely different things. If I had to choose between going to Japan and playing all of my games in the States, I would vote for the latter too. There’s no connection between voting against it and complaining about it.

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 12:56 pm
  • Even if MLB is completely in the wrong, boycotting the trip is precisely the wrong way to go about it. Guess what happens if you don’t go? Oh right, the coaches don’t get their money anyway.
    Both teams should have dealt with this internally. Have the FO pay the coaches the extra money, and then file a suit against MLB later. That way everyone gets what they want. The way it is happening, is just escalating an issue that could have been resolved peacefully. It’s a laudable sentiment and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it, but it’s absolutely the wrong way to go about it.

    AndrewYF March 19, 2008, 12:57 pm
  • Can we just agree that Theo was outrageously foolish for calling out Mussina?
    We’ve already agreed on that, Andrew. Now, I don’t feel like going to work in an hour, but I don’t mind going. I don’t feel any particular displeasure in it.
    Bradford on EEI says MLB has relented.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:57 pm
  • Oh right, the coaches don’t get their money anyway
    Andrew, the money is to offset the inconvenience for the coaches to go to Japan. Your point there is moot.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 12:59 pm
  • MLB stands to make a LOT of money from the Sox-A’s trip to Japan from ticket revenue, merchandising and publicity. They’ll fork over the money for the coaches and trainers.

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 1:00 pm
  • first pitch at 1:10

    TJ March 19, 2008, 1:00 pm
  • Bradford reporting the Blue Jays are also in support of the Red Sox boycott.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 1:01 pm
  • Except that’s exactly what he did emphasize,
    No, again it was to emphasize the solidarity of the players on the current issue, not one that occured months ago. I think the vast majority of us took that quote that way, which is the way Lowell meant it.
    Jesus man, I hate the Yankees but even I’m not biased to purposefully misinterpret quotes.

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 1:02 pm
  • Sorry Paul, I’ll stop responding to him too.

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 1:03 pm
  • Don’t worry about it A…this board has taken a decided turn to the dark side. I get what you are saying and it really equates to our ARod argument on the other post. We are always wrong/evil/stupid/etc…Sox fans are always right/good/brilliant. Give me a break.
    Then for the SF mod to tell you to shut up when you are just arguing your point, no name calling, no personal attacks…wow.

    krueg March 19, 2008, 1:03 pm
  • “Andrew, the money is to offset the inconvenience for the coaches to go to Japan. Your point there is moot.”
    I’m going to hazard a guess that when it comes down to not going to Japan and not getting $40K, and going to Japan for a week and getting $40K, a person who probably makes that in a year will take the latter option every time.

    AndrewYF March 19, 2008, 1:05 pm
  • Krueg, I hate the Yankees as much as anyone, but I don’t flame every thread with anti-Yankee babble whenever I get a chance. That’s all we want.

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 1:06 pm
  • Atheose: so anyone that has a differing opinion of a situation is instantly flaming?

    krueg March 19, 2008, 1:12 pm
  • Herald’s reporting the players are taking the field soon and that they got what they wanted. Looks like it worked.

    Micah-SF March 19, 2008, 1:13 pm
  • For the record, YFSF mods have deleted comments and banned posters of both fanbases for doing exactly what A YF did in this thread — taking an absurdly illogical point and continuing to argue it to the detriment of one thread in particular and the site in general.
    A has been warned multiple times in multiple threads over the past several months — by both SF and YF mods — for exactly what he did today. It’s a tried and true tactic to antagonize your opposition with specious, belligerent arguments, then backing away asking, “What did I do?” when those arguments achieve the desired reaction. This is not an acceptable practice here and will be dealt with swiftly.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 1:14 pm
  • Paul: “taking an absurdly illogical point and continuing to argue it to the detriment of one thread in particular and the site in general.”
    Seems to me he stated his opinion, and was blasted for it because Sox fans took exception.
    If the Sox players are so concerned about the staff/coaches, which I have no doubt they are, why not donate a share of their sizeable stipends to pay coaches and staff? I get the “solidarity” thing but I would be pissed if a bunch of millionaires boycotted some games because of money…Yankees included.

    krueg March 19, 2008, 1:22 pm
  • And now my IP has been banned…
    Wow. Have fun with the likes of Lockland.

