T.R. on Kenny Rogers
T.R. Sullivan has a cryptic piece up on his blog, regarding the Rangers' interest in Kenny Rogers.
I'm not sure what it means, exactly, but check it out...
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Cryptic is right...
...what?
I thought I was reading
he's saying
my question is, does he really need to write like this? maybe i'd let him get away with it if I wasn't so anti-Sullivan for his obvious Rangers biases of late. I read the Bird-watching Rangers mid-season grades from Grant - but at least those don't need multiple reads.
I had to google nate wright and doug phelan but after figuring out who they were, its not like I appreciate the article more or anything
not just cryptic....
Bottom line: Why would Rogers apologize?
Rumination: Why does Hicks make it so hard for Rogers to be a Ranger?
A take
Rogers is an affinity type attraction to Ranger fans (not those whose noses filled with unknown fluid when Rodriguez and his camera went down).
Hicks stands as a barrier to entry to Rogers returning. The apology is simply a shield, since Tom won't admit counterfeiting a deal that would have kept Rogers a Ranger (after perhaps, a GM assured Boras/Rogers their agreement would work).
The Hunter, Bonds, ARod et al rhapsody is background music for a solo JD will have to sing to account for things, later.
All of my thoughts are pure speculation. I did notice that the comments were rather polarized, comment to comment. And I wonder where TR got the notion to write in 19th century oratorical style.
by Ed Coffin on Nov 15, 2007 12:02 PM CST reply actions
great
now someone needs to translate your translation
Call it
:)
by Ed Coffin on Nov 15, 2007 12:45 PM CST up reply actions
this has to be...
That really cracked me up ab!
Rebuilding
Yep
by Ed Coffin on Nov 15, 2007 12:50 PM CST up reply actions
Mentors
I thought Kevin Millwood was a mentor?
I don't know
by Ed Coffin on Nov 15, 2007 1:25 PM CST up reply actions
If we are looking to sign a mentor
by Brian Thomas on Nov 15, 2007 1:39 PM CST up reply actions
I know he has already...
and remember
I know I'm not.
Huh?
Future
Why in the world would we want to sign a 43 yr. old pitcher for 2 years if we are in a development stage?
On the contrary, I would be looking for ways to get rid of Millwood and Padilla right now, and giving all our young arms an audition, rather than add some other retread to the rotation.
its a good question
As Eleanor wrote in the comments section, we need to just put Hurley in the rotation and let him get 150+ innings as a starter. I guess this makes sense if you want to get rid of Padilla but that seems like a quick hook on a guy who is relatively a lot younger and a guy you would be selling at the absolute lowest you could.
You know what I was thinking?
by Brian Thomas on Nov 15, 2007 1:10 PM CST up reply actions
If you have to wonder ...
by inactive lsb user on Nov 15, 2007 8:51 PM CST up reply actions
Maybe
FA predictions are less accurate than tea leaves. Every team considers every FA a target, with some FAs being considered more than others. Who lands a FA is not just dependent on the team that signs him, but also the relative level of interest from other teams. Like the Rangers, no team wants to tip anyone off on their plans. So the FA period is one big fat batch of unconfirmed and unfulfilled rumors. Nothing is remotely known until the player signs (see Barajas, Rod).
Every Rangers
well
Also, I'll never forget that when Drese and Barajas got into their fist fight, Kenny Rogers calmly walked across the dugout and stood in front of the dugout cameras. Just something a veteran would know about that a young guy would appreciate.
and, presumably, if he pitched well, you could trade him away to a contender, but I guess he might get pissed. but seriously, who cares? as long as there was no no-trade clause, I could care less what he thought of me after July 31st.
stood in front of the cameras
Kenny rules ... indifferent to signing him, though.
by inactive lsb user on Nov 15, 2007 9:00 PM CST up reply actions
I think his point is that the Rangers might have
Sounds too conspiratorial and hateful to be a credible theory from my perspective, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
I actually have no idea what it is trying to say.
One thing is for sure
I do, however, think that you had a credible interpretation of the silkily veiled masterpiece that T.R. graced us with, kindly.
by inactive lsb user on Nov 15, 2007 9:05 PM CST up reply actions
Brilliant,
- The moth & the flame
- The Rangers & Rogers deserve each other
- A marriage made in convenience
- Neither regards the other with esteem
- The bizarre descends on unsuspecting souls (re; Ranger fans)
- Hicks & Rogers are one of a kind
- We are devoted to a game inhabited by those not always worthy of admiration
- Rogers ostensibly serves as, the pursuit of pitching
- Be careful what you wish for
- The ends may justify the means
by ncrangerman on Nov 15, 2007 10:32 PM CST reply actions

by 


















