OT: Diamond DeShields is Back!!!..[edit] but the Brooklyn Dodgers aren't! | Page 8 | The Boneyard

OT: Diamond DeShields is Back!!!..[edit] but the Brooklyn Dodgers aren't!

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you check the facts regarding the Dodgers and attendance, I think your opinion would be different.
Your argument that the Dodgers would have somehow drawn significantly more people if their park was larger doesn't hold water. If Ebbets field held 30,000 more seats the result would have been 30,000 more empty seats during the games.
(The Dodgers did not have one regular season sellout in 57).
While it's true that teams today draw significantly more than in 1957, the perennial powerhouse Dodgers finished 5th out of 8 NL teams and 10th out of 16 total teams in MLB in attendance in 1957.
That puts them below average in attendance and this is for a team that was perpetually in the pennant chase.
Such attendance figures can only be described as disappointing. Unless, that is, you think that a pennant winning team should be satisfied with bottom half attendance figures.
Again specious, in an age where 1 million in attendance was considered a success. And I never said or implied that a larger stadium would have produced larger crowds. I merely compared them to the (hated) Yankee's and Yankee stadium, which in order to fill needed 81K more butts than their season average. THAT'S an overhead. THAT's disappointing numbers compared to the Dodgers' 15K. This in a town where the Dodgers had to compete with two other major league baseball teams for attendance and headlines, not to mention a myriad other sporting teams. No other team in major league history had that disadvantage.
 
As you can see I'm not alone. Unlike many teams who have left certain areas Brooklynites still bleed blue. To us it was first being held hostage, then a betrayal. Those of you who can't understand, try to envision the greatest love of your life, the one person/thing you would have died for, leaving you not for love, not for money, but for greed. Then 5 years later beat the (still) hated Yankees. Unforgivable.
I was born in Brooklyn to a diehard Dodger fan, while they were still there. Alas, too young to remember much, and we were in CT by 1956, so I missed them leaving too. I do know my parents were devastated.
 
Yankees, Yankees, boo boo boo, put 'em in the garbage two by two
Dodgers, Dodgers, yay, yay,yay, put em on the field and let them play!!
 
Again specious, in an age where 1 million in attendance was considered a success. And I never said or implied that a larger stadium would have produced larger crowds. I merely compared them to the (hated) Yankee's and Yankee stadium, which in order to fill needed 81K more butts than their season average. THAT'S an overhead. THAT's disappointing numbers compared to the Dodgers' 15K. This in a town where the Dodgers had to compete with two other major league baseball teams for attendance and headlines, not to mention a myriad other sporting teams. No other team in major league history had that disadvantage.

"No other team in major league history had that disadvantage" ?
How about the Yankees and the Giants ?
Didn't they all play in the same city and thus subject to the same disadvantages ? And if the Dodgers truly we're at a disadvantage, wouldn't that legitimize them leaving ?
Old Yankee Stadium had a seating capacity of approximately 69,000.
I don't know where your 100,000 figure comes from and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make bringing empty seats into a conversation about attendance anyway.
You can't be serious stating the Dodger attendance should have been considered a success in 57 when they finished 10th out of 16 teams because they drew just over 1,000,000.
Imagine if we applied that same standard to other aspects in sports.
Using your 10 out of 16 and empty seat criteria, would any owner say the following and be believed ?
"Even though our total attendance was below league average, only 2/3 of our seats we're empty and that should be considered a success. Also, though we finished 10th in a 16 team league, we still had a successful year".
I don't think that would fly.
 
