Senator Curt Schilling?

The question of what a player is going to do once they hang up their spikes is often an interesting one to a fan, especially when that player is high-profile.   There are guys like Don Zimmer, who began his professional career in 1949 at Cambridge and is still in the game as senior (most seniorist?) adviser to the Devil Rays.  Bernie Williams, who hasn’t been seen to the door though has all but been handed his hat, would surprise no one if he advanced and found success in his music career.  Willie Randolph never left the game for any stretch of time and just found himself rewarded with a contract extension that will guarantee him $5.45 million over the next three years for leading the Mets to the NL East Championship and winningest record in the National League last season.

Which brings us to Curt Schilling, who has plans to retire after the 2007 season.  The veteren ace-pitcher, certain hall-of-fame inductee, and sometimes YFSF visitor has already launched another career as a video game creator with his MMORPG company Green Monster Games.  Now, another calling may beckon: a run for United States Senator in 2008 to unseat John Kerry.

The idea allegedly started with a radio call-in show on WRKO 680, when a caller suggested that Curt would be the best man for the job.  “I couldn’t rule it out because it’s not something I ever thought about in a serious capacity,” Schilling later told the Boston Herald.

Although Curt reportedly seemed surprised (and flattered), I’m not surprised at all. Two questions immediately popped to my mind of which I would want to ask Curt his opinion. One is his opinion on the issues of violence portrayed in video games, regulation of their sale/distribution, and lawsuits filed against companies such as Rockstar for civil damages when they are blamed as the cause of violence.   The other is if he would support a more aggressive role for congress in the investigation of steroid use in baseball and professional sports, or is what is happening regarding self-policing enough for now?

What would you ask Curt?  If we’re polite and lucky enough, maybe he’ll stop by and answer your question.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • I would like to know how he feels about the congressional efforts to end online gambling vs. the potential benefits of regulating and taxing it?

    LocklandSF January 26, 2007, 2:29 pm
  • Which party does Curt belong to? I think it’ll be hard for him to unseat a Democratic senator in this time, though stranger things have happened..

    Lar January 26, 2007, 2:53 pm
  • It’s my understanding that he’s Republican, or at least he’s most closely aligned with the Right, although he may not be a registered Republican. If he were to run against Kerry in MA, he would really need the Red Sox vote.

    LocklandSF January 26, 2007, 2:57 pm
  • Brad, just a thought, but it may have been best to keep this to questions for Curt, not personal political feelings, if we really wanted Curt to visit and respond here.

    LocklandSF January 26, 2007, 3:12 pm
  • gotcha, but I did include a question to keep with the theme. If he can’t answer a question with a little bias added to it, how great is the run at the office going to go?

    Brad January 26, 2007, 3:17 pm
  • If someone wants to, I’m completely okay with them deleting my post to keep more closely with the theme of this thread, and I’ll re-write it with only a question.

    Brad January 26, 2007, 3:21 pm
  • certain hall-of-fame inductee

    well January 26, 2007, 3:24 pm
  • Not to wander off the path, but I think Brad you glorify the olden days too much. Governments have always been influenced by money. The saving grace is that people with money exist in nearly every aspect of life — and thus provide the representation anyway. If you read up on the political fights of the late 18th/early 19th century, you’d find that this country has always been based on a divisive system always in tension with itself over the conflict between its ideals and its reality. This tension, remarkably, has sustained the most successful republican government in world history.
    I do echo Brad’s question — Did you support the war, and do you still? Would you still have supported it knowing what we know now?
    What would you do to ensure that your children (and me, for that matter) will receive Social Security benefits when they retire?
    Do you support the attempts of the Massachusetts Legislature to repeal gay marriage?

    Paul SF January 26, 2007, 3:25 pm
  • Considering you make well more than almost any normal working person, do you support the minimum wage? If not, why not?

    SF January 26, 2007, 3:28 pm
  • Sidestepping the very easy answers on this situation like “the way our grandparents did it” or “everyone has the chance for citizenship”, do you believe that the immigration laws currently being enforced are applicable to the more advanced, and culturally diverse United States of today?
    What are your thougts on this issue? What are your ideas to change it?

    Brad January 26, 2007, 3:35 pm
  • curt was cut out to be a politician…i’m anxious to hear his positions on the issues…nice idea gerb…

    dc January 26, 2007, 3:55 pm
  • Curt Schilling, the evangelical Bush-loving anti-abortion nutjob? He’d have about as much chance of being elected in Massachusetts as John Kerry would have of making the Red Sox starting rotation. We take our politics as seriously as our baseball in this state.
    This is even more of a non-starter than the attempt in 2004 to get Mike Ditka to run for Senate against Barack Obama….

    jab January 26, 2007, 4:14 pm
  • “Curt Schilling, the evangelical Bush-loving anti-abortion nutjob?”
    Thanks for clearing that up for some who are drunk from the Kool-Aid. I first thought when I read the original post was he was running in AZ and not MA.

    lp January 26, 2007, 4:31 pm
  • See, if we clean this thread up, we might actually stand a chance of getting Curt to weigh in, which would be interesting, not matter what our personal political feelings are.

    LocklandSF January 26, 2007, 4:35 pm
  • Interesting how being an evangelical Christian, liking Preisdent Bush and being anti-abortion are not rational causes or positions supported by roughly 50 percent of the country — which they are — but instead qualify someone as a “nutjob.” Such perjoratives reflect far more on those who hurl the epithets than on those at whom they are aimed.

