Tim McG

How the fuck does a single game indicate how a series should turn out? The Twins have won 17 of their last 21. You know....I was almost going to root for the BoSox, too.

Judging by the fact it took the Twinkies 12 innings to beat the fading Tigers...I'd say that's a fair bet.

Can do. Tonight when I get home I'll give it a go.

Samuel Langhorne Clemens Samuel Alito Samuel Adams

I'll take Angels vs Phills and points in the WS. Angels win in 6. You heard it here first.

Exactly. It looked like nobody wanted to win. Incredibly bad baseball. Detroit shot themselves in the foot. Twinkies won't get past the first round. Ugh.

Huh? You criticized Romo then blasted me because I pointed that out to you. Then you bag on me because you criticized Romo. WTF? My advice: Read your own posts before getting on me about them, OK? My point: Romo couldn't carry Troy Aikman's shoes. And I seriously think a trip to the optometrist could benefit you greatly. No offense. Dude, you came out of nowhere (post 2452 in this thread) to criticize my post about Rodney Harrison and Tom Brady. Talk about revisionist history here. Why did you feel the need to point out to me that I criticized Romo in the first place? I know what I was typing. Am I not allowed to criticize Romo or something? I'm not getting on you about *MY* posts either, as you state. You are the one that responded to me with comments that made no sense. I've never said Romo was better than Aikman either, despite your apparent attmpt to make it look like I'm saying that. I'm still not sure what you're point was in responding to my Harrison/Brady comment in the first place, and then turning it into a Romo discussion. And you made a big, giant deal about it. Maybe you need to just back it off a little bit, eh?

Twinkies vs Tigers on Tuesday. Any bets on who wins? I'm pulling for the Tigers.

Huh? You criticized Romo then blasted me because I pointed that out to you. Then you bag on me because you criticized Romo. WTF? My advice: Read your own posts before getting on me about them, OK? My point: Romo couldn't carry Troy Aikman's shoes. And I seriously think a trip to the optometrist could benefit you greatly. No offense.

I'm not sure why you think this is me criticizing Brady, or what it has to do with the Cowboys. That was former Brady teammate Rodney Harrison that said that tonight on the air. I found it interesting/amusing. I'd take Brady over Romo any day of the week, personally too. Romo happens to be the best QB the Cowboys have had since Aikman, though he seems to have regressed this season with a substandard WR corps though. I blame that on GM Jerry Jones. I'm not sure why you would think I had. Maybe it had something to do with this: Romo is the only QB the Ca'boys have and don't even mention his name in the same breath as Troy Aikman.

Yeah. He'd need some catsup on his sock in order to get the sympathy vote.

I'd take Tom Brady and points against your wimpy Romo any day, Aggie. Where's Jessica Simpson when you need her, eh?

Why does it matter where you are from? I've never been to Connecticut or Massachusettes, but I've been a Pats fan since the mid 70s when I lived in South Jersey. It matters when, as a Native Californian, people need to know why my wife would root for an Eastern team. There is this place called the West Coast. Heard of it? We don't root for Eastern teams unless there is a reason to. Dig? Besides, it was a lighthearted musing. No big deal. Why that is a problem and why that matters is beyond my comprehension. Pardon my sensibilities.

Probably a good thing, Jon....Raiders looked pretty bad today. My Connecticut born wife, however, was very glad about the Patriots win

I'm pulling for SF. U have no idea how much I wish you weren't a fan. Now WTF is that crack all about, Chuck? You live in Michigan, fer crissakes.....and I have never said squat about you like that. Whatever, man. I see how it is. Wow.

The 49ers squash out the Rammies 35-0 Maybe it's safe to hope for a winning season again in SF. 3-1 and Mike Singletary ROCKS! Go Niners!

Geez, Dan. Are you never happy? Your guys are in the playoffs and you still find time to bitch about some program nobody is watching...really? And yet you get on me about the Giants vs Dodgers rivalry

[ahem] Don't get too cocky, Jon.....your guys have won only 6 games in the playoffs since 1988. I suspect the Dodgers will be headed to Hawaii and other vacation destinations sooner than you think. But congratulations anyway, Brother Noj!

I'm not an Oregon native (there aren't many.) I grew up on the borderline of Cub-Cardinal country for the first 23 years of my life. Even when the Cubs sucked (which was often) those games sold out year in & year out. Fair enough. Hey, no problem with where you came from, Quincy. It's just that I don't think you are in a position to judge the Giants vs Dodgers rivalry, is all. I'd like to think I may have just a little bit more understanding on the subject....being a basball junky and a California Native. No offense intended.