"No other team in major league history had that disadvantage" ?
How about the Yankees and the Giants ?
Didn't they all play in the same city and thus subject to the same disadvantages ? And if the Dodgers truly we're at a disadvantage, wouldn't that legitimize them leaving ?
Old Yankee Stadium had a seating capacity of approximately 69,000.
I don't know where your 100,000 figure comes from and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make bringing empty seats into a conversation about attendance anyway.
You can't be serious stating the Dodger attendance should have been considered a success in 57 when they finished 10th out of 16 teams because they drew just over 1,000,000.
Imagine if we applied that same standard to other aspects in sports.
Using your 10 out of 16 and empty seat criteria, would any owner say the following and be believed ?
"Even though our total attendance was below league average, only 2/3 of our seats we're empty and that should be considered a success. Also, though we finished 10th in a 16 team league, we still had a successful year".
I don't think that would fly.
If you think playing in a city with the greatest baseball franchise, perhaps the greatest franchise in sports period isn't a disadvantage what is? I understand the Giants leaving since their stadium in Coogan's Bluff was directly across the water from Yankee stadium, not the Dodgers who had Brooklyn all to themselves.

Again you are using today's perception and applying it to the 50's, where again, 1 million in yearly attendance was the standard. That only changed when seating capacities and stadiums increased in size across sports in the 70's.

I apologize. You are correct in that Yankee stadium's capacity was only 69K, twice that of Ebbets Field. That's 50K empty seats in 1956 as compared to the Dodgers 23K. Yet the Yankees never threatened to leave. In fact, 19K led the league in attendance, a figure no team today could survive on.

No, what really burned O'Malley was the deal the Yankees got in 1953 when Topping and Webb sold the stadium for big money and O'Malley saw the true value of Ebbets field. From that point on he tried to broker a new deal for a new stadium using the Dodgers brand and stadium (and us fans) as leverage. He saw the city dragging its feet (would it be Atlantic yards, Queens etc.). When Moses refused to intervene in buying the land he bolted.
 
.-.
If you think playing in a city with the greatest baseball franchise, perhaps the greatest franchise in sports period isn't a disadvantage what is? I understand the Giants leaving since their stadium in Coogan's Bluff was directly across the water from Yankee stadium, not the Dodgers who had Brooklyn all to themselves.

Again you are using today's perception and applying it to the 50's, where again, 1 million in yearly attendance was the standard. That only changed when seating capacities and stadiums increased in size across sports in the 70's.

I apologize. You are correct in that Yankee stadium's capacity was only 69K, twice that of Ebbets Field. That's 50K empty seats in 1956 as compared to the Dodgers 23K. Yet the Yankees never threatened to leave. In fact, 19K led the league in attendance, a figure no team today could survive on.

No, what really burned O'Malley was the deal the Yankees got in 1953 when Topping and Webb sold the stadium for big money and O'Malley saw the true value of Ebbets field. From that point on he tried to broker a new deal for a new stadium using the Dodgers brand and stadium (and us fans) as leverage. He saw the city dragging its feet (would it be Atlantic yards, Queens etc.). When Moses refused to intervene in buying the land he bolted.

My last post on this subject.
1. In your first paragraph you argue both sides of the question. You state that playing in the same city as the Yankees is a disadvantage and use the Giants as an example but also state that it wasn't to the Dodgers because they had Brooklyn (pop. 2,000,000) all to themselves.
2. Never did I compare today's attendance with 1957. The Dodgers finished 5th out of 8 teams in attendance in 57. That was in in the bottom half no matter how you slice it.
BTW. There were multiple stadiums around in the 50's that were huge and held way more fans than the stadiums built in the 70's. (See NY, Cleveland, etc.)
3. You continue to mention empty seats when discussing attendance.
A reminder.
Attendance counts either tickets sold or actual bodies through the turnstile.
Empty seats counts... Nothing, literally.
4. Yes, O'Malley left because he saw a chance to make more money.
However, the facts remain that the Dodgers played in what was called the "4th largest city in America" yet had below average attendance figures some years in the 50's. If their fans want to see a major factor in the Dodgers leaving Brooklyn, all they have to do is look in the mirror.
 