    Paul SF January 26, 2007, 4:39 pm
  • I couldn’t agree more Paul. That odd thing, from an idealogical perspective I’m sure I agree with the Jabs and Brads of the world, but the way in which people like this go about expressing their points of view make me sick.

    LocklandSF January 26, 2007, 4:45 pm
  • “reflect far more on those who hurl the epithets”
    I think rational people have had just about enough of the radical right wing agenda driven by the evangelicals and their influence on the Republican party. Given some of the crazy rhetoric I’ve heard from Pat Robertson and others, “nutjob” is not off the mark at all.

    Andrews January 26, 2007, 4:54 pm
  • Then the mistake, Andrews, is lumping everyone who shares similar views into the same category as those who represent the radicalized version of those views. Being an evangelical Christian is not inherently crazier than being an atheist.

    Paul SF January 26, 2007, 4:56 pm
  • First of Lockland, I didn’t jab at anyone. I condemned a systematic form of government that I believe has strayed from it’s real purpose. Never in my post did I throw an insult at another person, even if I believe it to be true. I created a hypothetical situation, and expressesd how I would react given a specific answer, but never did I throw names at the issue.

    Brad January 26, 2007, 4:58 pm
  • It was definitely Jab I was responding to, Brad. I got no beef wit’ you. :-)

    Paul SF January 26, 2007, 5:00 pm
  • Except that atheists seem to have more respect for the principle of separation of church and state.
    I have no problem with evangelical christians, or any other religious group, for that matter. What I DO have a problem with is how they would like to use their political power to try and ram their views down the rest of the citizen’s throats.

    Andrews January 26, 2007, 5:02 pm
  • “I couldn’t rule it out because it’s not something I ever thought about”
    Hey Curt, W is definitely rubbing off on you, pal – watch those double negatives…
    Oh, and by the way, would you vote to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent in 2010?
    What are your views on affirmative action? The theory of evolution?
    In your view, should Roe v Wade be repealed, making abortion illegal for all?

    Andrews January 26, 2007, 5:11 pm
  • “I couldn’t rule it out because it’s not something I ever thought about”
    Hey Curt, W is definitely rubbing off on you, pal – watch those double negatives…
    Oh, and by the way, would you vote to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent in 2010?
    What are your views on affirmative action? The theory of evolution?
    In your view, should Roe v Wade be repealed, making abortion illegal for all?

    Andrews January 26, 2007, 5:14 pm
  • two things that should never be talked about amongst internet buddies:
    1. How we feel about church, politics, money, sex, and abortion; the mixed drink of all these things together should be avoided as well.
    2. How tough we are, ha.
    Lets try to keep this going with good questions and leave the biased opinions at the door. Use the bias for a constructive question, not flame throwing.
    We’re all better than this.

    Brad January 26, 2007, 5:14 pm
  • I agree with you philosophically, Andrew, about the frustration I feel toward those who use Christianity to legislate morality. On the other hand, all politics is about legislating something — or, to use your term, using “political power to try and ram their views down the rest of the citizen’s throats.” They have the right to try to do it. You and I have the right to fight it and vote against it. And of course the Supreme Court has the ultimate right to find it unconstitutional.

    Paul SF January 26, 2007, 5:20 pm
  • I agree, Brad, but the problem here is that all those things tend to go hand in hand with politics. IMO, this kind of post should be avoided. Mix politics with a player as controrversial as Schilling is, among posters on a site about the most heated rivalry in sports, and you are not going to get a pretty result.

    Andrews January 26, 2007, 5:21 pm
  • Sorry, Gerbs…

    Andrews January 26, 2007, 5:26 pm
  • um….would you leagalize the use of marijuana?
    …’d be cooler if you did….

    sf rod January 26, 2007, 5:30 pm
  • Sorry, that should have been Andrews with an “s.” So confusing, lol
    FWIW, Roe v. Wade can’t be repealed, except by the Court itself. Even if it could, it would merely return abortion law to the place it held before the decision — which is in the hands of the states. Because no state has a law banning all abortions (duh), it would be some time before we started seeing what effect such a reversal would have. You’d likely see a state-by-state mix of varying requirements, regulations and outright bans.
    To ban abortion for all, the Court’s decision would have to be overruled by a constitutional amendment, which has failed on several occasions and certainly has no chance of succeeding in the current Congress. So while I think Curt’s views on abortion are interesting, how they apply as a U.S. senator would be quite minimal indeed.

    Paul SF January 26, 2007, 5:31 pm
  • “Supreme Court has the ultimate right to find it unconstitutional”
    You obviously have more confidence in the impartiality of the justices of the current court than I do.