    A YF March 19, 2008, 1:24 pm
  • Agreed kreug. I would be horrified at the Yankees for boycotting a trip due to money concerns they could easily resolve themselves. The act of boycotting, while showing support for the coaches, would show absolutely zero support for the fans that put their lives on hold to root for the team, and for the US Army base who was expecting to see real American baseball being played. Even though it worked out, it was not the right way to go about it.

    AndrewYF March 19, 2008, 1:26 pm
  • OH MY GOD!
    Krueg, this has almost nothing to do with the money, this has to do with MLB backing out of it’s promises.
    Incidently, the As agreed and the Blue Jays agreed and now it looks like MLB has agreed.

    LocklandSF March 19, 2008, 1:26 pm
  • I agree Krueg: that was my first thought when I heard about all of this, that the players should give their share of the $40,000 to the coaches and trainers. That’s what I would do if I was Manny or Papi.
    But it’s not just about money, it’s about MLB honouring their verbal contract. I suppose if the players paid for the coaches and trainers it would set a precedence of MLB not having to stay to its word.

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 1:27 pm
  • Good point Andrew, thinking about their visit to the US base in Japan makes me a little torn inside. Crappy situation all around. Glad MLB gave in quickly and painlessly.

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 1:28 pm
  • kreug: They could do that, and I’m sure it was discussed, but I don’t think that would’ve been the right solution. Again, MLB promised this money to the coaches and trainers, and allowing them to back out of it at the last minute is a travesty and sets an absolutely terrible precedent, especially for future trips like this (what happens if, say, the Marlins were going on something like this – you think Loria or a team making an average salary of $500K is going to cover expenses for the whole staff?).
    It’s not okay for MLB to promise a whole bunch of stuff to get people to agree to something and then back out of most of it at the last minute once they have the agreement – and if they had to be publicly shamed into keeping their promises with a threatened boycott, so be it. I’m not sure it gets much clearer than that.

    Micah-SF March 19, 2008, 1:29 pm
  • Coco and Lugo are back in the lineup today. Aardsma walks one but that’s the only blemish on the first inning.

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 1:31 pm
  • Nice play at the plate there.

    rootbeerfloat March 19, 2008, 2:17 pm
  • What happened? I’m at work and only have the box score. I see that Coco has an outfield assist.
    Brian Corey has REALLY impressed me, both at the end of last season and so far in spring training. He should be a valuable bullpen arm.

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 2:19 pm
  • I agree with you guys that MLB should honor their committment… (which I guess they did)
    Lock: it has everything to do with money. Money was the main issue…the whole point actually. I guess we will never see eye to eye!
    This thread was kinda brutal though in my opinion. Not to beat a dead horse but am I going to get banned if I have a contrary opinion on something Sox related?

    krueg March 19, 2008, 2:32 pm
  • Krueg, A’s fist post in this thread, the 5th total post, was not an opinion or an argument, it was blatant flame baiting and he never stopped.
    That’s completely different from holding an opposing opinion or have a constructive argument.

    LocklandSF March 19, 2008, 2:46 pm
  • first off, the visit to VTech yesterday was touching. XM 175 ran some great interviews of the kids on the team. whether it’s yesterdays game or the visit to Walter Reed, it’s good to see major leaguers seeing the bigger picture.
    forcing the MLB to abide by their own agreement isn’t exactly the same as randy and the moose complaining about bad food and jet lag. if MLB wants teams to be ambassadors of baseball abroad to generate new revenue streams, they should hold up their end of the bargain.
    sadly it seems alot of YF’s around these parts are claiming the site has become sox-centric. i can see where they are coming from, but it’s part of the ebb and flow. give it a month. i’ve learned more from the likes of DC and Ironhorse (RIP) about the yanks and my own personal biases than i care to admit.

    sf rod March 19, 2008, 2:47 pm
  • Krueg, your arguments have not even approached the level we saw here earlier. One can disagree without baiting; I trust you know where that line is. Actually, I think we all know where that line is. It’s just a matter of which side we choose to stand on. You and most everyone else here knows which side is best. It’s the few who spoil it for everyone else who choose otherwise.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 2:57 pm
  • Hey! I read the first comment from A YF as a joke.

    Jake March 19, 2008, 3:00 pm
  • Does Lockland know where the line is?

    Jake March 19, 2008, 3:04 pm
  • It read like a joke, until he continued to defend the statement.
    Putting a smiley face may indicate you’re joking, but when you continue to argue the point of your “joke” for 10 posts, it kind of kills the humor.