Last edited:
My last post on this subject.
1. In your first paragraph you argue both sides of the question. You state that playing in the same city as the Yankees is a disadvantage and use the Giants as an example but also state that it wasn't to the Dodgers because they had Brooklyn (pop. 2,000,000) all to themselves.
2. Never did I compare today's attendance with 1957. The Dodgers finished 5th out of 8 teams in attendance in 57. That was in in the bottom half no matter how you slice it.
BTW. There were multiple stadiums around in the 50's that were huge and held way more fans than the stadiums built in the 70's. (See NY, Cleveland, etc.)
3. You continue to mention empty seats when discussing attendance.
A reminder.
Attendance counts either tickets sold or actual bodies through the turnstile.
Empty seats counts... Nothing, literally.
4. Yes, O'Malley left because he saw a chance to make more money.
However, the facts remain that the Dodgers played in what was called the "4th largest city in America" yet had below average attendance figures some years in the 50's. If their fans want to see a major factor in the Dodgers leaving Brooklyn, all they have to do is look in the mirror.
1) Brooklyn had a BOROUGH to themselves, but not the city. Competing with the Yankees in the same city is a disadvantage no matter what BOROUGH you are in. It's even a disadvantage to teams in other sports. Brooklyn may have been called the 4th largest city in the US, but Brooklyn is now and will forever be a borough of different and distinct neighborhoods. The Dodgers were a neighborhood team that wasn't really (relatively) united until Jackie Robinson came along. The Yankees drew from all boroughs, and still do, whereas the Mets draw mostly from Queens and Long Is.
2) Wha? There were a few large stadiums during the early half of the 20th century, but nothing like the explosion during expansion. The average size of baseball stadiums went way up. As did of course popularity and attendance.
3)Empty seats count for nothing? Attendance tells only part of the story. Are you a business man? Do you know what overhead is? Topping's overhead was easily twice that of the Dodgers. Their break even number was much higher than O'Mally's. Although O'Malley's attendance was down, the club's numbers were still in the black.
4) The real reason's for O'Mally leaving were as I've stated. Greed. And ego.

So lets hold a mirror up to the current Dodgers. Ownership and LA now has the team they deserve. Selfish players, questionable management, indifferent fans. I couldn't be happier.
 
58 years is a long time to hold a grudge.

To the Brooklyn (extended) community--it is NOT a GRUDGE--it is 20 times Benedict ARnold, it is/was a betrayal. The love affair Brooklyn (extended) had with them bums is something only an old time BUMS fan shall ever know--and I'm on the outside looking in (ok pushed in by my in laws)


giphy.gif
 
Per Raul: Love her or not, the Boneyard's favorite player is ready to go!!!!


Lady Vols' DeShields has regained her health, confidence
I think a lot of her answers depend on how she was interviewed. If she was asked a lot of questions with the word "you" in them, then she had to answer with the word: "I."
I know she has shown cockiness in the past, but I would rather have a player on my team like that, instead of one who is more withdrawn and has doubts about herself.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
 
As a born and bred Brooklynite losing the Dodgers to the left was devastating to the entire Brooklyn community which never really recovered. Whenever anyone brings up their betrayal my blood just boils. Yeah, teams move and owners (and players) nowadays show little to no loyalty to communities. But the Dodgers move was never because they were a money losing franchise. On the contrary, they just wanted to make more. O'Malley wanted a new stadium, and when the city seemed to drag its feet and then offered Queens as a site he simply packed his bags. Good riddance. I have a good time now watching the Dodgers lose. I enjoy how they've gotten the Puig and the "come late, leave early" fans they deserve. I especially enjoyed watching the Mets crush them in 5 last year. After all these years I still wish them nothing but the worst. Hold a grudge long? Not me.

The Dodgers moved to LA after the 1957 season. I was 12 (born in Brooklyn but raised in the Bronx) and living near Yankee Stadium and hating the Yankees. But I had been to LA twice in the 1950s (my grandmother lived in Pacific Ocean Park) and the guys who moved west were still Hodges, Furillo, Snider, Campanella (albeit he never played due to his terrible car accident), Erskine, Newcome, Reese, etc. I wasn't about to give up my team, my favorites. No one is left from the Dodgers that moved west in '58 except Vin Scully, Don Newcombe (who still works for the team), and Tommy Lasorda. The O'Malleys moved on long ago and some of Walter O'Malley's descendants now own the San Diego Padres.