    Andrews January 26, 2007, 5:33 pm
  • nice, rod…

    Brad January 26, 2007, 5:33 pm
  • “Curt Schilling, the evangelical Bush-loving anti-abortion nutjob? He’d have about as much chance of being elected in Massachusetts as John Kerry would have of making the Red Sox starting rotation.”
    Hmmmm… I’m not sure this is so far off base. If I’m not mistaken, it looks like Kerry throws a gyroball:

    Yanksmitch January 26, 2007, 5:34 pm
  • “Curt Schilling, the evangelical Bush-loving anti-abortion nutjob? He’d have about as much chance of being elected in Massachusetts as John Kerry would have of making the Red Sox starting rotation.”
    Hmmmm… I’m not sure this is so far off base. If I’m not mistaken, it looks like Kerry throws a gyroball:

    Yanksmitch January 26, 2007, 5:36 pm
  • Andrews,
    No apologies necessary. Keep in mind that I speak only for myself and not necessarily for my YFSF brethren: I would agree with you that charged political posts be avoided. In a case like this, I was fully aware that heated political topics would come up and that there would certainly be a wide variety of opinions of the issues raised regardless of the way I approached the post. However, this story is _definitely_ interesting material, even if not strictly baseball. Should this idea continue to gain momentum (and I think it will), it will be discussed throughout the season regardless of its “appropriateness” to a baseball site, because it certainly will be made a baseball issue if Curt does not say flat-out (and soon), “I currently have no plans to run for any office, and will not consider it nor will I discuss it at any point until I am retired from baseball. No further questions on this topic.”
    I tried several drafts to the post, including an attempt at funny/sarcastic, a link to the story with no comment, and the eventual final post, which to me, was in effect the most neutral in tone while attempting to pursue what I thought to be potentially the most interesting outcome by bringing this story up in the first place.
    Was it a good idea to post this? I still think so.
    There was no intention to try squelch anyone’s opinion by asking for people to be polite. Considering how much time Curt spends in public forums, I’m sure he’s read far, far worse than what has been printed here so far. Echoing the sentiment that has been expressed several times by other commenters, if you are genuinely curious about what Curt might say regarding an issue, here’s a chance to ask that question. There’s no guarantee he will answer it (or any of them), but he has been by this site before from time to time and has been kind enough to comment.

    attackgerbil January 26, 2007, 5:44 pm
  • I think AG’s post was exactly right in tone, and unique in concept, considering the potential divisiveness of the issue.
    I also think the comments here have by and large been great — respectful and amiable, considering again how worked up people get over politics. Heck, considering how worked up we all get over a game!

    Paul SF January 26, 2007, 5:46 pm
  • Paul – even now it’s already happened (though it sounds like you know this already) – the anti-abortion lobbying makes the requirement for some of the states are so outrageous that they are very difficult to find. (Including say, making the size of a door to be a certain height, etc)
    Also, some states has “rights of conscience protection”..

    Lar January 26, 2007, 5:48 pm
  • Have a great weekend everyone! I’m out.

    Brad January 26, 2007, 5:48 pm
  • I’m out – got a game of darts to go to – Curt’ll be there too – on the dartboard!
    Hey Schilling, are darts a Kerryleague game?
    What actions would be considered schillingleague? Loading up your sock with ketchup? (still wondering why the “spot” didn’t spread)

    Andrews January 26, 2007, 5:54 pm
  • If you do not feel that free, universal health care is a good idea, why not? (As a follow-up, can any response not be framed around such an idea being “Communist”?)
    If you do, do you think there’s any way to make such a thing happen in the next 10 years?

    Devine January 26, 2007, 6:01 pm
  • Correction: ‘Is” darts a kerryleague game? Yeesh.

    Andrews January 26, 2007, 6:16 pm
  • Curt isn’t a good person, what sane state would want him representing them?

    Russell January 26, 2007, 6:53 pm
  • What gives you the right, Russell, to jusge whether a person is good or not? (Other than the First Amendment, of course). It’s inane on its face to say someone is not a good person when you don’t even know them personally. Please take that somewhere else. This isn’t that kind of site.

    Paul SF January 26, 2007, 7:02 pm
  • As much as I differ from Curt on politics, I don’t think judging him as “not a good person” is remotely fair. He does much charitable work with his wife, far more than many other players. But even ignoring that and just thinking about baseball, he’s done nothing that I can think of to dishonor the game.
    I have numerous friends who I couldn’t be more different than, but who I respect and find completely honorable. I wouldn’t vote for them, but they are fine people. I think Curt would probably end up in that category: the decent person who I unfortunately wouldn’t vote for.

    SF January 26, 2007, 7:07 pm
  • Curt’s opinionated and highly public about those opinions, which is off-putting to some people. I can’t see how my political leanings would have any interest or be relevant to what anyone here thinks, but suffice it to say that I’m way far out to left, which may puts me in disagreement with much of what I have read about Curt’s positions. However, I certainly think he is entitled to express his opinion. I bet if I ever sat down with him it would be a fascinating conversation (at least to me), as I do with many of my friends whose politics, religious, and lifestyle choices are far different from mine. The donation of his time, money, personality, and profile to charitable causes such as the cure for ALS and melanoma is something for which I hold a great deal of respect.

    attackgerbil January 26, 2007, 7:20 pm
  • gerb…as usual, your post was perfect…i saw your subsequent comments that you debated with yourself about how to approach it…you did the right thing again…look folks, this transcends baseball…you all know i’m not a sox fan, and therefore not a shilling fan, he can be a big blowhard, on the baseball field anyway, but as gerb points out, curt and his wife’s unselfish work with als is near and dear to me, not only as a yankee fan, and admirer of lou gehrig, but as a human being…this is still a fairly obscure disease, and curt’s work to make a difference on that front is to be admired…i think he’s sincere, and not doing it for the attention…there are sexier charities if that was his motive…in that sense, i’m a shilling fan…i still say he’d make a good politician, my only concern is whether he’d be cold and calculated enough…