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 3:04 pm
  • Jake, I only fire when fired upon.

    LocklandSF March 19, 2008, 3:08 pm
  • I will admit, I shouldn’t let trolls get to me, but hey, I’m only human.

    LocklandSF March 19, 2008, 3:11 pm
  • Exactly Jake, then Lock took a shot at the 2004 Yankees and kinda got piled on for what was originally a joke? What was he supposed to do, sit back and enjoy the pummeling? This site has always seemed very fair and balanced to me…but not today, I’m sorry.
    Sorry to call you out Lock, but your comments haven’t always been saintly man, come on…
    I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I’ll continue to post as long as I’m allowed…

    krueg March 19, 2008, 3:22 pm
  • It clearly wasn’t a joke though, it’s a theme he has harped on before, just adding a smiley face to try and get away with it is just weak. I fired back simply because I was sick of it.
    What’s really odd is that no SF here tried to defend Theo’s comments, even Theo didn’t defend his comments, in fact, he apologized for them.
    This wasn’t enough for A though, he wouldn’t let it go, for over a week now.

    LocklandSF March 19, 2008, 3:30 pm
  • It’s all good…we just need more YF’s around here. Maybe they are all too caught up in the last two weeks of the NHL regular season??? Sabres are hanging on by a thread!!! Let’s Go Buff-a-lo!!!
    (nice change of subject, huh?)

    krueg March 19, 2008, 3:42 pm
  • It sounds like previous deals had the coaches drawing from a pool of money offered to the players. Although it may seem like MLB are the bad guys, they have had absolutely no public say in the matter and likely it was the players that were confused. Don’t be so quick to condemn MLB for backing out of a deal when we don’t even know what the deal actually is. Perhaps the players thought they were getting their own money, and there was a different pool for the coaches? In that case, all the boycott did was squeeze MLB into giving players more money. Nice.

    AndrewYF March 19, 2008, 3:51 pm
  • no way krueg. the caps get that last spot (hopefully at the expense of the rangers).

    sf rod March 19, 2008, 3:52 pm
  • I put a new post up top, but that’s an awfully cynical view of things, Andrew. In fact it takes a greater leap of logic to support that cynicism than it does to believe the Sox were wanting to make sure the right thing got done for their coaches — even if it was misguided (and I don’t think that’s the case either).

    Paul SF March 19, 2008, 3:58 pm
  • wow…while i agree that ‘a yf’ can be an antagonist at times, i don’t think i’ve seen him get personal with any of you or call you names…threatening to ban him or delete his comments when his only crime seems to be rubbing your noses in theo’s gaffe is overboard…that crap works both ways around here and you guys know it…i know it’s embarrassing to have to admit that your generally admirable gm, manager, and players may suffer some human frailties, but resorting to the tactic that hank is worse, or arod is a self-centered creep, or jeter’s cologne smells funny and he sucks at shortstop, just because you’ve run out of arguments, or can’t defend the indefensible, is weak…for the most part, i can’t imagine they want to make this trip but are doing a decent job biting their lips, just like most of the yankees did…in the meantime, not a mention about the latest namecalling incidents above: “jackass”, “troll”, “morons”…nice, guys…sometimes these threads take a disappointing turn, and the pattern for ganging up to verbally beat and insult your opponent [whose only crime is to be too contrary], followed by banishment, is disturbing, and does more to support the criticisms of the way topics are debated than anything else…someone criticized him for hiding behind his “joke”…uh, you guys invented that little tactic…i’m not just imagining that this is a sox-centric site, and it matters little that the 4 yankee mods out of the 6 are too busy right now to participate…that seems to make no difference, this is a sox-heavy site to begin with even with those guys at full steam…but i still like it…

    dc March 19, 2008, 4:01 pm
  • hence, me getting out of it.

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 4:16 pm
  • well said, dc.

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 4:16 pm
  • DC, he was warned several times over the last few weeks by both SF and YF moderators, nobody was even trying to defend Theo’s comments, ever. He has been doing it and was doing it today just to flame bait, period, it’s so obvious. He wasn’t being contrary, he wasn’t even making an argument.
    You’re obviously taking me to task for some of the things I have said, which is fine.
    However, I invite you to point to even one instance where I commented in that manner but wasn’t provoked by trolling.

