Skip to content

AP Writer: Cliff Lee should be ashamed that his salary isn’t going to starving children in Africa

Dec 21, 2010, 9:12 AM EST

Cliff Lee phillies throwing

I’m with the Associated Press’ Tim Dahlberg to the extent he’s critical of those who are lauding Cliff Lee for making some sort of financial sacrifice to go to the Phillies. Sure, there’s a bit less guaranteed money, but we’re not in sainthood territory here.

Dahlberg completely loses me, however, when he goes off on a jag about how the money going to Lee could be better used for charities benefiting children in Africa. After listing several examples of how far the money Cliff Lee will make for a single game can go if spent for humanitarian purposes, Dahlberg writes:

I’m not picking on Lee, who is simply the latest poster player for what ails sports. It’s a seller’s market in baseball and anyone who can sell themselves for $120 million certainly has the right to do so.

But I’m also not going to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize for leaving behind a pile of money (much less than $30 million, actually, after agent fees and taxes). His salary is still so far out of whack with that of paying fans, even Lee had to acknowledge that much.

I agree that, as a society, we have some pretty skewed priorities. I also agree that there is no better time to think about these sort of things than around Christmastime. I was out doing my shopping last night and was struck, as I am every time I venture out into retail land, at how much waste and karma is floating around.

But why are we singling out Cliff Lee and “poster players” here?  Where is the outrage for the ownership group who parlayed a $30 million investment in the Phillies 30 years ago into a $500 million+ business today? Where is the outrage for baseball as a whole, which is now a $7 billion industry?  Why are their revenues not too much to take? Why doesn’t Dahlberg write an editorial saying that Bill Giles’  income is “out of whack,” and calculating how many mosquito nets the Phillies’ annual revenues could supply to a village in west Africa?

The fact is that baseball is a huge business and the players with elite talents are the biggest reason for it. Why shouldn’t they reap financial rewards for it? Why are they singled out as greedy when the owners and executives are making even more?  For that matter, isn’t it the case that everyone who makes a living off of a game is taking money that could, ideally, be better spent feeding starving children?  I make my living as a result of baseball. I bought a Blu-Ray player last night. That was nowhere near as productive a use of my money as providing malnourished children with specially formulated peanut paste.  I’m guessing Dahlberg has used his salary for a few things besides charity as well.

Yes, it is mind-boggling and a bit depressing that our society values entertainment so highly and humanitarian efforts so little by comparison. But neither Cliff Lee’s salary nor any other individual player’s salary was the tipping point on that. Nor is he the proper target for complaints like Dahlberg’s. Even if one is going to limit his targets to professional sports figures, there are bigger fish to fry than Lee.

Dahlberg’s failure to acknowledge that suggests that he’s less concerned about our priorities as a society and more interested in using emotionally-manipulative examples to make a tired old “ballplayers make too much damn money for playing a kids game!” argument, the likes we’ve heard for decades, and I find that to be pretty shameful.

  1. proudlycanadian - Dec 21, 2010 at 9:21 AM

    Some people are very good at spending other people’s money. If the money belonged to them, they would not be so generous.

  2. yankeesfanlen - Dec 21, 2010 at 9:22 AM

    If Jacob Ruppert had paid Babe Ruth more, and the Bambino had donated that to a soil erosion project and lobbied for better financial controls, the Great Depression never would have happened.
    See how simple this is?

  3. phillysoulfan - Dec 21, 2010 at 9:23 AM

    I have a more basic question. Why Africa? Are there not starving children in the U.S.? Why are children in Africa more deserving of this charity then the children here?

    • Detroit Michael - Dec 21, 2010 at 9:40 AM

      There are some regions of Africa that have more severe and more chronic food shortages than anything we experience anywhere in the United States.

      • phillysoulfan - Dec 21, 2010 at 9:44 AM

        And? The same could be said for just about everywhere in the Middle East and some Asian countries. So what? It’s not our problem. AMERICAN families (especially children) are our problem.

      • tadthebad - Dec 21, 2010 at 9:49 AM

        That may be true, but it doesn’t mean unfortunate American children don’t deserve help.

      • Jonny 5 - Dec 21, 2010 at 10:01 AM

        Actually most is caused by the governing “entities” which basically take away any aid meant for the “poor starving kids”. We basicaly fund militia groups and corrupt African gov’ts with our “aid”. So while it’s a nice thought to begin with. It’s much more helpful to give in our own country, or countries where this is actually given in majority to the citizens who need it, such as Haiti or the Dominican. Africa is almost too far gone, and pumping $$ or food into it mostly goes to militias and opressive gov’ts. Which cause the starving children to exist in the first place.