    dc January 26, 2007, 8:02 pm
  • Wow, is this a minefield for which there is no escape?
    Seriously, there are a ton of good questions and strong opinions, I am not sure a lot of good could come from attempting to respond or answer to all this.
    Like all of you I have strong opinions across the board but I have never felt the need or desire to align my opinions with a party.
    I think one of the fatal flaws in the U.S. right now is the feeling that you must align yourself with a party. I don’t vote to either party line because I am not sure where I fit in.
    1) I’m pro-life but have never felt it was one persons right to make that choice for another person much less a country. That’s something the people should decide isn’t it?
    2) I am all for the right to bear arms, but within that right I do not want convicted criminals to have the right to legally acquire firearms. Love the extended waiting period for anyone purchasing a weapon.
    I could go on and on but this stuff brings about harsh commentary and very one sided arguments from both sides.
    The sad part right now is that our elections have turned into voting for the ‘candidate I dislike the least’ instead of voting for the person best qualified.
    I voted for President Bush, I support President Bush. Do I agree with his agenda? Not all of it, not by a long shot, and there is NO ONE out there with an agenda I agree with across the board. That person doesn’t exist for me and I would bet that same thing applies to most of you. There is no perfect candidate, though if Senator McCain runs in ’08 that’s the man I will support and vote for. I don’t agree with all of his policies either but in becoming friends with him the one thing I do know is that he’s a man of his word. I know where I stand and whether I like his policy or not I know he’s a man of conviction. He won’t run the White House or this country on polls. He’ll do what he thinks is right by the people of this country and that’s all I think I can realistically ask of that office isn’t it?

    gehrig38 January 26, 2007, 8:25 pm
  • Welcome back, Curt. Thanks for putting yourself out there. We tend not to mix politics and sports; like you said, it’s a minefield, and it really doesn’t (and shouldn’t) impact who we root for, no matter how hard we try to let it. Ultimately sports is a great unifier, and it allows conservatives and liberals to share a goal, should they both root for the Sox, the Yanks, or whoever. That’s a really good thing. It narrows the distance between people, I think.
    Anyhow, I am guessing you will get some more questions both political and not, so I hope you continue to visit our site throughout the season.

    SF January 26, 2007, 8:44 pm
  • Hi Curt,
    Yes, I imagine it is quite a minefield. Thank you for stopping by and giving us a bit of your time and for your thoughtful responses.

    attackgerbil January 26, 2007, 8:45 pm
  • I am going to find a bridge to jump off…I too would vote for and support John McCain. I feel so dirty, this can’t be right.
    Anyway, God Bless you Curt and best of luck in your political career. I say that because although I really dislike you as a player (see 2001 and 2004), as a humanitarian and overall person you are first class. So for now I wish you a healthy season, but I hope you go 2-20 with an ERA near 7. :)

    Triskaidekaphobia January 26, 2007, 9:08 pm
  • but I hope you go 2-20 with an ERA near 7. :)
    The odds of that happening are about as slim as him responding to it.
    Thanks for stopping by, Curt.

    Brad January 26, 2007, 10:44 pm
  • Thanks for clearing that up Brad, now I can go to bed with a clear mind.

    Triskaidekaphobia January 26, 2007, 10:48 pm
  • Ya, I agree with ag. Curt would make a bad “politican”, maybe because he’s outspoken, and even though I wish he goes 2-20 with an ERA near 7, there’s no reason to start ad hominem attacks..

    Lar January 26, 2007, 10:50 pm
  • I had to go to Wikipedia Lar….Sometimes you guys are way to smart for my Quinnipiac education!

    Triskaidekaphobia January 26, 2007, 10:54 pm
  • I come to this thread fresh from a viewing of “An Inconvenient Truth,” which is highly recommended to readers of all political denominations. One of the exciting things about the Red Sox is how the team has used rather than ignored science and clear-eyed rational analysis. And I understand that there is no player who is more aggressive in using information science as a weapon than a certain commenter on this thread. It’s unfortunate that the present administration has been so intrangient in its thinking—on any number of issues, from environment to war—at the expense of the greater good.

    YF January 26, 2007, 11:01 pm
  • blechhhhh

    dc January 26, 2007, 11:18 pm
  • Whoa. Trisk, you go to Quinnipiac? Ha. I live around the corner. I’m actually considering their Law School next year; UCONN has yet to answer my requests:)

    Brad January 26, 2007, 11:27 pm
  • If Curt were to post a respons hear, anyone know what his handle would be?

    10019 January 27, 2007, 1:21 am
  • He already did post here 10019, his handle gehrig38, and his comment is above.

    bloodyank78 January 27, 2007, 1:32 am
  • By the way, thanks for responding Curt.

    bloodyank78 January 27, 2007, 1:34 am
  • Shill, do not join the gov’t or you’ll have to routinely violate our rights.
    They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like “America Deceived” from Amazon.
    They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
    They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
    They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
    They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
    The violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov’t.
    Shill, stick to baseball so you will not get hurt during the revolution.
    Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov’t and drops the title):
    America Deceived (book)

    5th of November January 27, 2007, 11:09 am
  • Curt, thanks for coming by again, we always appreciate it. I would also be a big John McCain supporter. What I find very interesting is that even with all the damage done by Bush to the Republican party, I still think a McCain/Gulianii ticket would clean house against any Democrats, for better or worse.