    LocklandSF March 19, 2008, 4:23 pm
  • no need to produce examples…you obviously believe you were provoked every time you get abusive and resort to insulting other posters…i’ve called you out numerous times in the past for that violation of this site’s protocol…i’m sure sf and yf recall those instances very well…take the high road once in awhile man…

    dc March 19, 2008, 4:43 pm
  • Caps are on fire but it’s all about the Sabres!!! Cryers out, Sabres in…
    Well said DC. Lock, it may be “obvious” to you that A was trying to “flame bait” but it really didn’t seem that way to me. The bannishment thing just seemed harsh and it also seemed that all the SF’s ganged up on him for something that wasn’t really a big deal. Maybe his opinion was “flame bait”, but you and others took it and ran. That is my only problem. No punishment for anyone else, not even a harsh word really. Yet, A gets banned. That is tough to understand.

    krueg March 19, 2008, 5:00 pm
  • DC, I do take the high road, often, but when I get sick of it, I get sick of it.
    Fine, since you seem to think I’m always the one in the wrong and I stand alone, find an instance where I lashed out at somebody and I was the only person taking objection to the person’s comments.
    Do you really think I have the moderators in my pocket or something?

    LocklandSF March 19, 2008, 5:10 pm
  • for clarity..
    Well said, first half. I’m not weighing in on the Paul argument.

    Brad.. March 19, 2008, 5:29 pm
  • God, can we just put a cap on this sh*t? The issue today with the boycott by the Red Sox was very clearly NOT about bitchy players begging off a trip, but about a specific promise made by MLB and their effort to not follow through on their promise. End of story. This shouldn’t have been made into something it wasn’t by anyone, Sox or Yankee fan alike. This was not about players deciding a trip was a pain in the ass, this wasn’t about the Yankees in 2004, it wasn’t about greedy players or a cheapskate ownership, at all. It wasn’t about anything but players coming to the defense of their coaching staff and tangential supporting crew. The events are crystal clear, that is was made into anything else was the first offense, and that it was escalated by others was the second offense.
    So can we please try to keep this place civil? If there are commenters here, SF or YF, who need to bait regardless of the merit of the events, then we’d prefer they do it elsewhere. If they want to engage in civil, intelligent discourse, then fire away. We have a lot of smart people who come here (some whose style I love, some whose style I don’t like at all but tolerate since their opinions are valid — I assume I am looked at the same way by many of our readers), those who know the power of their words. So it would behoove all of us to re-read our writing before we hit “post”. And if it is safe (which it may not be) to assume that people are aware of the impact of what they write, then when something is quite clearly antagonistic and off-topic then it is fair for us, as moderators, to take action. This has nothing to do with allegiances, either. As mentioned, we’ve banned, quite selectively and with great hesitation, fans of both squads. Charges of bias simply will not be tolerated.
    As for the “soxcentric-ness” of this site, let’s give this stuff a rest too. I have made about three posts in the last month due to family and work commitments, that’s my fault. My commenting has been reserved to about two threads. Paul has, admirably, been basically running the site with his “Top 50”, which makes this site a great resource but no more sox-centric than anything else, since the comments on those posts have been limited. They have not driven debate.

    SF March 19, 2008, 5:29 pm
  • lockland, i don’t object to your having a difference of opinion, even being assertive about presenting it, or being enthusiastic with your rebuttal to an opinion you don’t agree with…my objection is with you belittling others and name-calling…if i really need to provide other examples for you beyond what i posted above, frankly it’s not worth it…

    dc March 19, 2008, 5:32 pm
  • As an aside, I just read Pete Abe’s post about the whole mess, and it’s really a terrible piece of work. If it is humor it’s impossible to detect (but at least defensible as just a misfire), and if it’s not humor it’s beyond bad reportage, nasty and without any common sense.