      • Detroit Michael - Dec 21, 2010 at 10:28 AM

        One can’t accurately cover an entire continent with one stereotype. However, there are some countries (I give to organizations in Ghana and Benin, but to some extent that’s a reflection of what I’m familiar with) where donations to nongovernement organizations can go much farther and make a more dramatic difference in people’s lives than the same amount donated here does.

        If you want to value all children the same regardless of nationality, I’d guess that you’d come to the same conclusion. I understand that’s not a perspective that everyone shares.

        Giving to aid to Africa without diminishing incentives for better self-governing or more economic growth is a tricky issue, well beyond what can be addressed well on a baseball message boards. I don’t mean to imply otherwise.

      • Jonny 5 - Dec 21, 2010 at 10:45 AM

        I was being too general, but my point was an overall asessment of the continent itself lends to a high rate of “aid pillaging” Higher than on any other continent. It’s sad, and as i see it, the best organizations to work through to give African bound aid are the Christian aid groups. They actually put people on the ground and distribute to those in need themselves, instead of relying on foriegn “middle men” , militias, and gov’ts. But this also comes at a price. You must worship their way in most cases. Which may be a small price to pay in their eyes, or not…

    • jjschiller - Dec 21, 2010 at 10:13 AM

      You probably don’t actually want an answer, but…

      On one level, its about “doing-the-most-good.” Sure, there are poor children in America. But those children, more often than not, are eligible for government sponsored assistance.

      On another level, it’s about scale. There aren’t that MANY children starving in America, when compared to kind of destitute poverty you see in Africa.

      On yet another level, I suppose tying in to the “doing-the-most-good,” it’s about economics. With the high value of the U.S. dollar compared to African currencies, a WHOLE LOT of food can be bought in world markets for Africa using U.S. dollars, compared to food that can be bought domestically for the same number of dollars. I mean… ALOT more food. So you can feed more people, who are more starving, with the same dollars if you invest them in the poorest economies.

      On another level, it’s about conscience. In order for the United States to become the economic power it became in the 20th century, it needed to find markets in which to sell its goods and services. In time, the United States had so many goods and services to provide, it actually became in our governments interest to GENERATE markets in which to sell our goods. The regions which we chose to generate markets in, through trade treaty (we buy this if you buy this) through infrastructure investment, etc. (think Japan, India) experienced, on the whole, an incline in economic fortune, albeit not in a manner relative to U.S. economic fortune. The regions in which we chose not to develop our markets, or exerted our power in less positive ways (think Mexico, Central America, Haiti, Africa… think goverment coups and U.S. planted dictatorships) did not experience such economic windfalls. This is one, albeit one of several, causes for the intense poverty in Africa.

      Some Americans feel bad about having a house and a car, when to some Africans, a pair of shoes is a luxury.

      But I don’t think you wanted an actual answer to your question, so you probably didn’t even read this comment. I imagine you just wanted to take some random opportunity to spout jingoist non-sense. So I saved the final reason for last, so you’d be most likely to read it:

      To some people, every human life is worth exactly the same care, regardless of what country they were born in, what color their skin is, or what language they speak.

      That’s why Africa.

  4. phukyouk - Dec 21, 2010 at 9:24 AM

    the guys a douche. I hate Cliff Lee but only cause I’m a Yankees fan and only cause when he faces us he beats us. no other reason. I’m sure hes a stand up guy and i respect him for leaving any amount of money on the table no matter how little. He did what most people in the world dont do which is take a job for less money to be happy at your job. Hell Craig.. if someone walked up to you right now and offered you 5 yrs salary to work for them but they have to scrutinize all your blogs and censor you im sure you too would turn it down.

    there is NOONE in baseball today that is worth half their value save for the “ass in the seats” part and even that is bullshit. you telling me that you wouldnt see the phils play if Howard , Doc, Lee werent making 100 Mil + ? i used to bitch and moan about how much sports players make and how its bullshit cause the buck just gets passed to us with overpriced tickets and $10 8 ounce bears. but fu*kitall. this is the way the industry has moved and if that asshole wants to bitch about Kids in Africa lets see him donate his damn salary.