Someone mentioned Eminent Domain which is intended for purchase of property by government for public purposes. But as is often the case the purchases are really made for business or other interests. A few years back I had a lawyer friend in Malibu whose father had been a very successful criminal lawyer. She told me that Los Angeles had used eminent domain to buy his property in downtown LA. According to her, it apparently was not developed for many years and is now the site of the Catholic Church's Cathedral in Los Angeles.

And then there's Vin Scully. I, of course, remember him on WMGM in NY doing the Brooklyn Dodger games in the 50s (with Warm-Up Time, the pre-game show starring Marty Glickman and, of all people, Gussie Moran, the tennis player). I know that Vin became a legend in LA (at Dodger Stadium early on because you could hear his voice announcing the game since so many people were using transistor radios). But, living most of my life in NY, Virginia, and Connecticut, I obviously didn't hear him that often except for when he, as I recall, did NBC baseball with Joe Garagiola. But then in the late 1990s, I had a friend working for the Dodgers and on a visit to LA and Dodger Stadium got to meet Vinny in my friend's office behind the press box. Finally, having moved to New Mexico in 2013, I get to see almost every Dodger game on TV, and have heard plenty of Vin Scully broadcasts. Interestingly, although he is certainly still one of the greats, he can drive you crazy with his unending stories about the players and the past. Over the years I've learned where almost every player in a Dodger game was born, how tall they are, how much they weigh, where they went to high school, where they went to college, their wife's name, their mother's name, and on ad infinitum. Vinny will come up with some amazing stories and details (my wife makes me turn off the sound at times when he simply goes overboard with details). One of my "favorite" Scully stories concerned St. Louis manager Mike Matheny and how he met his wife somehow because of bird poop that landed on his hat (I may have the details wrong, but you can hear him tell the details on YouTube). One time when Rene Rivera (now of the Mets) was playing for the Padres, Scully couldn't stop talking about his twins. It got to the point that when Rene Rivera comes up, we immediately joke about his twins. And those are just two of seemingly hundreds and hundreds of stories that Scully tells on Dodger broadcasts. If you've ever seen a Dodger broadcast from LA, you'll be familiar with his famous statement: "It's time for Dodger baseball" at the opening of the game.

Finally, just wanted to note that this talk about the Dodgers seems appropriate in this thread since Diamond DeShields' father, Delino, played for the Dodgers (and came over in one of the worst trades in Dodger history--he was traded to the Dodgers for Pedro Martinez in November 1993, a day that will live in infamy).

And here I am, a few years younger, with Vinny in 1998 (I believe) at Dodger Stadium.

royvinny.jpg
 
1) Brooklyn had a BOROUGH to themselves, but not the city. Competing with the Yankees in the same city is a disadvantage no matter what BOROUGH you are in. It's even a disadvantage to teams in other sports. Brooklyn may have been called the 4th largest city in the US, but Brooklyn is now and will forever be a borough of different and distinct neighborhoods. The Dodgers were a neighborhood team that wasn't really (relatively) united until Jackie Robinson came along. The Yankees drew from all boroughs, and still do, whereas the Mets draw mostly from Queens and Long Is.
2) Wha? There were a few large stadiums during the early half of the 20th century, but nothing like the explosion during expansion. The average size of baseball stadiums went way up. As did of course popularity and attendance.
3)Empty seats count for nothing? Attendance tells only part of the story. Are you a business man? Do you know what overhead is? Topping's overhead was easily twice that of the Dodgers. Their break even number was much higher than O'Mally's. Although O'Malley's attendance was down, the club's numbers were still in the black.
4) The real reason's for O'Mally leaving were as I've stated. Greed. And ego.

So lets hold a mirror up to the current Dodgers. Ownership and LA now has the team they deserve. Selfish players, questionable management, indifferent fans. I couldn't be happier.
Today, as always, the bottom line is money. The fans may be indifferent, but the club does not care. The Dodgers lead the Majors in attendance, and have a huge TV contract. They are also in first place, but as you say, many of the "indifferent" fans probably don't know it!
 
