-=> Quoting Ed Grinnell to Scott Zolnoski <=-
 EG> @MSGID: 1:170/1701 320f978a
 EG> The Braves traded Scott Zolnoski to the Pirates for saying:
 
 SZ> farther in the playoffs this year than last (assuming they get there in
 SZ> the first place!), because they rely too much on home runs for my taste.
 EG> Gee, I guess that the 1927 Yankees should give up up their title since
 EG> they don't meet the Zolnoski factor of winning.:-^ 
I simply said that I don't like teams that rely on home runs to win.  Must
you respond to EVERYthing I say with a personal attacks and vague
insults?!!
 SZ> That's quite a stance; you're not going to respond because you believe
 SZ> it to be untrue?!  I'm guessing you weren't in debate in high school...
 EG> Oh, I bet I should put my hand over my heart because you've wounded me
 EG> so badly (Whimper). Gee, I bet Ted Turner was wishing that he had
 EG> taken debating in high school while he was building an entertainment
 EG> empire and winning that America's Cup.:-^ 
 Pathetic insults and childish displays don't change the fact that you
 refuse to respond to my point, but merely brush it aside.  Obviously,
 your idea of a discussion is "I'm right and you're wrong."  Given that,
 I'm beginning to wonder why I bother responding to these messages....
 I'll make it simple.  If the differences in team revenues are meaningless,
 as I think you've been saying, why are the owners pushing for revenue
 sharing in the new basic agreement?
 SZ> I agree that a minumum would be a good idea.  How do you feel about the
 SZ> possiblity of a salary cap?  I haven't heard much about that in the
 EG> There will be no salary cap. I mentioned it only as WHAT was wanted
 EG> not as what is going to happen. The cap was replaced by a luxury tax
 EG> that creates a sort of cap by taxing teams that exceed it. This
 EG> doesn't mean that a team can't spend over the maximum, they'd just pay
 EG> a tax on whatever they spend over it.
 I only brought up the salary cap as something new to consider.  Quit being
 so defensive, and just read what I wrote!  I wasn't saying it was a good
 idea, I was merely asking what you thought.
 EG> The Cowboys couldn't sell a seat (let alone one of their luxury boxes)
 EG> when they were losing but now that they're winning, they're selling
 EG> out their games and not only are they selling out luxury boxes,
 EG> they've added more to the ones that they already had (They lead
 EG> EVERYONE in luxury boxes with 300+ in Texas Stadium).
 Good point, everyone loves a winner.  Just look at how many people
 are suddenly sporting Cleveland Indians merchandise and attending their
 games.  The new stadium is obviously a draw, but that isn't enough to
 attract fans forever.  It will be interesting to see what happens when
 the Brewers get a new stadium if the team has not improved.  I've read
 that the Angel's stadium may also get renovated, and I'll be curious
 to see if it improves attendance.
 EG> Bud Selig wants everyone to think that a new stadium with luxury boxes
 EG> will save his franchise but I ask you, just what luxury boxes were
 EG> being sold by the Cleveland Indians or Atlanta Braves when they were
 EG> getting more fans in the stands after they started winning? When the
 EG> Brewers are winning, people DO go to the games and when they're
 EG> jerking the fans around, they stay at home and wait for the Packers'
 EG> first preseason game. 
 Again, I actually agree with you! (Better write that one down!)  It's
 something that drives me crazy.  I've never been a fair-weather fan;
 I prefer to stick with my fave teams through thick and thin.  But it's
 amazing how many former Royals fans now just sit and wait for football
 season in Kansas City.  It used to be that the Chiefs were the joke
 and the Royals were the contenders, and the Royals were the consistent
 fan draw.  I'll never understand how fans can just change allegience and
 root for a new team every year...
... People should get beat up for statin' their beliefs TMBG    
--- Blue Wave v2.12 [NR]
---------------