    • fquaye149 - Dec 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM

      The franchises are businesses and they decide what the players are worth. Maybe if I were a Phillies fan I would still go see the Phillies play if Howard, Doc, Lee et al weren’t making hundreds of million dollars. But if one of those players weren’t on the team and the team weren’t a playoff contender, maybe I wouldn’t. And if the Phillies seemed committed to refusing to spend that money on FA’s based on a principled stance that “players shouldn’t be worth that much” and they were a last place team because no one would play there, I suspect very few people would go see them at all (cf. Kansas City, Pittsburgh). It’s all well and good to remove oneself from the market economy of baseball and try to quantify baseball skills in what you think dollars are worth, but supply, demand, and profit margins moves baseball players’ salaries, and although some teams have found ways to win without paying 100mm salaries, they still end up paying 7 figure salaries, and are not as consistently successful or profitable.

      In short, your assertion that “no one in baseball is worth their salary” is begging the question insofar as it’s based on an assertion that baseball players are worth more than the market in a profitable league dictates, which is by definition untrue unless we accept your a priori that baseball players are inherently worth less than what the market dictates because they’re not curing cancer or whatever.

  5. disulfide - Dec 21, 2010 at 9:27 AM

    If Dahlberg spent more time passing out blankets to the homeless this winter, he wouldn’t have noticed Cliff Lee’s obscene payday. Instead he was hatemongering by a warm fireplace drinking organic gourmet cocoa wishing he could throw lefthanded.

  6. Jonny 5 - Dec 21, 2010 at 9:41 AM

    I guarantee Cliff Lee has given more charity from his salary than Dahlberg ever will for his entire life. And Cliffy ain’t done yet boys. What a Dip Sh!t thing to say….

  7. churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 21, 2010 at 9:52 AM

    So is Tim Dahlberg just a penname for Peter Singer*? And did I miss something that said Lee thinks he deserves the Peace Prize? Where did that non-sequitor come from?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer [singer’s wiki link, check the info under World Poverty, a bit extreme for my tastes but I understand where he’s coming from]

  8. dmo84 - Dec 21, 2010 at 10:12 AM

    Should you be having children if you don’t have a job, home , or money in savings? We frown on people in this country who have children and then lay the burden on everybody else. So why do I see video footage of adults in the poorest regions of Africa living in garbage and sewage, but they got a bunch of starving kids. STOP REPRODUCING!!!! Instead of giving Africa millions of dollars a year for food and medical supplies why don’t we just send over $10,000 in condoms. Why should Cliff Lee feel bad that he worked his way up to the success he’s having and he takes care of his family. So that idiot is saying that not only does our government give our money away to other countries, tax paying citizens should too. I thought this was the United States of AMERICA, not the United States that takes care of everybody else in the world.

    • jjschiller - Dec 21, 2010 at 10:32 AM

      Well for one thing, in the United States, a child is a thing you have to pay for.

      In Africa, a child is a thing that can help you survive.

      We’re not talking about a society where we work at Foot Locker and take our paycheck to Walmart to feed our kids. We’re talking about mostly agrarian societies. And more hands make lighter work.

      Then of course, there’s the high child mortality rate, and shorter life expectancy, meaning more children are needed because so many die.

      Then there’s the moral quandary, why do those who aren’t poor feel they have gained some moral authority to tell the poor “just what they’re effing problem is,” and “what they oughtta just do..” ?

    • JBerardi - Dec 21, 2010 at 12:37 PM

      “STOP REPRODUCING!!!!”

      Stupid sky, why must you persist in being blue?!

  9. amhendrick - Dec 21, 2010 at 10:34 AM

    How do we know that Cliff Lee doesn’t send huge amounts of money to charities?

  10. fquaye149 - Dec 21, 2010 at 10:50 AM

    Craig–

    I think you even go a little far in your insinuation that the Lee deal shows anything about the nation’s priorities. I’m anything but a pure capitalist, but Lee’s salary is an aggregation of relatively low-priced merchandise. Millions of people will spend dozens of dollars to see Phillies games, and that will inevitably pay Lee’s salary, and the rest of the Phillies’s salaries with tons of money left over to pay the Phillies owners and stockholders (if applicable). I don’t see how you can argue that reflects any misguided priorities, unless you’re suggesting (and I know you are only playing devil’s advocate here) that in a perfect world a family of four won’t spend ~200-300 dollars on baseball a year and rather would spend that money on charity. Even for a “perfect world” that seems a little much to ask.

