Stuff that doesn't get enough press

Good to hear

It is nice to see the ownership doing things for the community, and even 'taking care of' their most ardent fanbase.

Of course, you'll always have someone griping that they don't do more. It's the nature of the beast.

by cavscout on Aug 31, 2007 2:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

the United Way donation, is whether the half mil is genuinely "new" money, which is certainly the impression Hall conveyed, or whether it's an historically budgeted write off that's now being exploited simply to sell tickets. Without seeing the books, it's impossible to say, but based on Hall's penchant for creating false impressions, I think it's a very fair question.

If it's new money, I dont have a gripe with it - some might argue that a ballclub tying "charity" directly to ticket sales is intrinsically crass (ie if it's about helping others, why not just donate the money with no strings attached like most ballclubs'UW donations - or is little Misty going to be denied her ventilator if we dont reach some sales quota?). If it's not new money however, essentially an accounting gimmick to mislead the philanthropic public into buying tix under false pretenses, then that ought to be exposed.

Regarding Hall's letter, if I had 5 grand invested in season tickets, some coupons for overpriced junk dangled my way around renewal time probably wouldnt inspire an online paean to the FO, but that's just me :-) As long as enough folks feel it's a "very cool gesture" though, it's a sensible marketing strategy, which I have no problem with. I just think it's worth noting that that's all it is - it has nothing to do with "being nice".

Neither do I share your apparent frustration that Dbacks charitable efforts somehow dont get enough press. Charitable affiliations are mentioned on every single gamecast and extended feel good stories are advertised regularly (some might say "endlessly") on Dbacks' magazine shows and during selected games. Is there another org in town (ie bank, law firm, corp) whose donations get more press than the Dbacks? Maybe, but I cant think of one of the top of my head.

by Diamondhacks on Sep 1, 2007 12:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Wow....

Diamondhacks hates everything ABOUT this team. Even hates their charity efforts.

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 1, 2007 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Great summary ;-)

by Diamondhacks on Sep 1, 2007 2:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hacks, I'll give you....

....that the gift of concessions coupons to season ticket holders is good marketing and possibly nothing else, not that the intent should make a difference. I DO think it's a nice reward to those who have stuck with the team through thick and thin, though. Even if the only intention is to convince them to stick with the team longer.

However, I must disagree with your biting critique of the D'backs' charity effort. Let us consider your possibility: that the Diamondbacks had already budgeted this chunk of cash to go to the United Way.

There are two very simple responses.

So what? The money goes to charity.
So what? Why does it matter? The money goes to charity.

Hacks, you're a fan. Please act like one.

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 1, 2007 4:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dont think you understand...

the hypothetical. In it, the money from ticket sales does not go to charity, not in any real sense.

Let's assume the Dbacks give exactly 3M to United Way every year since 98. I'm sure that's wrong, but if you want to assume their donations go up every year(ie based on inflation,etc) that's fine too, the same principle applies. And in the spirit of my hypothetical, let's assume K&M assessed attendance was failing and decided to extract or "unbudget" $500K from that budgeted $3M to try to spur late season ticket sales. By misleading fans into believing that ticket sales coming out of their pockets are actually generating additional donations.

Are you saying you dont take issue with that kind of deception? And my taking issue with it makes me less of a baseball fan?

Incidentally, the only reason I chimed in here is because G Dub addressed his post to me by name and, unlike Jim, doesnt have a history of locking up threads under false pretense when things arent going his way. So, I thought I'd share some perspective here. I hope that's copasetic to everyone in this fair land.

by Diamondhacks on Sep 1, 2007 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Same old garbage

different day.
Got any facts to back up your hate of this club? didn't think so!
Wow, news flash, this team cannot do anything right in your eyes! <rolling eyes!>

by unnamedDBacksfan on Sep 1, 2007 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, I get it. It's very clever.

How's that working out for you? Being clever?

I didn't say anything ABOUT ticket sales in my post, if you read. I said that the Dbacks are donating money to charity, so who cares about the circumstances? They could rob a bank to get the money but if it's going to the United Way, I couldn't care less how they got it. (And as a former teller, I don't take lightly to robbing banks!) I don't quite understand 1. your automatic assumption that the Dbacks are just doing something nefarious, and 2. your automatic stance against ANYTHING this team does. THAT'S why I call you less of a fan. If the team's doing something nice, even if it's not 100% altruistic, either say something nice or don't say anything at all.

I would also agree with johngordonma's contention that if the fact that it weren't new money ever got out, the Dbacks would be CRUCIFIED.