.-.
Since when has money not been the bottom line in virtually any for-profit business? Which reminds me of one more thought. In the early to mid-1950s, the neighborhood around Ebbets Field was going downhill. While attendance was not dropping precipitously, it was fairly stagnant (ranging between 1.282 million in 1951 and 1.020 million in 1954). By that point, Walter O'Malley was already talking about a new ballpark to be located in Brooklyn. I've attached the cover of the 1954 Dodger yearbook. The powers-that-be in NYC (Mayor Robert Wagner and Port Authority honcho Robert Moses) did everything they could to discourage O'Malley from getting other property in Brooklyn. Los Angeles came along and offered O'Malley the proverbial "offer that could not be refused." And O'Malley, needing a west coast partner, convinced Horace Stoneham, owner of the NY Giants, to move west with him (Stoneham had been considering moving the Giants to Minneapolis). I have always reminded SF Giants fans that they should thank the Dodgers for the Giants move to San Francisco.

yb1.jpeg

View attachment 15376
 
Since when has money not been the bottom line in virtually any for-profit business? Which reminds me of one more thought. In the early to mid-1950s, the neighborhood around Ebbets Field was going downhill. While attendance was not dropping precipitously, it was fairly stagnant (ranging between 1.282 million in 1951 and 1.020 million in 1954). By that point, Walter O'Malley was already talking about a new ballpark to be located in Brooklyn. I've attached the cover of the 1954 Dodger yearbook. The powers-that-be in NYC (Mayor Robert Wagner and Port Authority honcho Robert Moses) did everything they could to discourage O'Malley from getting other property in Brooklyn. Los Angeles came along and offered O'Malley the proverbial "offer that could not be refused." And O'Malley, needing a west coast partner, convinced Horace Stoneham, owner of the NY Giants, to move west with him (Stoneham had been considering moving the Giants to Minneapolis). I have always reminded SF Giants fans that they should thank the Dodgers for the Giants move to San Francisco.

View attachment 15377
View attachment 15376
Yes, but the real seeds for O"Mally's displeasure goes to 1953 when the Yankee"s were sold for big money and O"Mally's jealousy/ego/greed saw his team as near equivalent in value. His attendance may have been stagnant, but the Yankee's and Giants with far larger overheads on far bigger plots of land had bigger financial troubles. Especially the Giants. Plus of course compared to the Yankee's which just had a new infusion of money, the percentage of empty seats was far lower. The idea of the Atlantic Yards was a big money project which financially the city couldn't afford; and yes, eminent domain was a problem then. By the time the Nets came along eminent domain was a bludgeon for a starved borough. Not so for Wagner. O'Malley was offered the same plot given to the Mets, but O'Malley wanted a sweetheart deal and the city refused.
 
For the next person who complains about hijacking a Boneyard Thread, I just like to point out the great enclosed baseball history lessons in a thread that was supposed to be about Diamond DeShields. Carry on!
Yes, BUT Deshield's father played for the Dodgers!
 
Yes, BUT Deshield's father played for the Dodgers!

DeShield's entire playing career (per Wikipedia):
DeShields became the regular second baseman for the Montreal Expos in 1990, finishing in second place for the NL Rookie of the Year award. He suffered from a sophomore slump in 1991, but went on to post his two best years in 1992 and 1993, hitting .294 and averaging 45 stolen bases.

On November 19, 1993, DeShields was traded to the Los Angeles Dodgers for then-prospect Pedro Martínez. In retrospect, this is considered one of the worst trades in Dodgers history.[2] DeShields hit a mediocre .241 during his three years in Los Angeles, while Martinez went on to win three Cy Young Awards and established himself amongst the greatest pitchers of all time.

In 1996, DeShields signed as a free agent with the St. Louis Cardinals, and later played with the Baltimore Orioles and Chicago Cubs. In 2001, he was the last out in Hideo Nomo's no-hitter against the Baltimore Orioles.
 