  11. nyyankeefanforever - Dec 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM

    There are too few articles like this pointing out the amount of $$$ Lee allegedly “left on the table” isn’t all that much relative to his total contract. What’s even more rare, though, are articles which underscore:

    *That his per-annum Phillies salary is actually HIGHER than the Yankee or Rangers offered him;

    *That thanks to the shorter term of the Phillies contract he and his agent have ensured the potential for yet ANOTHER big free-agent payday before he’s done;

    *That by fleeing to the weak-hitting NL — like Zack “Jimmy Piersall” Greinke — Lee only underscores the fact he is more concerned with personal stats than he is with playing against — or with — the best teams in MLB.

    That said, I don’t begrudge the guy for looking for a safe haven, nor do I even hate him for beating the Yankees so consistently. You can’t claim to be the best if you don’t play and beat the best. That’s the difference between life in Yankee Universe and rooting for other teams. That’s why the Yankees are ALWAYS in the playoffs and competitive. And knowing as we do that hitting gets you to the playoffs in the first place, it will be interesting to see how many of these alleged pundits predicting a Sox-Phillies WS are willing to eat crow when neither gets to the big show in 2011.

    P.S. Did anybody else see Thomas Boswell’s definitive NYTimes column detailing precisiely how Werth’s departure to Washington dangerously crippled the Phillies while simultaneously panicking the Sox into potentially the most expensive free-agent bust deal in history? It’s a must-read.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM

      *That by fleeing to the weak-hitting NL — like Zack “Jimmy Piersall” Greinke — Lee only underscores the fact he is more concerned with personal stats than he is with playing against — or with — the best teams in MLB.

      It’s a mat, where you jump to conclusions!

      There is nothing in his signing with the Phillies that comes even remotely close to justifying that conclusion.

    • Utley's Hair - Dec 21, 2010 at 11:54 AM

      *That his per-annum Phillies salary is actually HIGHER than the Yankee or Rangers offered him;
      –Well, since people were referring to the overall amount, and not the per annum, with a shorter term contract, your assertion is proven wrong.

      *That thanks to the shorter term of the Phillies contract he and his agent have ensured the potential for yet ANOTHER big free-agent payday before he’s done;
      —And since people were saying that he would be ineffective after four or five years (if not sooner), again, your point is moot.

      *That by fleeing to the weak-hitting NL — like Zack “Jimmy Piersall” Greinke — Lee only underscores the fact he is more concerned with personal stats than he is with playing against — or with — the best teams in MLB.
      —Or maybe that he actually LIKED (GASP!!!!!!!!!) it here, liked to hit in addition to pitch and liked the people here, etc., ya know…like he said in his press conference.

      But you go ahead and make your wildly inaccurate assertions as much as you want. We’ll be here to knock you back into reality.

      Oh, and as for your PS, what do you expect a sports writer in Wanker country to write?

      ******
      Now, as to the point of the post, the Lees already give money to kids cancer programs, since their son was diagnosed with leukemia when he was barely crawling (if that late). Maybe Dahlberg should contact Cliffy and coordinate matching percentages or amounts to be donated.

    • Jonny 5 - Dec 21, 2010 at 11:54 AM

      nyyankeefanforever, Some of you Yankee fans aren’t taking this failed off season too well are you? It’s as if many are big babies stamping their feet. No you don’t get to throw it in everyone’s faces that you signed the biggest name in FA ,again….

      We now have a “big market team” in Philly and you’ll have to get used to it.

    • yankeesfanlen - Dec 21, 2010 at 11:58 AM

      Uh, I like your sentiments really, but doesn’t Tom Boswell write for The Washington Post?

      • Utley's Hair - Dec 21, 2010 at 12:06 PM

        I’ll admit I don’t know Tom Boswell. But if he does write for the Post, I retract my comment regarding that article.

      • yankeesfanlen - Dec 21, 2010 at 12:26 PM

        Not you, Hair, I was trying to correct that poor knockoff nyyankeefanforever.