    SF March 19, 2008, 5:39 pm
  • DC (or anyone else) you and I have no issues that I know of, so if you feel like I am attacking you I apologize. This is just a statement to address the issue with ‘A YF’.
    ‘A YF’ is a very smart man. He makes some really insightful posts. BUT he specializes in knowing how to walk the fine line between being inflammatory and making the attacks personal. The problem that most of us (mods) have is the direction he takes all the threads. You don’t need to be combative if you disagree. Just an example, historically Paul and I will knock heads, we don’t agree all that often but I have never taken his thread off course or attacked him personally. I respect Paul tremendously he puts together some brilliant posts. So when I address a post of his that I may not agree with I take all that into consideration. ‘A YF’ attacks the ideas expressed here by the mods, as well as their intelligence. He has attacked me personally saying that “he feels sorry for my kids” when we were discussing an issue back some time ago. So my issue with him goes deeper than most.
    I don’t care that he disagrees, I don’t care that he thinks he is all knowing, what I care most about is respecting what others have to say. This site will crumble if we all act like ‘A YF’. This is a site based on the interractions of the two biggest rivals in sports and for the most part it’s a huge success. We have all learned over our time here how to express ourselves when we disagree, but still keep it on the level. ‘A YF’ does not know how to do that.
    Finally, don’t make the decision to ban ‘A YF’ a Sox/Yanks issue because it’s not. We all have communicated on this and it was a decision made by the group not just the Sox mods by any stretch of the imagination!

    John - YF March 19, 2008, 6:24 pm
  • Does anyone remember Boston_RAW? He was a flamebaiting Red Sox fan, and he was warned several times before eventually being banned. It’s not just Yankee fans that it happens to.

    Atheose March 19, 2008, 11:28 pm
  • i shouldn’t prolong this, but i need to set the record straight about where i stand on a few things:
    yes john ‘a yf’ has crossed the line from time to time, specifically with you…i remember the incident, and i felt bad for you…it obviously struck a very personal chord with you…if i recall correctly he acknowledged screwing up and apologized for it…you may not have forgiven him, your call, especially if you believe he was not sincere…i don’t blame you, given his abrasive style…
    you’ve singled out ‘a yf’ as the recent cancer on the site, and that’s fine i guess…it’s not my job to defend him, but i will submit that it was other posters who contributed to turning things sour today with followup comments culminating in name-calling, despite the fact that ‘a yf’s first 2 comments were accompanied by the obligatory humor tag [;)] call it baiting if you want, it probably was, and it may have been the last straw for him, so you banned him ….ironically, the incident was later followed by a new thread initiated by sf dissing [yet again] jeter and clemens…of course he used the obligatory humor tag, so we all laughed like the tag conditions us we’re supposed to…i even played along, because protesting it never seems to work…certainly he wasn’t baiting us…
    yeah atheose, b-raw was banned…i was only surprised that it took so long, but i’m certainly not suggesting a conspiracy…i shouldn’t admit this, but in a rather sadistic way i found him somewhat entertaining, particularly the way he embarrassed his more staid fellow sox fans with his outrageous style…
    i guess i’m wrong if i’m one of only a very few yf’s who perceive an imbalance in how the 2 teams are presented, or when the jokes are funny…i can live with it…
    frankly, the only horse i have in this race is that it’s nice to see everyone treated fairly, and not shouted down just because they don’t toe the company line, while other posters can take liberties with the protocols…then again, i’m not sure why i give a s—…this is your blog, you guys decide who you invite in or out, how you present and discuss a topic, what comments get deleted, and why and when a thread gets closed…

    dc March 20, 2008, 12:48 am
  • dc:
    It is wrong to conflate what happened in this thread with my photo post above, I can’t add much more to it than that. My thoughts on this mess are further up this string of comments.

    SF March 20, 2008, 6:19 am
  • sf, i already said: “…i guess i’m wrong…” in the comment above yours…i admit i may be one of few, if not the only one, who perceives a tendency for many of you to protest jokes and sarcasm about the sox, while at the same time finding jokes and sarcasm about the yanks to be fair game…one is labeled baiting, one is not…but, like i said, i must be wrong about it…no need to rub it in…if you don’t see what lockland and others did to help ‘a yf’ turn an obvious attempt at humor, if sarcastic, into an ugly conversation, then i can’t add much more to it than that…

    dc March 20, 2008, 9:05 am
  • As a final note on this whole business, if we were really so interested in only keeping posters who “toe the company line,” wouldn’t we have banned you a long time ago, DC?
    Lord knows you and I have exasperated each other over the years, but I think at the end of the day we’ve agreed to disagree and left an argument alone when it became too heated. That’s the difference at issue here: Having a vigorous, spirited debate without poisoning it and still respecting each other when it’s over.