Incidentally, you are, of course, more than free to share your opinion. I don't appreciate the jab at Jim, though. I thought he locked that thread for good reason, after I read why.

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 1, 2007 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jim runs

a very top-notch blog site. Full of baseball information, which is a very far cry from that worthless site run by matty. All that whining got old after day one.

by unnamedDBacksfan on Sep 1, 2007 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reality vs. Hacks delusions

[ Incidentally, the only reason I chimed in here is because G Dub addressed his post to me by name and, unlike Jim, doesnt have a history of locking up threads under false pretense when things arent going his way. ]

Or, in reality, after your opinions were proved woefully ill-informed and badly-constructed, and you resorted to spiteful insults in an effort to drag things out. Still, feel free to stop posting here. Any. Time. You. Want.

by Jim McLennan on Sep 1, 2007 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Spiteful Insults?

Dream on. What I said had bite to it, but it was in response to your childish hissy declaring the debate "over", while willfully ridiculing (not rebutting)my argument. That's why the thread deteriorated. If I'm guilty of anything there, it's for being as thin skinned as you, and responding in kind, instead of just walking away from your petulance. I hardly started that fire.

If you're tired of debating me, that's fine. You dont owe me a rebuttal. But if you're "done", dont be such a whiny pris about it, hiding behind selectively enforced "ground rules", then boasting elsewhere on the site that your "evidence" won the thread - when in fact you physically locked it. I consider that cowardly - and beneath you.

by Diamondhacks on Sep 2, 2007 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your "argument"

Got the response it deserved, because - as here - there was a striking absence of facts to back it up. Sorry you took that so personally, but this is not your cozy little site, where biggerunit and his chums kiss your butt and agree with your wild, groundless and paranoid delusions. This one about fake charity does mark a new low-water mark though.

by Jim McLennan on Sep 2, 2007 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jim, if you werent so eager...

to squash threatening dissent via hyperbolic brushstroke, it might actually dawn on you that we dissenters are quite a varied lot. My "buttkissing chum" biggerunit, for example, chastised me rather harshly the other day - on my site. We acknowledged each other's points, but still fundementally disagree. He wasnt banned, or warned, or belittled, or mischaracterized. Imagine that.

And thx for smearing the entirety of my loyal readership, like this brit, who's more intelligent and a better writer than either one of us. So "fact-based" of you ;-)

by Diamondhacks on Sep 3, 2007 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of smearing...

[ And thx for smearing the entirety of my loyal readership, like this brit, who's more intelligent and a better writer than either one of us. So "fact-based" of you ;-) ]

And what, pray tell, does this "intelligent" reader think of your smear campaign against Hall? I must have missed his comments on that.

by Jim McLennan on Sep 3, 2007 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chastised? And harshly? Oh, please.

I can't believe you would try to characterize those comments from biggerunit as harsh chastisement. Or that you had the temerity to trot that out as an example of your magnanimous nature - as evidenced by the fact you somehow resisted the urge to ban, warn, or belittle such a blistering attack from a poster. <rolls eyes>

I'll grant you biggerunit isn't a sycophant of yours, but more of your constant beatdown of the current front office. His posts are almost exclusively of the me too variety - unless he's harshly chastising you for taking your foot off Hall's (et al) throat.

by cavscout on Sep 4, 2007 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Harshly Chastising

Actually, cav, that's a fair criticism. Sparring w/ Jim lately, I sometimes forget what one looks like ;-)

"Harshly" isnt right - good catch. "Criticised" in place of "chastised" will do fine, also.

by Diamondhacks on Sep 4, 2007 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

FO charity

Couple things here. First, of course both of these moves aren't don't out of sheer, unadulterated generosity. Nothing is ever that simple. But the fact that the D'Backs (as any smart business does) are trying to improve their public perception through such moves doesn't negate the fact that it is, generous nonetheless.

Second, I don't think there is any way Hall et al advertise this without it being new money. They're savvy enough to know that if that came out they would be KILLED. And really, I'd be at the head of that parade. I don't see anyway that is the case. So, assuming they are not lying, I think the United Way gesture is a fabulous one.

Third, feel free to throw those vouchers for that "overpriced junk" my way, Hacks. I don't know what merchandise you've bought at the park, but nothing I've bought I'd consider either overpriced or junk.

Finally, in terms of the D'Backs self-promotion of charitable affiliations... first, that is par for the course in any franchise. Just watch TBS or WGN. I've never been to a ballpark or listened to a radio broadcast of any team that doesn't do just that. Is it self-promotion? Sure. But does it also help out the charities. You betcha. If I'm working for United Way, I don't cringe every time we're plugged in a D'Backs broadcast because I think we're being used. No way. I'm thrilled for the pub. It's mutually beneficial, and that's what's beautiful.