When the Dodgers moved to L.A. after the 1957 season, they were only the second professional sports franchise to to call Los Angeles home at the time.

After winning the 1945 NFL Championship Game, the Cleveland franchise moved to Los Angeles, California, in 1946. The Rams played their home games at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (completed in 1932 for the '32 Olympics) for 33 years before moving into a reconstructed Anaheim Stadium (home of the California Angels) in nearby Anaheim in 1979. Oddly enough, they have returned to that same L.A. Coliseum this year for 3 years, until their new stadium is built in Inglewood, right next to the Fabulous Forum, on the site of the old Hollywood Park race track.

The Lakers did not arrive in L.A. from Minneapolis until 1960. They played in the brand new (completed in 1959) "Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena" , until they moved to the "fabulous forum" in 1967.
They moved to their current home, The Staples Center (downtown L.A.) in 1999 along with the Los Angeles Clippers, as well as the NHL's Los Angeles Kings. The WNBA's Los Angeles Sparks joined in 2001.
 
.-.
When the Dodgers moved to L.A. after the 1957 season, they were only the second professional sports franchise to to call Los Angeles home at the time.

After winning the 1945 NFL Championship Game, the Cleveland franchise moved to Los Angeles, California, in 1946. The Rams played their home games at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (completed in 1932 for the '32 Olympics) for 33 years before moving into a reconstructed Anaheim Stadium (home of the California Angels) in nearby Anaheim in 1979. Oddly enough, they have returned to that same L.A. Coliseum this year for 3 years, until their new stadium is built in Inglewood, right next to the Fabulous Forum, on the site of the old Hollywood Park race track.

The Lakers did not arrive in L.A. from Minneapolis until 1960. They played in the brand new (completed in 1959) "Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena" , until they moved to the "fabulous forum" in 1967.
They moved to their current home, The Staples Center (downtown L.A.) in 1999 along with the Los Angeles Clippers, as well as the NHL's Los Angeles Kings. The WNBA's Los Angeles Sparks joined in 2001.
 
Don't forget the Angels. They played at the old Wrigley Field in Los Angeles in 1961. Then they played in Dodger Stadium for 4 years until their own park was built in Anaheim.
 
Don't forget the Angels. They played at the old Wrigley Field in Los Angeles in 1961. Then they played in Dodger Stadium for 4 years until their own park was built in Anaheim.

They have, for the most part, been quite forgettable though. Can't even make up their minds about their name: Los Angeles Angels, Anaheim Angels, California Angels, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Just who are those guys?
 
Don't forget the Angels. They played at the old Wrigley Field in Los Angeles in 1961. Then they played in Dodger Stadium for 4 years until their own park was built in Anaheim.

You are absolutely correct. How could I forget about the Angeles? Leon Wagner (Daddy Wags), Albie Pierson & Ryne Duran. I lived within 2 miles of Wrigley Field in 1961, and attended several games that year. I also got to play in a youth baseball league for two years in Wrigley before it was torn down.
 
I think a lot of her answers depend on how she was interviewed. If she was asked a lot of questions with the word "you" in them, then she had to answer with the word: "I."
I know she has shown cockiness in the past, but I would rather have a player on my team like that, instead of one who is more withdrawn and has doubts about herself.
It will be interesting to see what happens.

Nan took me to task--in an aside--over saying Diamond DeShields had a Extreme ego, in that she used sentences with lots of me and not us.
The thing is ---Geno likes ego centric/huge Ego players who can be coached. To mention 2 Svetlana Abrasoma and Diana--who at times had some media words for Geno and who at times failed to do as told. Geno likes player with ego/confidence--Stewie, I won't call ego centric, but she had high degrees of confidence in her shot--
What some see as a negative maybe a big plus on the BB floor, no second guessing yourself, there is a lot to be said for that.
What some see as a negative under the right conditions are a huge positive.
Have you seen a player with more "cockyness " than Tuarazi (DT)????
I suppose it depends on whose oxen is being gored, or whose team that ox is on!!
 