    Paul SF March 20, 2008, 11:51 pm
  • After being mostly a lurker for a few years now, I do think the moderators tend to accept much less from the YFs than from the SFs. If I had to put my finger on it, I’d say a lot of that disparity seems to come from Paul SF. He seems hypersensitive to criticism many times a week and in a way that I don’t tend to see from the other mods. John YF has flashes of the same, but it seems much less frequent. And every once
    in a while YF and SF tend to get into it with each other but mostly stay above the fray. Gerbil and Nick rarely get into arguments. Even still, and perhaps because there are only two, SF will come to Paul’s defense much more readily than I’ve ever seen from the YF mods for each other or
    across the divide. That tagteam seems, I think, to influence a lot of the downstream comments with many more SFs much more belligerent at times and more likely to jump all over a stray YF post. This thread is a
    perfect example or the belligerent variety but it wouldn’t be too hard to locate the tagteam version from the mods.
    It seems there should be record keeping if you’re going to be serious about being fair and balanced, and not the Fox News version. But from my recollection, there is a bias, and as a scientist I can’t see how that would arise without a bias to begin with. We all know that YFs and SFs are just as likely to act foolishly at times. But personally, I saw nothing from A that would make him ban worthy. It’s sad really that a respectful and interesting commentator like him could
    be banned from any community.
    All that said, I really appreciate this site and I hope I’ll see more balanced treatment in the future. But if anything, that imbalance has kept me from posting more. Who wants to argue with an angry mob?
    Hopefully now I don’t get banned.

    Cambridge YF March 21, 2008, 8:38 am
  • “But personally, I saw nothing from A that would make him ban worthy. It’s sad really that a respectful and interesting commentator like him could
    be banned from any community.”
    Don’t worry Cambridge ;) He will find his way back or may have already.

    John - YF March 21, 2008, 10:03 am
  • CYF:
    The dealings with A YF have been very specific, with full discussions between the mods here prior to action. A has had big issues with not just Paul, not just SFs, but also the YF mods. We don’t ban willy nilly. All commenters who have been banned here (other than those who are spammers, obscene, or clearly in quick violation of the TOS) have been given a good length of rope. We have banned a number of people, and it has always been a mutual decision but rarely, with people who have brought insight (as A has done) an easy one.
    The issue with A wasn’t this thread, it was a history of debating tactics that were causing major friction with both the YF mods and the SF mods, and the decision we made wasn’t reached lightly, we fully understand the sensitivity of the action and what it implies.
    For the record, we have, in 4 years, banned 81 IP addresses (and numerous terms, like “Lev*tra”, “c*ck”, you get the idea). Almost all of the IP bans have been related to a few very specific problematic posters who visited, threw flames, and/or posted under trackable pseudonyms, with repeated bans happening in quick fashion. For example, 26 of the total 81 IP bans were initiated by us on the days between October 5th and October 9th 2007, and this was all in response to a notoriously difficult, obscene, and debasing poster named Boston-RAW. This bulk banning happened at least three other times with three similar types. So there have been very few bans instituted for more regular posters, perhaps a total of four that I can think of in the four years we have been hosted by Typepad. It is all in our records, so no Fox News BS here.
    We take this action very seriously.

    SF March 21, 2008, 10:13 am
  • I’ve been largely quiet on this subject only because I’ve been absent from the blog for the last week or two due to illness and work. But I wanted to chime in and say that everyone of the moderators, including myself, agrees with the decision to ban A-YF.

    Nick-YF March 21, 2008, 10:34 am
  • “…As a final note on this whole business, if we were really so interested in only keeping posters who “toe the company line,” wouldn’t we have banned you a long time ago, DC? …”
    i’m assuming that’s a joke, but just in case, i don’t believe i’ve ever done anything ban-worthy although some have tried to back me into that corner, including you…i’ve never called anyone names, insulted them, called their opinions foolish, silly, etc., although that’s happened numerous times to me without consequences…while i’m sure i’ve implied this by disagreeing, i don’t think i’ve ever flat out told someone they were “wrong”…we can’t be wrong about our opinions, just facts…i don’t think there’s anything in your protocols against enthusiasm in debating a point, or not walking away from that debate just because someone arbitrarily decided it was over…i have no idea who “cambridge” is, john seems to think he does, but i think the commenter makes some good points…you don’t want to hear them, but that doesn’t matter…i’ve had to put my tail between my legs and back off more than once…it would be refreshing to see others do the same…by the way, getting back to my original beef with this thread, as a moderator could you check something for me?: is name-calling a “ban-worthy” action?…