I can't speak for the Chicago guys, but you would be incorrect in that impression, Quincy. Those same Dodger fans don't even show up to their own ballpark to support their own team. The place is half empty everytime I see the Bums play on TV at home. Personally, I don't think LA fans deserve a pro team....except maybe the Lakers. The NFL sure thought so and just sat by as Georgia Fontiere yanked the Rams out of LA. So, saying Dodger fans don't care about the rivalry isn't quite true....they don't care about supporting their own team, either. And you never see them wearing that ugly blue hat in public unless they are winning....I think you have your focus on the wrong rivalry there, Quincy. Besides, you live in Oregon, right? No offense, but as a California native who has lived 27 years in NorCal after 27 years in SoCal I have witnessed quite the opposite relative to the Giants vs Dodgers rivalry. Take it from me...the real fans, on both sides, still care. Ask Noj...he's one of them. Dodger fan-dom notwithstanding

BTW...the Giants have more wins in the MLB and more players in the Hall of Fame than any other team. Look it up, Dan.

Nope. 1871-1875 National Base Ball Assn. And the Cards still didn't join the National League until long after that in 1892. Though, to be fair, the Dodgers joined the NL in 1890. Again, the Giants and Dodgers have the longest standing/continuous rivalry in the history of the MLB. I was right and you were wrong. Look it up, Dan: Source: Baseball History Source: Baseball Reference

I find this last claim quite amusing, as I believe you can't find a damn person on the planet who currently takes a side in this rivalry who also took a side when they battled in New York. New fans in Cali might have embraced the previous rivalry, but does that matter? If Goodie were alive in the fifties, he wouldn't have given a shit about the Giants or Dodgers - they were on the East Coast where baseball is not worth following. Now you embrace the rivalry as the "oldest" in MLB history? What a joke. Given that its a completely truncated history, pre- and post- move, I don't think that's a true "old" rivalry. Can't be when it only goes back three generations or so. Now, Cards vs Cubs - that's a rivalry that truly spans the previous century. Same with the Sox and Yankees. Typical Dan-logic: Because a given team originates someplace else, you aren't supposed to root for them now. It is the oldest rivalry in baseball, Dan. Period. Look it up. What hogwash. You really shouldn't have said that, Timmy. Giants date to 1883 in the NL. Dodgers to 1890. The Cubs date to 1876 in the NL and the Cardinals to 1892. That would make the Cubs vs the Cardinals rivalry date two years after than the Giants vs Dodgers. Now, if you look back in time you find different names in different years for the same franchise. So let's consider when a team first was called the Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, Cardinals: Giants: 1885 Cards: 1900 Cubs: 1903 Dodgers: 1911 So, by this measure, the Cubs and Cards have gone at it since 1903, while the Dodgers and Giants have gone at it only since 1911. How about if we consider the fact that team names changed over time, back and forth? This factor only effects the Dodgers half of the claimed "oldest rivalry", because the Dodgers really went back and forth on their name. They were the Dodgers in 1911 and 1912, but then spent a season as the Superbas (which they had been called for a good portion of their history to that point), then went to the Robins and only became the Dodgers, permanently and forever after, as of the 1932 season. So, by this measure, its not even close - the Dodgers have been rivals of the Giants under those names and continuously, only from 1932 to 2009. The Cubs have been rivals of the Cardinals, under those names and continuously, from 1903 to 2009. So, you're wrong, yet again, Goodie. There is no definition that makes the Giants and Dodgers the "oldest rivalry". Here are the team pages: Cubs Cards Giants Dodgers And don't give me the "Cubs and Cardinals aren't rivals" baloney. Illinois is split down the middle between Cub fans upstate and Card fans among those who are closer to St. Louis. Nice try Danny...if not wholly inaccurate. The Giants were first admited to the National League in 1883. The Dodgers joined the NL in 1890. By 1889 after many financial difficulties and bankruptcies, there were only two teams in any league left- The Giants and the Dodgers. It is the longest standing/continuous rivarly in the history of the MLB. The Cards played in the American Association [which went bankrupt] and were not admitted to the National League until 1899. The Cubs played in the National Base Ball League the the American association before joining the National League. Though they may be older, the NL rivalry between the Cubs and the Cards began after the Dodgers vs Giants rivarly Now if you're going to use minor league games and defunct leagues as a way to make your point, then you are only pleading the case for the prosecution. Again, nice try.

I find this last claim quite amusing, as I believe you can't find a damn person on the planet who currently takes a side in this rivalry who also took a side when they battled in New York. New fans in Cali might have embraced the previous rivalry, but does that matter? If Goodie were alive in the fifties, he wouldn't have given a shit about the Giants or Dodgers - they were on the East Coast where baseball is not worth following. Now you embrace the rivalry as the "oldest" in MLB history? What a joke. Given that its a completely truncated history, pre- and post- move, I don't think that's a true "old" rivalry. Can't be when it only goes back three generations or so. Now, Cards vs Cubs - that's a rivalry that truly spans the previous century. Same with the Sox and Yankees. Typical Dan-logic: Because a given team originates someplace else, you aren't supposed to root for them now. It is the oldest rivalry in baseball, Dan. Period. Look it up. What hogwash.

Since I have no dog in this fight, that's who I'm going with, too.