I just don't see the reason to paint Collangelo white and this FO black (or vice versa). They both have their positives and their negatives. Collangelo was willing to do anything to win but lacked baseball savvy (thank heavens he had Rizzo on board... we're living on his legacy right now). This FO has a much higher baseball IQ (although of course they've made some dumb moves... you can't always win), but they clearly came in expecting that D'Backs fans cared a lot less about our history than we do and have made some gaffes because of that. Furthermore, we've yet to see how committed they are to winning when the time is ripe. We should find that out in the years to come.

I just don't see the reason for polarization here.

by johngordonma on Sep 1, 2007 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

John, thx for your comments...

I agree with much of what you said and disagree elsewhere, but let me say first I appreciate your tone more than anything else; the fact that you dont routinely mischaracterize or dismissively ridicule what I say, even when you disagree with it. I think it demonstrates a degree of intellectual integrity and...well, I'll stop there.

Two things attracted me to snakepit. One, I really admire the effort Jim puts into it and his site is deservedly popular. Two, I feel he has certain settled opinions on things that I take exception to - and I take exception to the way he frames, and increasingly steers, some of the debates.

Regarding polarization, I'm certainly not going to paint myself as an innocent bystander - especially at first. It's clear, at least to me, we've influenced each other's thinking - I think that's a healthy thing.

But this baiting and polarization goes both ways too. Jim has acknowledged the baiting part, if not the polarization. It's interesting to note that after I vanished for several days (after Jim locked a thread), Diamondhacks "magically" reappeared, more prominently than ever despite my absence, courtesy of several snide Diamondhacks references from Jim. You'd think if I was so "tiresome", he'd leave it alone, but he obviously cant or wont. He's dredging me up every chance he gets. (Incidentally, I went back and reread the linked threads and stand by every word I said in July, despite Jim's attempt to condense the meaning out of what was actually said a month after the fact. Even today, he's crowing how he "exactly predicted" the Aug 16-12 record. I encourage anyone to read the FULL links and make their own judgements on these matters. )

I'm here today because G Dub called me by name , arguing that the FO is full of generous gestures (ie "take that, hacks" in an innocuous way, nothing personal). I responded, hopefully in the same spirit, by challenging some of his assumptions, asking what I feel are entirely plausible questions that no one else in town is asking. Let me be clear (again): I never claimed the Dbacks misallocated funds or reduced their overall UW donations. I claimed Hall has a history of misleading the fans(at this stage I've made the editorial decision to call it "lying")and I've asserted, here and elsewhere that his rationale for the donations(ie attendance exceeding expectations) is suspect.

They're savvy enough to know that if that came out they would be KILLED.

Agreed. They're also plenty savvy to know this would never see the light of day. It's plausible precisely because it's so risk free. Who's gonna even bring up, let alone pursue, this possibility besides me? Nick Piecoro? Buck on azcentral.com ;-) Would UW "push back" a big donor in town provided UW receives their "expected" level of donations one way or another? Maybe, but I doubt it. Only the fans would be victimized(fooled), making it a victimless "crime". If the Dbacks deceived the public on this, it would take an authoritative investigation to bring it to light. The US Congress couldnt make heads or tails of MLB's books - no one foresees a remotely threatening inquiry here.

Another reason it's plausible, IMO, is because Derrick Hall is an information controlling, message manipulating lying sack. Hall stated the donations were a "reward" to the fan base, for exceeding the FOs attendance projections. This runs so counter to Mr Hall's well documented company line well into early August that attendance was a nagging problem, as to render this sudden rationale of gate success highly implausible. You moan about lagging attendance all year and a week later slash loge ticket prices and offer gimmicks to drive sales, suddenly praising the same fans your broadcasters were excoriating earlier in the month? Sorry, I dont buy the "reward" angle. This is a club suddenly desperate to sell tickets. That could be a great thing, or not so great, depending on how desperate they are.

I applauded them at length recently for what I believe to be their first ticket promotion worth a damn in almost three years. I'm glad to do it actually - if it's tedious for you guys to read my rants about the same people over and over again, I can vouch they're sometimes tedious to write too, even if I think they deserve it and it broadens local debate. If they're finally getting serious about attracting more fans, after three years of pricing suppression and insensitivity, I'm all for that.

Cheers

by Diamondhacks on Sep 1, 2007 9:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Takes one to know one?

[ Derrick Hall is an information controlling, message manipulating lying sack. ]

Well, I think this pretty much shows exactly the light in which all your opinions need to be interpreted. Way to keep the debate impersonal and on the high ground.