    dc March 21, 2008, 10:47 am
  • no, “name-calling” is not explicitly a ban-worthy offense. It is heavily discouraged in the first item in our TOS, though, and when done it builds up ill-will, puts the name-caller at a disadvantage with both us moderators and frankly the other posters at the site. It shouldn’t be done, but we can’t make it an immediately bannable offense since people lose their tempers, this stuff happens, there shouldn’t be a hair-trigger offense like this. Patterned offenses of name-calling, though, could and probably should lead to a ban. That’s on us as mods to deal with, to make sound judgments.
    Check the TOS.

    SF March 21, 2008, 10:57 am
  • I’ve been a bit distractedly lately, and will be for the next couple of weeks, but I’d just like to note for the record, that I do believe there is some validity to issues raised by Cambridge and DC, and we will be addressing them here. (If you take a peek at the top of your browser, you’ll get a hint at one of our ways of doing that, about which more later.)
    The goal here is to have a community that fosters intelligent dialog in the context of mutual respect.

    YF March 21, 2008, 1:10 pm
  • thanks guys, while i know i can be a royal pia at times, and sometimes don’t know when to let go, i’ve always tried to be respectful and not get personal over a difference of opinion…i simply expect the same in return…while it might not seem so at times, i respect both of you and have learned a lot from you, not just about baseball…thanks for the hard work you do to keep this site going, with for the most part intellectual discussions…the other sites i’ve seen don’t come close to measuring up to this one…

    dc March 21, 2008, 3:30 pm
  • “The goal here is to have a community that fosters intelligent dialog in the context of mutual respect.”
    I saw nothing in A YF’s comments to suggest A wasn’t after this exact same goal – and much more so than a few regular posters. That’s what has me so saddened to speak up for a change. As soon as the community is kicking out people like him, I think you’re in trouble.
    Just out curiosity, how many YFs have been banned versus SFs? For the record, I think it took much more to ban Raw than it took to ban some YFs.
    For greater reflection on how the community actually functions, versus how you think it does, Paul SF easily makes most of the posts and comments in any given week. That’s great – he’s thoughtful and interesting, but also a tad hypersensitive. Like I said before, I think that creates unintended consequences among the other moderators and commenters. For instance, I can’t say I’ve seen many times where Nick YF or YF come to each others defense or the SF moderators, and not nearly like SF does with Paul SF. It’s a just a certain dynamic in play among you guys and it filters down the the comments. So you have SFs regularly spewing name-calling even as the YFs seem to return the nonsense nearly as often. This thread is a perfect example there too.
    I’m done now using my professional skills to analyze you guys. I really do appreciate this place, but I feel like you’ve crossed some imaginary line in banning A YF, and to your own detriment.

    Cambridge YF March 21, 2008, 6:52 pm
  • I think several of A YF’s comments in this thread were removed, so you might not be getting a full sense of what happened here.
    For what it’s worth, running a site such as this is not a science (to use your chosen metaphor) but an art, and a challenging one. There are times when it becomes necessary to remove someone from the community not because of any clearly demarcated violation, but because a pattern of behavior is deemed to be injurious to the community as a whole.

    YF March 21, 2008, 8:30 pm
  • censorship in the form of deleting comments is a slippery slope yf, especially considering some of the comments that have been allowed to remain on this thread…like i said earlier, you guys decide how to housekeep the site…i’ll try to be less critical of how you all do that…

    dc March 21, 2008, 8:49 pm
  • censorship in the form of deleting comments is a slippery slope yf
    I’m absolutely sympathetic to this viewpoint, DC, particularly as I’m a huge First Amendment/free speech guy myself. We went through these internal debates many months ago (more than a year ago now, probably) when Jim Dean (RIP) was flooding the blog with posts that, like A YF’s, were not generally filled with viciousness or name-calling, but were antagonistic and belligerent, and dragged down thread after thread. It took a long time to finally decide that banning him was the only way to end it, and even then, that was a difficult process, as he apparently liked the site so much, he refused to leave!
    In the end, this is SF’s and YF’s site, and we’re all just playing in their sandbox, trying to play by their rules (I say “trying.” I’ve made my share of apologies here for overreacting or going too far; I don’t deny that I’m one of the more mercurial of the co-moderators here). Sometimes these decisions aren’t cut and dried, and trust me when I say that for something to reach this point publicly, it has gone through weeks, if not months, of internal deliberation among all six of the co-mods. This case was no different. Such deliberation is the only way I know that can balance your important censorship concerns with the equally (if not more so, given the context) important desire of maintaining a pleasant atmosphere for those who enjoy visiting the site.