      • nyyankeefanforever - Dec 21, 2010 at 12:41 PM

        He belongs to the Washington Post Syndicate of columnists and writers, and frequently writes columns on spec at the request of the syndicate’s members. The column was written for and published first by the Times, then showed up in the Post and elsewhere the next day. ….Love how some of these guys don’t even appear to know who he is, or somehow believe the Times is a local paper like the rags they follow their know-nothing homer beat writers in. Fact: The Sox made a guy who never hit 20 homers or 100 rbis, will be hitting lefty in a righty ballyard, is a career .275 there, has historically failed miserably playing the Monster, and is a speed player who refuses to play CF or bat lead off the highest-paid outfielder in history. Fact: Phillies have thus far done absolute zero to replace Werth’s offensive output this off-season, relying instead on their core guys to bounce back from injury years take up that slack. Fact: After Crawford and Gonzalez, the Red Sox are relying on most of their pitching AND batting order to bounce back from injury years. Last fact: Of the five greatest four-man pitching rotations in history based on collective ERA, none have won a ring together. That’s N-O-N-E.

        Enjoy the Kool-Aid while you can, guys. Yankee fans can certainly appreciate what it feels like to have your dreams dashed. The only difference with us is, when our dreams get dashed, it happens in the playoffs. Would love to see how many here picked the Phillies to repeat last year, or the picked the Red Sox to repeat the year before….or, for that matter, picked the Giants last year. Spare me the prognosticating and stick to hopes and dreams and facts. You’ll sound eminently more rational, objective and intelligent.

      • Utley's Hair - Dec 21, 2010 at 1:11 PM

        Len, I knew you were talking to him, but I wanted to correct myself based on your comment.

        nyyankeefanforever, I am not a moron. I know the Times. I’ve read it quite often and I like it for national and international news and politics. It is considered a national paper, just like the Post, LA Times, etc. However, that does not include the sports section, columnists and writers. Sports is handled more regionally, and, if you like, locally. So the Times in general? Not a local rag. The Times sports? Local rag with a local bent.

        And I seem to remember two years ago, when your hopes and dreams were dashed by facts—and mathematics—when the Wankers failed to make the playoffs.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 21, 2010 at 1:12 PM

        Fact: The Sox made a guy who never hit 20 homers or 100 rbis, will be hitting lefty in a righty ballyard, is a career .275 there, has historically failed miserably playing the Monster, and is a speed player who refuses to play CF or bat lead off the highest-paid outfielder in history.

        338 PA over his career, small sample size alert.

        Fact: Phillies have thus far done absolute zero to replace Werth’s offensive output this off-season, relying instead on their core guys to bounce back from injury years take up that slack.

        Some analysts believe a run saved is equivalent to a run scored. However, I’m sure at a certain point you start to hit diminishing returns (for instance dropping from 4 to 3 is far more important than 2 to 1 considering the offensive prowess the last twenty years). So wrong here

        Fact: After Crawford and Gonzalez, the Red Sox are relying on most of their pitching AND batting order to bounce back from injury years

        Wait what? How is this a knock against the Sox? Unless you think Pedroia’s, Youk’s and Ellsbury’s injuries are somehow a prelude of future injuries? Ortiz ended up having the best DH year in the AL, but the Sox lost major time from their starting LF, CF, 1B, and 2B. You’d expect bounceback years from those players.

        Last fact: Of the five greatest four-man pitching rotations in history based on collective ERA, none have won a ring together. That’s N-O-N-E.

        See comment one about sample size. 338PA is bad, but basing a conclusion on a sample size of five(!) is hilarious.

  12. Jonny 5 - Dec 21, 2010 at 1:07 PM

    Spare me the prognosticating and stick to hopes and dreams and facts. You’ll sound eminently more rational, objective and intelligent.

    I scratched my head for 2 minutes before I gave up trying to figure that one out. I mean you were prognosticating (predicting) things too, so that doesn’t even make sense if “sticking to hopes and dreams and facts” made any sense, which it doesn’t either.

    • Utley's Hair - Dec 21, 2010 at 1:18 PM

      Wouldn’t rational and objective intelligence tell you that hopes, dreams and facts rarely coexist? And objective? I don’t even know where to start with his lecture on objectivity.

  13. nyyankeefanforever - Dec 21, 2010 at 1:22 PM

    @Jonny5 Sorry your head itches. I just meant anyone trying to pick champs at this stage of the season is just silly. I have never ever heard or seen a Yankee fan presume to call the Yankees a lock for a ring in any year, and I can’t believe how many others seem to be anointing the Phillies and Sox so readily. Seems to me MLB is really starting to spread the wealth contenderwise in recent years and it doesnt take much to upset the best laid plans. The Lee deal would’ve been nice but I don’t know a Yankee fan who didn’t think the back end three or four years Cashman offered up didn’t smel like a replay of so many other misguided long-term deals we’ve been saddled with in the past. The biggest value of that deal to the Yankees was not having to face him for the remainder of his effective professional career.

    Back on topic, Lee seems like a nice guy and it seems to me most of these guys with megacontracts always have philanthropic foundations and image guys from their agencies who keep them busy giving back to their communities. I regret failing to mention up top how much I enjoyed and agreed with Craig’s take on Dahlberg’s ridiculous rant. Thanks Craig, it needed saying.

    • Utley's Hair - Dec 21, 2010 at 1:38 PM

      “I have never ever heard or seen a Yankee fan presume to call the Yankees a lock for a ring in any year”
      —Well, you need to open your eyes and ears.

      And, Fact: After making comments, in order to get back on topic, you must have been on that topic at one point previously. You can’t just say “back on topic” and just start talking about a new topic.

  14. nyyankeefanforever - Dec 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM

    @churchof…whatever Small sample sizes are the Sabergeek’s argument when the numbers don’t go their way. And I wasn’t trying to knock the Sox or anybody….just made the point that post-injury years seldom prove to be among a player’s better ones. But i suppose you’ll need to refute even that basic fact so I’ll just leave you with …we’ll see.

    • Detroit Michael - Dec 21, 2010 at 2:32 PM

      You wrote: “Small sample sizes are the Sabergeek’s argument when the numbers don’t go their way.”

      That is completely incorrect. Any rational baseball fan understands that acquiring starting pitchers with excellent ERA track records increases a team’s chances of winning a championship. You, a Yankee fan-boy apparently, wish to avoid admitting that obvious fact. Instead, you start with the conclusion that you must diminish the importance of Cliff Lee’s signing with the Phillies, so you concoct a small sample size factoid based on five pitching staffs. When someone correctly points out that your “fact” is nearly meaningless because of a small sample size, instead of defending your argument (which is hopeless), you issue a same “Sabergeek” insult.

      The numbers — adding a top starting pitcher of course increases one’s chances of winning a championship — do not go your way. Please stop obfuscating.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 21, 2010 at 3:48 PM

      whatever Small sample sizes are the Sabergeek’s argument when the numbers don’t go their way

      No, it’s a way of refuting when something happens only a couple of times and people want to draw conclusions based on that. To put it another way, flipping a coin should yield a 50/50 result (believe it’s more like 51/49 but i digress). However, you’d like to flip a coin 5 times, see it come up heads and draw a conclusion that it’ll never come up tails.

      Also, there’s a terrible causation vs correlation strawmen in your above statement as well that I somehow missed.

      just made the point that post-injury years seldom prove to be among a player’s better ones

      That’s not what you said though. Players don’t become better players after they are injured, but they tend to play better than the injured year. Don’t you agree. So the mere fact that the Sox should have a healthy Pedroia, Youk and Ellsbury is better than a team with an injured Pedroia, Youk and Ellsbury. This isn’t exactly rocket science.

      Now if you wanted to say that a team of Gonzalez + Youk is a zero sum benefit to Beltre/Youk, that’s a different story. But that isn’t what you said nor implied.

  15. nyyankeefanforever - Dec 21, 2010 at 2:04 PM

    @Utley I can’t? Really? Because you say so? Well, you’re clearly very wrong about that because I just did it. LOL! And btw, you’re also very wrong about the Times sports section and just proved it. And Boswell isn’t some jock-sniffing ownership-kissing beat writer. He writes books about sports and isn’t beholden to team management for free tickets, locker room access and unsourced quotes and rumors. But glad to hear you read the rest of the paper. Keep up the good work….sheesh.

    • Utley's Hair - Dec 21, 2010 at 2:24 PM

      No, you can’t by definition get “Back on topic” if you never were to begin with.

      And I’m very interested in how I proved myself wrong. Why not enlighten me?

      By the way, about Boswell, read my response to yankeesfanlen. I admitted to not knowing Boswell, and I retracted my comment on him due to that.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. W. Myers (5199)
  2. M. Kemp (3582)
  3. J. Upton (2873)
  4. J. Kang (2869)
  5. W. Middlebrooks (2760)
  1. C. McGehee (2760)
  2. M. Morse (2440)
  3. A. Rios (2423)
  4. C. Headley (2233)
  5. J. Peavy (1959)