When you have any actual evidence for your theories - rather than making wild, unsubstantiated claims which would require a vast conspiracy involving both the Diamondbacks and the recipients of their charity, on both a local and national level - get back to us.

Until then, I'll be treating your opinion on this matter with the derision it deserves. Where should I send your tin-foil hat? :-)

by Jim McLennan on Sep 2, 2007 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Me too?

I'm worried about Derrick Hall and the nefarious Dbacks trying to control MY mind too. Can I also get a tinfoil hat Jim?

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 2, 2007 2:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Takes One to Know One, indeed

Way to keep the debate impersonal and on the high ground.

Fair point. I clearly take liberties with principles( ie Hall) that I wouldnt ordinarily take with fellow posters. Is that hypocritical, distasteful? Maybe so - maybe I take a little too much glee in that and could tone that down - especially on your site.

But at least realize you do the same thing, calling Eric Byrnes a media whore, prostitute, etc. And loads of vicious comments about Russ Ortiz; even Luis Gonzalez. Would you address them similarly if they visited for an online chat?

Regarding Hall lying/misleading, the hard part for me isnt finding evidence, it's cataloging all of it and knowing where to start. The "lowest prices in baseball" lie, the "attendance" lie, the multiple "colors" lies, the lie about the $5 seats, the lie about the $1 seats, his continuous misrepresentation as to the # of season ticket accts. I'm sure I can find more quite easily - he's an endless source for this stuff - the satire pretty much writes itself. But now doesnt seem like a good time, since we're both hot under the collar, and if our past sparring matches are any indication, it may not be worth it, not with you anyway. I guess that's what you've been trying to tell me all along. That these ideas will not be tolerated on your site. Not as long as you're in charge. I just assumed that someone who was such a good writer would be more open to that type of discussion, but you're just...not. This is a club, not a community. Which is fine, it's your blog. I just took you too literally.

by Diamondhacks on Sep 2, 2007 3:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow, Hacks....

You really ARE a cheery, humble fellow, aren't you?

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 2, 2007 3:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

we're almost to thirty posts, dude!!!!!!!!!!

by Diamondhacks on Sep 2, 2007 3:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Biting criticism, to be sure.

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 2, 2007 4:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly,

I had to laugh at that. :)

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 2, 2007 4:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you're a good sport

go dbacks

by Diamondhacks on Sep 2, 2007 4:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Minor Point

...making wild, unsubstantiated claims which would require a vast conspiracy involving both the Diamondbacks and the recipients of their charity, on both a local and national level

1.Vast conspiracy?

2.Involving the recipients?

3. On both a local & nat'l lvel?

Talk about unsubstantiated claims, Jim, yowza, I never said any of this was required in my scenario. I apologize if I didnt make that more clear. I'm thinking more of a quiet, internal, back office accounting switcheroo that can be easily rationalized by those I'm predisposed to distrust :-)

I thought it was doubly interesting that Hall, the communications czar, made the announcement. Dont the Dbacks have a Charity or Community Relations Exec, or a Ticket Exec that would typically be the point person on something like this? Of course, it's not shocking Hall did the honors - as I say, he's controlled every word to the general public for some time now. But if you were running a tight little scam, Hall would be the perfect guy to position it just so, with no screwups and a big wide, earnest looking smile.

by Diamondhacks on Sep 2, 2007 4:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Call the cops!

Let's see, you claim that the Diamondbacks are not actually giving any additional money to charity, that's they're merely trumpeting this $500K as a donation to United Way that was already promised. But no-one in the D-backs is saying anything about this, and no-one in United Way is saying anything either, even though they must have already known about this alleged cash. I've little doubt such a large donation would have been mentioned outside of the local branch too. But no-one in the entire organization is saying anything. And, of course, you also whine regarding the team forever trumpeting their charity. Where was the trumpeting regarding this alleged donation?

You are basically claiming fraud, on a very, very significant level. Interested parties to that would probably include the IRS, charity regulators and someone I think we can all agree is a real publicity whore, Joe Arpaio. If you genuinely believe this happened, I suggest you bring this matter to their attention, and let them take the appropriate action - failing to do so, would make you little better than the perpetrators. If there actually was any kind of criminal case to issue, I guarantee you Nick Piecoro and the Republic would be all over that: who was it that broke the Grimsley story? But why do I feel certain you're not going to do anything like that, because you know your claim is completely unfounded.