    Paul SF March 21, 2008, 11:39 pm
  • Thanks for speaking up Cambridge. Gotta love “hypersensitive” Paul. ;)

    A YF March 21, 2008, 11:47 pm
  • thanks for the explanation paul…i’m not smart enough to know how the first amendment applies to the internet and blogs in particular, but there’s no doubt that internet content is less restricted than other forms of media…i have to give you guys credit for rising above the level of many of the other blogs, some of which are just unreadable…i guess my censorship concern is more about deleting comments, than it is about banning someone…to keep this a civilized discourse there has to be standards for not allowing profanity, bigotry, personal insults, and so on…but, antagonistic behavior or belligerence, absent those other despicable characteristics, while annoying, is part of the context of the thread, as is the return fire from the other posters in response…i also understand the frustration with someone who hijacks a thread while adding no particular value with his comments…jim and b-raw were perfect examples of that…deleting the comments just bothers me on some level…but like i said it’s the mods call…i need to whine less about it and let you do your thing…i’m here because this is the most entertaining, thought-provoking, and informative site i’ve found…

    dc March 22, 2008, 7:45 am
  • The scary thing is I said nothing worthy of censorship in my subsequent posts. They were simply deleted because I had been “banned”. So it’s disingenuous to imply I said something after the ban that really deserved banning.

    A YF March 22, 2008, 8:54 am
  • i agree, that’s why i didn’t lump you in with jim and b-raw…they were abusive and made it personal…you were just annoying ;)

    dc March 22, 2008, 9:11 am
  • I did not see the comments before they were removed.
    In the interests of diplomacy, I’m willing to rescind the ban of A YF, though with the warning that being “annoying” is inherently abusive of this community. This is not, in the end, a democratic institution. I like to think about it as a home; guests who don’t treat it with respect aren’t welcome.
    Enough said.

    YF March 22, 2008, 10:56 am
  • Fair enough – annoying is bad. That said, I just had a weekend of political arguments, at times heated, with family. They were productive and interesting and fun, but also emotional and contentious. I was raised to disagree without being disagreeable. I may have been annoying, even as I was just having fun (others obviously were not) but I was always respectful. By contrast, some were very disrespectful without necessarily being annoying. Which is the bigger “sin”? Would you rather disrespect or annoying? So far, it seems like the former, but that to me seems much more problematic in the long run.
    Any case, thanks for being understanding. Even as I’m having fun with the SFs it’s always intended to be good fun rather than being mean spirited. That’s who I am. I will disagree without being disagreeable. I understand the distinction is different among different cultures and communities. I’ll try to adapt accordingly and please don’t hesitate to call me out on it.
    Very simply, I appreciate the Sox and their fans because it makes the sport that much better. It’s a great rivalry, especially this point in time, and this place makes it that much more fun to follow. Besides, what’s a better storyline than a bunch of kids knocking off the defending world champs? :0

    A YF March 22, 2008, 11:22 am
  • DC, deleting posts after a ban becomes necessary because we’ve found that those who are banned apparently don’t like leaving, so they change their IP addresses. Deleting posts as soon as they appear tends to be the only way to discourage them from continuing their attempts to return. Otherwise, it’s not much of a ban.

    Paul SF March 22, 2008, 1:30 pm
  • Hope this book is closed.
    One last thing regarding the first amendment and blogs: it doesn’t apply, I don’t believe. We pay Typepad to give us the hard drive space and the interface for this site. They can shut us down if we do something outside our agreement with their terms of service, likewise with us and people who visit our site.
    As someone who gives money to the ACLU I place a tremendous importance on our basic rights. But this site is a private enterprise of mine and YF’s; as he said above it is not inherently democratic. We do as much as we can to try to keep it as open a forum as possible, but that has limits that are at our discretion.

    SF March 22, 2008, 3:01 pm
  • Check out: – imagine voting on comments.

    A YF March 22, 2008, 5:51 pm

Leave a Comment