There are so many great anecdotes re the wackiness of Dodger faithful. One that has stuck in my mind, but which a search just now on line failed to find, is this. In a crucial game, the manager (can't remember if it was ol' Case or not) sent Babe Phelps up to pinch hit in an early inning with the bases loaded, and Phelps responded with a grand slam. Later in the game, another critical situation arose, and a leather lung in the stands yelled; "Yeah, ya bum, whydja wast Phelps before? NOW is when we need him!"
 
.-.
Nan took me to task--in an aside--over saying Diamond DeShields had a Extreme ego, in that she used sentences with lots of me and not us.
The thing is ---Geno likes ego centric/huge Ego players who can be coached. To mention 2 Svetlana Abrasoma and Diana--who at times had some media words for Geno and who at times failed to do as told. Geno likes player with ego/confidence--Stewie, I won't call ego centric, but she had high degrees of confidence in her shot--
What some see as a negative maybe a big plus on the BB floor, no second guessing yourself, there is a lot to be said for that.
What some see as a negative under the right conditions are a huge positive.
Have you seen a player with more "cockyness " than Tuarazi (DT)????
I suppose it depends on whose oxen is being gored, or whose team that ox is on!!
Svetlana & Diana put their money where their mouths were. What has DD done or won to merit such swagger?
 
Svetlana & Diana put their money where their mouths were. What has DD done or won to merit such swagger?

The subject was ---Ego/Confidence--and as such, where in the Book OF Human Personalities and Actions does it say; One must have the assets, talent, and abilities to have Confidence, Ego, self belief. Obviously she had parents and coaches and extended family that told her loudly and often she was special. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. Th

I'm not saying you don't have the right to your OPINION--you have. Do you have the right to dislike DD. Certainly.
The acceptance of a Kid 17 to 22 who thinks they are pretty good-- isn't a sin and her ego says to me someone did something right. She'll find out soon enough that she is either really good or someone , probably many, will let her know the truth..But a Uconn Fan should not be the first...we respect our opponents.
 
Last edited:
Svetlana & Diana put their money where their mouths were. What has DD done or won to merit such swagger?
In the previous reply--that I could not edit--
I said; Nothing I wrote was intended to insult or demean you--it was just as your comment was--and OPINION.
You have feelings of DD that I had a year ago--but I have long since changed my views--especially when I think of DT--my goodness was she cocky and had a huge EGO--still has. I have not followed DD at U tenn, for obvious reason. So whether she back up her strut or not--I don't know, nor do I care. I just know Ego isn't a negative thing. I wish I had it at her age, or the talent to back it up..
 
Svetlana & Diana put their money where their mouths were. What has DD done or won to merit such swagger?
In the previous reply--that I could not edit--
I said; Nothing I wrote was intended to insult or demean you--it was just as your comment was--and OPINION.
You have feelings of DD that I had a year ago--but I have long since changed my views--especially when I think of DT--my goodness was she cocky and had a huge EGO--still has. I have not followed DD at U tenn, for obvious reason. So whether she back up her strut or not--I don't know, nor do I care. I just know Ego isn't a negative thing. I wish I had it at her age, or the talent to back it up..
 
There are so many great anecdotes re the wackiness of Dodger faithful. One that has stuck in my mind, but which a search just now on line failed to find, is this. In a crucial game, the manager (can't remember if it was ol' Case or not) sent Babe Phelps up to pinch hit in an early inning with the bases loaded, and Phelps responded with a grand slam. Later in the game, another critical situation arose, and a leather lung in the stands yelled; "Yeah, ya bum, whydja wast Phelps before? NOW is when we need him!"
Only, and I say, ONLY in Brooklyn. I once saw someone approach a spawled out, barely concious homeless man and ask him for directions. My home.
 
Only, and I say, ONLY in Brooklyn. I once saw someone approach a spawled out, barely concious homeless man and ask him for directions. My home.
Why did a sprawled out homeless man in Brooklyn want with directions to your home?? Was he taking a road trip???
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,372
Messages
4,568,889
Members
10,474
Latest member
MyStore24


Top Bottom