On the subject of Hall"s "lying", let's just demolish one of your claims, regarding Ticket prices. An independent survey found the team to have the lowest ticket prices in the majors. Not Derrick Hall - unless you now also believe TMI are part of the vast, Diamondbacks conspiracy. Now, you can argue all you want about how the survey was carried out, or about Hall's taking the figures and running with them, but he's got far better ground for such a statement than you have for most of yours.

And one final note. If you want to come here and discuss facts, you're very welcome. But be warned that I'm going to be far more aggressive about deleting posts which have no actual content and simply engage in unwarranted personal attacks - whether it be on me, or anyone else, and by you, or anyone else. This should help ensure we all do not get diverted into irrelevancies.

by Jim McLennan on Sep 2, 2007 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Princes" Among Men

An independent survey found the team to have the lowest ticket prices in the majors.

No. No it didnt. It found they had the lowest season ticket prices. That's a critical distinction, especially in Arizona. But you already "know" that. The last time we discussed this, I expounded on several aspects of that difference, incl links to other team's ticket sites, to take a closer look for yourself. IIRC, you dismissed this evidence as inconsequential.

Let me ask you this. Did you even look at the other team's ticket prices? Do you have even that much intellectual curiosity on this particular issue? Granted, I didnt provide you with an originally researched spreadsheet detailing all 30 team's actual price tiers - but is that, or something close to that, the threshold I'm held to, to be considered "fact based" in your world? While the President of the team we both chronicle (not some Joe who honestly misunderstood the TMI), willfully misleads a Valley of single ticket buyers with $13 ave claims, lowest MLB prices, etc?

I certainly dont expect you to share my unusual level of contempt for this strategy, but OTOH, why am I burdened with spoonfeeding you every morsel of definitive evidence available to man before you become even mildly interested in these substantive issues? You talk about tiresome :-) I think it's because, deep down, you dont really want to talk about them - not if it's going to compromise the veracity of your "Little Red Corvette" - at least not too much.
So you tend to pooh pooh inconvenient facts, or mischaracterise compelling contrarian arguments, rather than objectively assessing them. Admittedly, I do the same when clinging to my tattered 2001 album, "Purple Reign: When Yanks Cry" But I can recognize it, laugh about it a little, and even let go here and there (like about the Arte Moreno/JC spat.) But I get the sense that, apart from an occasional bitch about the Diamond Club, you're not letting go. Not of your fandom. I'm not asking you to do that. But of this brand of results-based subjectivity that, apparently, fuels that fandom.

You've done it again on this thread, fabricating vast conspiracies and criminal cases; embellishing/misrepresenting, or perhaps genuinely misunderstanding, the little victimless, back office wink wink I laid out.

Let's step back a sec. Aside from whether this deception actually happened, aside from that , do you think Jeff Moorad is capable, on an ethical level, of championing something like this? Here, I'll make this easy for you. If Jerry Colangelo ever acted similarly [drumroll], it would not shock me. OK. I understand why someone chummy with Moorad would find my scenario "tiresome", but why are you so outraged by my little speculation, as to turn it into Watergate or Vietnam? I'm just tired of repeating myself and spoonfeeding you every last morsel to even hope to enter into an open, free wheeling discussion.

If you want to come here and discuss facts, you're very welcome.

Appreciate the sentiment, Jim, but it just isnt true. It's a false invitation - or at least it has been. I'll take your word for it that you're sincere in trying to be fair, but I just dont feel you're ready to discuss a number of issues in a dispassionate way. I'm partly to blame for that. Maybe mostly. Sorry for that. But if you envision yourself as some dispassionate moderator, nurturing the entire spectrum of fact based discussion and (heaven forbid!)S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N, then you really ought to take a closer look in the mirror.

...I'm going to be far more aggressive about deleting posts which have no actual content...

So, you will unilaterally control the flow of information here - more than you already do? Well, that's one way to go, I suppose. I certainly cant stop you. But let me suggest this, because your blog has so many things going for it(thx to you) and I'd hate to see that potential go unrealized. Disseminate clear ground rules that everyone can understand and abide by. Get some input from other readers. And consider sharing the policeman's badge - not with me - but you've got some intelligent, fair minded people here who, if willing, are more than capable, IMO.

That's my two cents. Good luck.

by Diamondhacks on Sep 3, 2007 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you for contacting customer support.

[ No. No it didnt. It found they had the lowest season ticket prices. ]

From the TMR site: "The FCI includes: two adult average price tickets; two child average price tickets; four small soft drinks; two small beers; four hot dogs; two programs; parking; and two adult-size caps." No mention of season tickets there as such, but if you have evidence to the contrary, by all means...