    LocklandSF January 27, 2007, 11:22 am
  • Politics. What a subject to make the blood start to boil and quickly.
    I was extremely pleased that the voters in this country sent a clear message to the current administration in the 2006 elections that they were tired of their reckless, arrogant, unthinking way of handling the affairs our country, as if it were their own to do with whatever they felt like.
    Bush/Cheney will go down as the worst administration ever for disastrous decisions made and opportunities squandered.
    As for Mr. Schilling, I would ask him if he feels fortunate that his two finest accomplishments were as a result of two Mariano Rivera blown saves, which of course, doesn’t happen very often, especially in postseason.
    The 2001 Series where Schilling left the game trailing after the Soriano HR only to have the D-Backs rally in the 9th against Rivera, and the 2004 ALCS in which the Sox tied the game on the Millar BB, the Robert’s steal, and the game tieing hit by Bill Mueller in which the Sox would win in extras allowing Schilling to perform well in the bloody sock game, and allowing the Sox to go on to dispatch the Yankees and the Cards and win it all, and if he sends Rivera a Christmas card every year, because if he doesn’t, he should.
    My other question would be if Curt is absolutely going to retire after this year, as he has stated, even if he pitches well and looks as if he could still be effective in 2008?

    Whatever January 27, 2007, 11:33 am
  • Whatever: You had me right up until you switched to baseball. The Dback and the Sox beat the Yanks, fair and square. Had the Yanks won in 2001, would Derek owe BH Kim an annual Xmass card? No. Every season and every series and every game has its breaks—championship teams may benefit from luck, but they must take advantage of it. And in every game of every series, the loser has 27 outs to ensure its own victory. I’m sorry the Yanks lost in 2001. (Though that series was, I think, the greatest in baseball history, and it reinvigorated the city, nevermind the final outcome). I’m definitely sorry the Yanks lost in 2004. But Mr. Schilling comes by his rings legitimately. To suggest otherwise, I think, is pointless.

    YF January 27, 2007, 11:59 am
  • damn you, YF – I was right in the middle of writing the same thing! grr.

    Brad January 27, 2007, 12:05 pm
  • YF, your misintrepreting my comment. It never crossed my mind that luck was the only reason that Curt suceeded in 2001 and 2004. Far from it. And with the xmas card remark, I thought people would realize the comment was somewhat tongue in cheek.
    Having said that, the fact remains that if Rivera doesn’t blow the two saves I mentioned, Schilling’s legacy is leveled.
    Tell me where I’m wrong.

    Whatever January 27, 2007, 12:16 pm
  • Curt,
    I’m really curious about your take regarding liability suits filed against video game companies regarding violence. Shouldn’t this be something parents are completely responsible to police?

    attackgerbil January 27, 2007, 12:41 pm
  • Brad, I went to Quinnipiac, I don’t go there any longer. (97)

    Triskaidekaphobia January 27, 2007, 12:56 pm
  • Whatever, seriously man, why do you have to be such a dick? Schilling comes here and gives us a chance to actually interact with a MLB player, in a way that few if any other MLB players ever do, and you take it as an opportunity to cut the man down?
    Save it.

    LocklandSF January 27, 2007, 12:57 pm
  • Was haven’t I heard word one about this blockbuster Helton deal? I know you guys have TV’s and Radios in Red Sox Nation.

    Triskaidekaphobia January 27, 2007, 1:03 pm
  • LOL I meant “Why”

    Triskaidekaphobia January 27, 2007, 1:03 pm
  • Lockland, Cut him down? WTF? I made reference to the blown Rivera saves in a somewhat jestful fashion and then asked a legit question about his plans after 2007.
    And while it’s nice Schilling happened by this thread, I’m not going to be a gushing, ignorant brown noser like yourself. Got it shithead?

    Whatever January 27, 2007, 1:13 pm
  • Trisk –
    I’m stuck in the lab today without much access to the sports sites due to restrictions – what’s going on with Helton? I know there was a rumor about Boston, but even EEI isn’t talking about it. What’s the news?

    Brad January 27, 2007, 1:15 pm
  • Easy there, big fella(s). We argue enough without getting personal about this crap.

    Brad January 27, 2007, 1:16 pm
  • It looks like it will be Hansen as the cornerstone, along with POSSIBLY Ellsbury or Delcarmen. It looks like the Sox would KEEP Youkilis and either include Lowell OR trade him seperately. One thing that may hold up the deal is the Sox want Clement included in the deal to kind of balance the $$.
    If the Sox can make this trade they are definitely the best offensive team for the next 2 seasons, but I beleive that Helton has 6 more years on his deal and 90 million…..Sounds a lot like the Kevin Brown albatross.

    Triskaidekaphobia January 27, 2007, 1:19 pm
  • Whatever, Whatever, you know exaclty what you were saying, backing out of it now is just crap and you know it, you’re the worst kind of jackass.

    LocklandSF January 27, 2007, 1:20 pm
  • On that rumor though, if Helton were to be dealt to the Red Sox, the middle of that order would be absolutely impossible to get through without getting hurt on a regular basis.
    Imagine this:
    Varitek (healthy again)
    Holy cow. The potential there is off the chart.

    Brad January 27, 2007, 1:21 pm
  • Brad-
    I read about it on Buster Onley’s blog this morning. Here’s the jist of it:
    The Red Sox are engaged in trade talks with the Colorado Rockies about Todd Helton, reports Troy Renck, with no deal imminent at this point. But you could see why this would make sense for each side.
    In response to the Denver Post story, a major league source indicated Saturday morning that the conversations between the Red Sox and Rockies actually opened last fall, and at that time, one of the sides felt that there could be an acceptable framework to make a deal. Any trade may have to include pitcher Matt Clement, from the Red Sox perspective. It could be that the completion of the J.D. Drew deal will now reignite talks, given that the Red Sox have a clearer sense of their financial obligations.
    For the Rockies, this would be an opportunity to move Helton’s contract, and as owner Charlie Monfort told the Denver Post this week, it is very difficult to operate in a situation in which one player absorbs such a large part of the payroll. If they could get the Red Sox to eat a lot of Helton’s deal and save themselves somewhere in the range of $8 million to $10 million a year, they would have much more flexibility.
    And the Rockies have to be concerned with the decreasing production of the 33-year-old Helton. Over the last four years, his slugging percentage has dropped from .630 to .620 to .534 to .476.
    For financial superpower Boston, however, Helton could be an extraordinary find, even at high cost. He is a Gold Glove-caliber first baseman, having won that award three times, and he would complement their offense perfectly, with his ability to hit doubles, draw walks and drive up pitch counts; he is considered to be among the best two-strike hitters in baseball. Last season, in what was regarded as a subpar offensive season for Helton, he drew 91 walks, struck out just 64 times, registered a .404 on-base percentage, and averaged 3.93 pitches per plate appearance.
    “His swing is not a power swing,” said one National League talent evaluator. “And he hasn’t been healthy. Our team was able to pound the hell out of him last year, pitch him inside, much better than you used to. It’ll be interesting to see how healthy he is, and he needs to come back, if he’s going to take a serious run at Cooperstown.” (Helton has 286 career homers, 996 RBI, 1,700 career hits, nine straight seasons of averages better than .300).
    “He’s a line-drive-type hitter, and for the kind of money Colorado is paying him, they need power.”
    The Red Sox do not. They’ve got the power hitters. They would covet Helton’s on-base percentage, his quality at-bats, his defense, especially if they were paying him only $8 million to $10 million a year.
    We don’t yet know what the composition of a Helton-Red Sox trade would be. It would make sense for the Rockies to ask for Kevin Youkilis in return, and on the other hand, the Red Sox have attempted repeatedly, since last summer, to engage other teams in conversation about third baseman Mike Lowell. The Rockies would probably prefer pitching, as Troy writes in his piece.
    Perhaps the Red Sox would insist upon the inclusion of Lowell in the deal, and then the Rockies — who don’t need a third baseman — might spin Lowell off to another team. We’ll see.
    The guess here is that the Red Sox would want to retain Youkilis and play him at third, because he’s younger than Lowell and because he generates such tough at-bats. Conceivably, then, this could be the Boston lineup for this season, if they got Todd Helton and moved out Lowell:
    SS Julio Lugo
    1B Helton
    DH David Ortiz
    LF Manny Ramirez
    RF Drew
    3B Youkilis
    C Jason Varitek
    CF Coco Crisp
    2B Dustin Pedroia
    The middle of the Red Sox lineup — from Helton in the No. 2 spot, to Youkilis in the No. 6 spot — would chew up starting pitchers the way the Yankees’ lineup does — from lead-off hitter Johnny Damon to No. 8 hitter Robinson Cano. A trade for Helton could make the Red Sox lineup equal, in potency, to that of the Yankees, and maybe better, depending on how good A-Rod is in 2007 (A great A-Rod makes the Yankees’ lineup extraordinary, while an inconsistent A-Rod changes things).
    The money will be the key to the trade talks, of course. Helton’s salary for each of the next four seasons is $16.6 million, and he’ll make $19.1 million in 2011, with a $4 million buyout of a $23 million club option for 2012. His deal is regarded by some executives as baseball’s worst contract, because it was so heavily backloaded, and because Helton’s salary will be so high even as he nears his 40th birthday. The Red Sox will want the Rockies to absorb a lot of Helton’s contract, the way the Angels wanted Colorado to, when that deal was discussed earlier in the off-season.
    Helton also has a full no-trade clause, but may welcome an opportunity to play for a perennial contender. He has said repeatedly that if the team came to him under the premise that the best thing for the organization would be to trade Helton, he would listen earnestly; having talked with him about his situation two springs ago, I think he would approve a deal.

    bloodyank78 January 27, 2007, 1:22 pm
  • my mistake:
    Somebody has to go, but since I don’t know what the rumor is, I’ll hold off on the lineup fantasy.

    Brad January 27, 2007, 1:23 pm
  • I like how Onley recognizes that the Yank’s 1-8 is still the most lethal in the Bigs.

    bloodyank78 January 27, 2007, 1:24 pm
  • Yeah, sign me up for that. I personally think that that lineup is the best in baseball, threat wise, hands down. The Yanks would be there too, but holy cow, that lineup would be absolutely sick.

    Brad January 27, 2007, 1:26 pm
  • 1-8 is still the most lethal in the Bigs
    at 80mill more, it should be, but if you add Helton to the Red Sox, it’s the lineup no pitcher wants any part of – eveyone has an immense amount of protection, an incredible ability to hit for power, and an even more likeliness to get on base.
    It would be gross.

    Brad January 27, 2007, 1:30 pm
  • New thread established for this….

    YF January 27, 2007, 1:30 pm
  • Brad, I’m impressed with your attempt to be a peacemaker. You’ve come a long way.
    Blockhead, I mean Lockland, I’m not backing out of anything. I clearly stated my intentions in my comments. Believe me, if I’d wanted to, I could have come up with a lot more inflammatory questions for Curt Schilling.
    BTW, if I’m the worst kind of jackass, then your the dumbest kind of jackass.
    I’d suggest we let this go now.

    Whatever January 27, 2007, 1:54 pm
  • As a Yankee fan I dislike Schilling. I find him to be arrogant, self-important, and a “me” kind of a guy. Don’t even get me started on the ketchup sock. I’m thankful that he’s not on the Yankees.
    However, as an American, I loathe him. He supported (and STILL SUPPORTS) the dumbest President that we’ve ever had — a president who sent many young men and women to their graves over a lie (the Iraq war if anyone didn’t figure it out yet). 75% of the country doesn’t think Bush is doing a good job, and yet Schilling thinks he’s fine. I am disgusted by Schilling and think he would make a dreadful Senator or Congressman.
    Incidentally, to whomever wrote that ONLY the Supreme Court has the right to change Roe v. Wade, you’ve got it wrong. Actually, the people of the United States could change Roe v. Wade through a Constitutional Amendment, but haven’t done so in 34 years since the decision was released, simply because there’s not enough support to overturn it.

    JS January 27, 2007, 2:04 pm
  • Suing video game makers over games is kind of like suing Ozzy Osbourne for his song “Suicide Solution”…
    Although I must say that it was fun watching Ozzy say (and resentfully so) that “My song suicide solution doesn’t promote suicide…” Even though the song had the following line:
    “Suicide is the only way out
    Don’t you know what it’s really about”

    JS January 27, 2007, 2:08 pm
  • 75% of the country doesn’t think Bush is doing a good job, and yet Schilling thinks he’s fine.
    When was the last time the majority was right about anything at all? 75% of the people really translates into 5% do the thinking, come up with bullish and immature rhetoric and propaganda, and the other 70% buy into it and purchase bumper stickers.
    Not that I’m in opposition to your thoughts, but it’s exactly this kind of attitute and hatred that has put the US political system in it’s current situation. Also, for what it’s worth, Schilling is a well-liked, well-versed, self made multi-millionaire, who does countless things for charity. Bush is the freaking leader of the free god damn world, and while we/you may not agree with his policy or his decisions, he is what he is (my majority by the way).
    You, my friend, are posting angry posts about the two on a Saturday morning on a sports-based website. What do you think the majority would say about the three in comparison?
    And, the people can in fact express support or disdain for any issue, but the bottom line is this: the buck stops at the Supreme Court.

    Brad January 27, 2007, 2:19 pm
  • Thanks, Brad, for saying what I was about to. Let me add, also, that anyone who truly thinks Schilling put ketchup in his sock I immediately categorize in the same category as people who think Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster. It’s a stupid, asinine conspiracy theory made up by jealous vindictive people who are too immature to deal with their own disappointment about coughing up the biggest choke job in baseball history. Deal with it.
    Also, JS, if you had read my post, I never said only the SCOTUS can overturn Roe v. Wade. I said the constitutional amendments have failed and that they are even more unlikely to pass through the current Congress.
    I would also like an explanation of how Bush can be the “dumbest president that we’ve ever had” yet still be smart enough to trick the country into going to war with Iraq (I assume you bellieve this based on your “lie” comment) and voting him in for a second term. It seems your conspiracy theories and groundless hatred are conflicting with each other.

    Paul SF January 27, 2007, 2:37 pm
  • I’m not sure why “Whatever’s” questions to Schilling were considered derogatory.
    The mentioning of Mo’s two blown saves as leading to Schill’s biggest milestones was an interesting observation I hadn’t thought of and the Christmas card suggestion was obviously meant to be humorous. And the question of Curt’s plans after 2007 was something I wondered about as well.
    And didn’t somebody else say something earlier about fake blood on the sock and Schillimg’s picture on a dartboard? Nobody complained about these more “inflammatory” comments.

    Frank January 27, 2007, 2:51 pm
  • yet still be smart enough to trick the country into going to war with Iraq
    Paul, my sister could have gotten this country to go to war in Iraq after 9-11. I mean, it made Gulliani look like a competent politician, so using this as the baseline is a poor choice on your part.
    Bush didn’t really need to meet with Stephen Hawking to get a plan put together on this issue. He grabbed a bullhorn, and stood on the ground where thousands died, and used it to his advantage (and still does, for what it’s worth). His actions at that time can’t possibly be tied into his level of intelligence, for anyone with even the slightest emotion could have done it. But still, he did get elected (again, by a majority), so he can’t possibly be as stupid as he comes off.

    Brad January 27, 2007, 2:57 pm
  • and my 75% comment goes for both sides alike. Neither side is fully composed of people capable of making their own decisions. My grandfater, for example, votes in every possible election (presidential or not), and normally has absolutely no idea who he’s voting for. He goes with the party each time, no fail. This is the problem I see. I have exactly the same amount of input on the issues as the guy who spent three hours getting Kelly Pickler into the finals of American Idol.
    People follow, and hardly any of them think through issues with themselves. Which is why, I’ll have a hard time choosing between McCain and Edwards. Both polars, both against each other, and both making points I agree with. In the end, it will come down to who runs the lesser amount of deflamatory adds toward the opposition. I get so sick of that it turns my stomach!:)

    Brad January 27, 2007, 3:02 pm
  • Brad, Bush going to war against Osama in Afghanistan was fine with me after 9/11.
    But changing course and going into Iraq, for personal reasons pertaining to his father, with Cheney prodding him along, all the while cherry-picking information about WMDs and discrediting people who wondered about the wisdom of invading Iraq, is the worst, most reckless blunder ever by a sitting president.
    I reluctantly have to leave for the inlaws now, but may be able to come back later.

    Frank January 27, 2007, 3:25 pm
  • War on any level shouldn’t be “okay” for any American.

    Brad January 27, 2007, 3:35 pm
  • peacenik

    dc January 27, 2007, 4:23 pm
  • “I would also like an explanation of how Bush can be the “dumbest president that we’ve ever had” yet still be smart enough to trick the country into going to war with Iraq (I assume you bellieve this based on your “lie” comment) and voting him in for a second term. It seems your conspiracy theories and groundless hatred are conflicting with each other.”
    1. I still think he’s dumb. He’s a C student, but he has smart and articulate spokesmen that did the lying for him, like Colin Powell who assured the UN that Saddam had WMD’s.
    2. I didn’t vote for Bush. I voted for Kerry. SOOOOO, I wasn’t tricked into voting him in for the second term.
    3. Finally, I NEVER, I repeat, NEVER supported going to war in Iraq. I never heard any evidence to support either theory (that Iraq had WMD’s or a connection to the terrorists), other then “trust us, we’ve got the goods on him”.
    4. I still think that we’d be better off if we never went to war AND my original basis for opposing the war was that: (a) Iraq was a sovereign country; (b) Saddam, for all his faults, was a secularist not a dynamite wearing fundamentalist; and (c) I knew that what we’d get with a power vacuum would be worse than saddam.
    I mean, if we’re going to go after bad guys with WMD’s, then why haven’t we attacked China?
    And finally, it bothers me that the majority people in this country are dumb enough to be tricked into not just one term of this garbage, but two (Okay, really one since Gore won the first election).

    JS January 27, 2007, 5:44 pm
  • He’s a C student…
    Other famous C-type students:
    Albert Einstein
    Adolph Hitler (yeah, I want this to end!)
    Bill Gates
    Al Gore
    John Edwards
    Frank Lloyd Wright
    Steven King
    need I go on? Being great in school is the least indicator of a successful life, JS.
    While I kind of agree with your side, you go about it in an idiotic way. Did I mention Hitler. I wasn’t sure if I mentioned Hitler, or Hitler.
    China? Really? You wanna attack a superpower? Are you retarded? You denounce the war and then question getting into a much, much worse one?
    Dude, get a leg to stand on.
    Why don’t we just attack North Korea, Cuba, China, Africa, and anyone else who doesn’t agree with us?
    Support your President, guy. You may hate the guy, as I do, but there is absolutely nothing to be done about it. All the talk in the world is so counter-productive to getting anything done. You’re no smarter than the leader of the free world surrounded by hoards of people with degrees from places you’ve never heard of, so nevermind the asshole comments. History will deal with his choices mmuch clearer than you or Al or Noam.
    Just like the world doesn’t buy into the Clinton detractors, they won’t buy into this, but there are a lot of people who need you and everyone else to stop with the negative berading of their mission: the military.

    Brad January 27, 2007, 6:18 pm
  • Well said, Brad.
    I think this thread has served its purpose. I don’t have the power to close it, as I didn’t write it, but I humble throw that suggestion out there. The tone and civility has nowhere to go but down.

    Paul SF January 27, 2007, 7:38 pm
  • “It’s a stupid, asinine conspiracy theory made up by jealous vindictive people who are too immature to deal with their own disappointment about coughing up the biggest choke job in baseball history. Deal with it.”
    The facts: Schilling, with a serious injury, pitched a great game 6 of the ALCS. The Red Sox had the best team and won, primarily because of their superior pitching. That was 2004. It’s been dealt with.
    Ketchup: There was plenty of talk all across the board afterward about the possibilty of the sock being a hoax, not just from “jealous vindictive YF’s – indeed, a GQ article said members of the Diamondbacks thought the sock was doctored, based on their knowledge of Schilling, and the fact that the spot didn’t spread.
    If you think it’s impossible that a player with a reputation as a shameless media hound, nicknamed “Red Light Curt” would seize a unique opportunity to cement his legend in baseball folklore by doctoring a sock, then you’re either blinded by bias, or naive.
    I’m not jealous, vindictive, or immature. Based on what I’ve read about Schilling over the years I just think it’s entirely possible, even probable.

    Andrews January 27, 2007, 8:27 pm
  • …there goes lockland namecalling again…what is it with you yf and sf?…you guys continue to allow that kind of stuff…why?…because whatever is an outspoken yankee fan…now that’s more of an “inconvenient truth” than al gore’s revenge propaganda against bush…
    there weren’t wmd’s…gee, do ya think saddam may have hid them somewhere in the 6 month head start he had while we were asking them stinkin morons in the un if it was ok to invade?
    i don’t think shilling used catsup, although i wouldn’t put it past him
    i don’t think i’d admit voting for kerry js, he’s the guy that lied about being in cambodia
    can’t change history guys, it doesn’t matter if the sox bribed the umps to do it, they won it and it’s time to move on

    dc January 27, 2007, 9:26 pm
  • Thanks again to Curt for taking the time to respond and jumping into such a firestorm. Closing this thread.

    attackgerbil January 27, 2007, 11:26 pm

Next post:

Previous post: