Hey, there! Log in / Register
WSJ to Boston: Red Sox should lose to teach 10-year olds a lesson
By Kaz on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 3:37pm
NESN points to a WSJ column that tells your 10-year olds to buck up and get used to how Boston sports are supposed to be.
If you are a 10-year-old Boston sports fan, you have seen remarkable, glorious things. You have seen two Red Sox World Series titles, three Patriots Super Bowl trophies, a Celtics NBA title, and a Bruins Stanley Cup.
But that's not Boston.
That's a bizarre fantasyland. You are residing in a utopian city where every team wins, almost all of the time, and there's at least one giant Duck Boat parade every couple of years. You've got a closet full of championship hats. Your arm is sore from throwing confetti.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I grew up during the first
I grew up during the first Celtics championship run. As that ended, the Bruins started winning Stanley Cups. When that team broke up, Tommy Heinsohn's teams won a couple of championships. And after several down years, the Big Three Celtics came back and won a couple. Boston has had no shortage of sports successes in the last half century, but that doesn't fit the lamestream media story line.
FU WSJ and NYC
Really? It is the natural order of things, of course, that all New York City teams shall win, because of the... well, because they are based in New York, which everyone knows is the superiorest place in America.
Yeah, WSJ - how are your teams which compete in salary-controlled leagues doing lately on that level playing field?
A 6-5 loss to the Orioles...
isn't exactly the signal for Boston fans to start running our mouths, Lanny. P.S. The Sox haven't exactly been Frugal Frannies this year. More than $100 million in offseason spending just sat out today because of a stiff neck.
Doesn't matter
Stop navel gazing and look at the big picture. Take total championships won in major sports and then divide by the number of teams competing. Boston comes out ahead.
The Yankees win not because of Divine Intervention but because they have a payroll which is $30 million more than the next-highest, $41 million more than the Red Sox and over $100 million more than the average team. I repeat: $100 million more than the average team.
Any year the Yankees don't win it all they are failures.
That's how us Rays fans feel about it
Yep, the Sox are definitely less evil because they ONLY spend $140 million more on payroll than our team. And they're way less evil for spending that $161 million this year and thinking that, if they don't win it all, they're somehow not failures.
Saying things like that also makes you guys sound incredibly loveable and not at all like spoiled pricks. Here's 2 ya!
Youse guys?
Evilness is irrelevant. We are talking about problem solving and businesses in competition. And the fact is that if you and I are trying to solve the same problem or compete for the same business and I spend more money than you, I should come out ahead most of the time.
I am not from Boston, by the way. I grew up a fan of West Coast teams. The statement about total championships per franchise is just a matter of record, prickyness or not.
Good ownership leads to success in all professional sports except baseball, where good ownership in a small market, like Tampa or Oakland, can keep you sometimes competetive, but bad ownership in a big market gives the same result.
Bad Timing For 93.7 FM
A Red Flops total collapse would be a case of bad timing for 93.7 FM. Presumably the big draw as we go into the fall would be post-season beisbol while WEEI-AM's signal gets crushed after sunset at 6:00 pm.
Maybe the WSJ should have looked elsewhere to provoke
This is funny - I would have thought that if the WSJ was going to play up a Boston theme (particularly one that at a minimum suggests a NY superiority complex) that they would have hit on New York being voted by CNBC as the second most innovative place while Massachusetts was a lowly 3rd (the slideshow showing MA as 3rd was a link in the article I linked to, but it looks like it might be down just now).
That's right, a lowly 3rd, with our population of about a third of New York's, and nearly 6X less than that of #1 California.
By the way, did I mention (wait, I did) that MA is also the 7th richest state with very well-distributed wealth?
Oh, and we have good sports teams, too. Our little outpost on the North Atlantic really is a crappy place to live.
(NB, this is why even though I don't necessarily despise the man, I don't think that I could ever vote for Romney, who spent the last 2 years of his term going around the country badmouthing Massachusetts.)
Don't show this to your ten year old . . .
. . . .http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/16/kidnapping-...