Still, let's give you that one, for now. Regardless, TMR will have adopted the same standards for every team in the majors - they're not comparing our season-ticket prices with Boston's single-game prices. So it would seem an entirely fair comparison. And even if they were using season-ticket prices, I believe that represents the majority of sales. So wouldn't that be the most sensible bench-mark to use, rather than the prices paid by a minority of attendees?

But as we've seen elsewhere (the ESPN poll), when the facts do not fit your world-view, the facts must be wrong. Your agenda in these matters is so painfully obvious: that is why I treat everything you say with such a huge degree of skepticism. Sure, Derrick Hall has an agenda: he's got a business to promote, and so, naturally, he's going to do so, and I treat his statements appropriately. But your own agenda was made very, very clear by the very amusing list of demands over on your blog as well as your previous comments about Hall. I think I know who I'm more inclined to trust. A clue: it's not the person who has an axe to grind, but can't do it, because of the F-sized chip on his shoulder.

[ I get the sense that, apart from an occasional bitch about the Diamond Club, you're not letting go. Not of your fandom. I'm not asking you to do that. But of this brand of results-based subjectivity that, apparently, fuels that fandom. ]

LOL. Diamondhacks lecturing me on "subjectivity". Folks, we're truly through the looking-glass now. Previous criticism of existing management have been far from limited to the Diamond Club. The signing of Russ Ortiz? You might recall me mildly chastising that. :-) The extension of Eric Byrnes? I was one of those before the deal, providing reasons why it shouldn't happen. Hall's plan to shut off sections in the upper deck? Hated it. Sure, generally, I think ownership has done a fine job of digging themselves out of the cess-pit of debt created by Colangelo, practising fiscal restraint on a scale unseen in the Jerry era. But they have made mistakes, and I've not held back there at all. I have no agenda. Hall doesn't pay my wages, and nor did he sully the memory of my saintly idol. That gives me a freedom to be far more neutral than...well, let's just say, some people.

[ why are you so outraged by my little speculation, as to turn it into Watergate or Vietnam? ]

Because, as mentioned, this marks a new low-water mark for you. Previously, you've had at least some grounds for your claims. But this time, it's simply a fabrication with no evidence to back it up at all - you've been asked for this, multiple times here, and all you've given us is your wife rolling her eyes [which if yours is like mine, probably happens every third time you mention baseball. :-)] You're also not just claiming ill-will or embellishment, you are suggesting felonious behavior by ownership. That isn't a "little speculation", it's a very serious claim, especially when repeated multiple times, in a variety of locations, as you have done. I'm sure your CEO Fortune 500 wife would not be happy if someone accused her of criminal behavior.

[ let me suggest this, because your blog has so many things going for it(thx to you) and I'd hate to see that potential go unrealized. Disseminate clear ground rules that everyone can understand and abide by. Get some input from other readers. And consider sharing the policeman's badge - not with me - but you've got some intelligent, fair minded people here who, if willing, are more than capable, IMO. ]

I'm sorry, what part of "deleting posts which have no actual content and simply engage in unwarranted personal attacks," was in any way unclear? If you or anyone else wants to engage in that kind of thing, go join your pal biggerunit on the MLB board. Otherwise, you're welcome here and there should be no problems. But I don't tell you how to run your site, and would never presume to do so. I will, however, pass your comments to the appropriate department. Please let us know if we can help you in any other way. :-)

by Jim McLennan on Sep 3, 2007 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yawn

[ Without seeing the books, it's impossible to say, but based on Hall's penchant for creating false impressions, I think it's a very fair question. ]

And your actual evidence for this insinuation would be...

None at all. Thought not. Next, please. Your obsession with twisting everything into the most negative way possible, is really quite tiresome.

by Jim McLennan on Sep 1, 2007 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tiresome, yes...

...but I don't mind the contrary voice. The "black helicopter" view of the D'Backs runs a little thin at time, but I don't mind the voice of dissent in our midst as long as we're cordial. It's not as though Hacks is an idiot like azphan. His views may be out there, but he's certainly smart and informed.

It's when things devolve to personal insults that I find Hacks (or anyone else) irksome. There are plenty of those types of blogs (azcentral.com, for one)... and I'd rather chew on an old pair of shoes than get involved in those sorts of blog-melees.

by johngordonma on Sep 1, 2007 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good concept

[ The "black helicopter" view of the D'Backs ]

LOL. I like that. I'm all in favor of contrarian voices. But as with my interest in conspiracy theories, such voices need to be backed up with evidence if they are to be any more than a passing amusement in a "let's laugh at the tin-foil hat brigade" way. Some of his past comments make sense, but this one is, thus far, closer to the likes of David Icke and Arizona Wilder, rather than "smart and informed".

by Jim McLennan on Sep 1, 2007 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Additional Reason Why

I dont think my United Way scenario is "out there" at all.

Allow me to introduce you to Mrs Diamondhacks. Not a "super fan", but a fan - I dont think she even knows the name of my blog. Much to my chagrin, she actually thinks Derrick Hall is an effective spokesman. Grrrrr. Anyway, she's a Fortune 100 exec; not a subject matter specialist in charitable budgeting, by any means, but has a fair amount of visibility to it. When she first heard of these $5 "donations", she rolled her eyes and assumed it was a sham, before I did actually.

Her skepticism doesnt prove anything, either, of course, as to the Diamondbacks actual actions here. I'm not suggesting it does. But it emboldens me to use a word that I eschewed earlier to describe the view that the type of deception I outlined would be "shocking", "highly unlikely", etc. And that word, forgive me, is "naive". Not wrong. Nothing personal intended, Just naive. Contrast me as "cynical" - that's fine - I certainly am when it comes to Hall. I just suspect that, in some organizations more than others, moving money internally from one bucket to another is not an uncommon practice, based on business needs, goals, etc.

by Diamondhacks on Sep 2, 2007 1:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yawn

so your proof is that your wife rolled her eyes? LOL!
Do you ever talk about baseball or just focus your narrow beam on your dislike of the current FO?

by unnamedDBacksfan on Sep 2, 2007 2:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exclusive Bonus Coverage

...just for unnamedDbacksfan

Her skepticism doesnt prove anything, either, of course, as to the Diamondbacks actual actions here. I'm not suggesting it does.

by Diamondhacks on Sep 2, 2007 3:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So

you do not talk baseball, just that imaginary ax to grind with the front office. Impressive!

by unnamedDBacksfan on Sep 2, 2007 3:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whaddya wanna talk about

...my dateless Saturday nite compadre?

Run diff?

The callups?

BoMel MOTY?

Fire away. I'm game. Just remember, this started out as a front office thread that invoked the name Diamondhacks. If you dont want me involved, then dont start the post saying "This is especially for Diamondhacks", ya know. Gets, uh, tiresome that way ;-)

by Diamondhacks on Sep 2, 2007 4:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You know....

You should really try following a gameday thread live sometime. (As in, actually post on it) I'd be interested to see how your cynicism works in real time.

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 2, 2007 4:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm really glad you asked that

The main reason I avoid the gameday threads is cuz I think it's kind of a sanctuary for you real time guys to get emotional and say stuff like:

CoJack's up.

We neeeeed a hit, Conor.

Pop up. Damn.

Why is Tony on the bench today, anyway. Grrr!}

Seriously, I dont wanna impose on that. I'd feel like a troll, or an obnoxious fan at the ballpark, spoiling your fun. Goodness knows, it would be easy to do - the lows can get pretty low in there - but I dont want to exploit that. The game itself is a sanctuary to me. Enjoy.

The other reason is the threads have gotten so big lately and I'm a pretty slow typer - I'd have some trouble keeping up - even if I have something pleasant to say :-)

by Diamondhacks on Sep 2, 2007 4:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even so...

I think it'd be interesting to have your voice in there as well. Heck, we even get opposing fans coming in from time to time these days.

I've got another question. (And it's not rhetorical, although it may come off that way) Exactly WHAT do you want to see the Dbacks (FO, management, ownership, whatever) do? As in, what would placate your anger towards this team?

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 2, 2007 5:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WWGCD?

"Exactly WHAT do you want to see the Dbacks (FO, management, ownership, whatever) do?"

All I ask is for an apology, a refund,....and for that man to be fired! --George Costanza

by bdberry637 on Sep 2, 2007 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kudos

Even I enjoyed that :-)

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to make a very important airport pickup.

by Diamondhacks on Sep 2, 2007 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

omigod

I just went to your site! I think it's so funny the way you make fun of MIKE KOPLOVE seeming younger than he is, and make fun of ELMER DESSENS by calling him ELMER DEPENDS! That's a good one! I really think it's sharp and timely to make fun of people who haven't played for the club in years. Plus, you kind of used photoshop to change the "B" in Diamondbacks to an H to make your slogan (though you did it kind of like a six-year old would). And you use really cool colors, like tan and purple together, to show how you are loyal to the old purple and green colors, and how you are aganst the mass marketing monster. You really have a crackerjack site. If you'd like it to look more professional, why don't you buy some hosting software from GoDaddy? I'm sure Jim could hookl you up with a deal.

by andrewinnewyork on Sep 3, 2007 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thx for the invite & question...

That's very welcoming of you. I understand some readers find me a pain & others think I add to the discussion (perhaps some dont feel comfortable expressing that here). In the end, though, this is Jim's site, and I'm clearly not welcome here.

At this point, it's probably more appropriate that I answer your question over at my place, rather than here - so I've done so.

Have fun everybody.

by Diamondhacks on Sep 2, 2007 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, don't get me wrong, I find you a pain...

...as I am an unabashed Dbacks supporter, loyal to the franchise. (I cross-apply, paraphrase, and slightly misquote Farragut when I say, "My Diamondbacks! Right or wrong.") But I DO also find that you often add to the discussion. As dissent is the highest form of patriotism, criticism and being a fan (fanship?) cannot be separated.

Not that any of this means that I will give up my scorn of your endless cynicism.

Your response on your blog to my question, by the way, was as expected: the majority of the substance centered around the Colangelo affair. The ticket/concessions price issue is not a Dbacks issue, but rather a criticism of the entire league. Regarding Colangelo, I'll humor your criticism of my being young, silly and petty (I am a good sport, by the way. ;) Thank you.) so long as you accept my criticism that the Colangelo grudge is ALSO a bit silly and petty.

We're over 40 posts, by the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 2, 2007 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not only tiresome.......

but quite reminiscent of Azphan

by shoewizard on Sep 1, 2007 5:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Tiresome?

Ouch. That's pretty rich, coming from the most compulsive poster in the history of ball sports.

by Diamondhacks on Sep 2, 2007 3:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Um.

Let's go D'backs?

Stay grindy, my friends.

by soco on Sep 2, 2007 12:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This sentiment I agree with.

Particularly the subject. Sums it up perfectly in my mind.

In my nightmares, I see Brian Bruney...make it stop...

by Azreous on Sep 3, 2007 2:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not the quantity of posts

It's the tone and content that I was referring to.

by shoewizard on Sep 2, 2007 12:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well...

There's never this much contraversy over Children in Need or Red Nose Day......I'm just saying

stays out of the rest

by Wimb on Sep 3, 2007 11:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

But don't you get it?

Children in Need is just a big scam by the BBC, because that money was already ear-marked for charity. Really, that license fee is such a ripoff now too, they run out a bunch of rookie program-makers and still expect you to pay full price for the TV license. They should bring back that nice Michael Parkinson, he was always very friendly and signed an autograph for me back in 1967. And what's with that new BBC logo - they clearly have no respect for our glorious tradition!

Yours,
Disgusted in Epping

by Jim McLennan on Sep 3, 2007 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

B...B..wha?

I have a hard enough time following Diamondhack's ramblings... then you guys have to toss this UK nonsense in here. I can't take it anymore.

Bob Melvin Sucks

by nihil67 on Sep 3, 2007 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perfect

I'll email that to Points of View ;)

Also I'll give Pudsy a kick in the groin for ya ;)

by Wimb on Sep 5, 2007 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Back to this?

Spent a long weekend enjoying the high altitude sunshine of Greer, AZ.

I had forgotten about this diary but remember when seeing G Dubs entry it was going to set off a powderkeg of the same old, same old.

It's been a Hack Attack(TM). Wheeee!

A comment someone made (Hacks I think) about tying charity to ticket sales made me wonder if ASU football was still requiring season ticket holders to 'donate' to their Sun Angel charity?

by cavscout on Sep 3, 2007 11:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Those evil souls at ASU

How dare they? They slyly make you believe that they are running a sport franchise for your enjoyment, then all the while siphon the money off to fund some sort of educational institution! I didn't pay good money to see a football game just so that some kid from Bullhead City could get books. Sheesh!

by andrewinnewyork on Sep 4, 2007 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sun Angels

While the ASU ticket site doesn't make any reference to it, if you go to the Sun Angel site, it looks like you have to make a donation if you want to sit anywhere but the curved part of the upper bowl.

Bob Melvin Sucks

by nihil67 on Sep 4, 2007 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How dare they!!??

Clearly the Scum Devils are inferior to the Cats. ;-)

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 4, 2007 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did some looking

Couldn't find anything definitive on '07, but found that in 2006 ASU did indeed drop the requirement to donate to the Sun Angel Foundation for season ticket holders in sections 222-226 and 232-236.

You know, the crappy seats.

All other season ticket holders must pay between $50 and $1500 per seat.

Obviously there have been questions raised about the legality because the AG had this ruling:

http://www.azag.gov/opinions/1999/I99-028.html

In short: yes, it is legal.

by cavscout on Sep 4, 2007 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs