Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

guess whose B-R page isn't sponsored

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • guess whose B-R page isn't sponsored

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clemero02.shtml

    that about says it all, doesn't it?

  • #2
    I am too cheap to sponsor ANY page, but if I were to choose one, that one would be at the top of my list. However, I will not tell you the TITLE of that list.
    Baseball articles you might not like but should read.

    Comment


    • #3
      Oh my goodness gracious! Of all the things... Roger Clemens' page isn't sponsored! Someone ought to let Suzyn Waldman know about this.

      Comment


      • #4
        Wish I had the money to sponsor it and make sure my stance on him is clear.

        Comment


        • #5
          No biggie. High demand always drives the price up.

          Here is the regular price.

          Let people know you like this site. Sponsor this page for $10 per year.
          Then there is the Clemens price since so many fans look up his stats.

          Promote your website or business by sponsoring this page for $325 per year on Baseball-Reference.com.

          Comment


          • #6
            There are plenty of expensive B-Rs sponsored, I'm sure. People don't want to shell out money for a disgusting and immoral cheat and liar.

            Comment


            • #7
              Do you really think Clemens alleged PEDs usage is stopping someone from sponsoring him?? Barry Bonds has a sponsor. Bonds is the poster boy for alleged PEDs usage and is currently under indictment for perjury.
              Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

              Comment


              • #8
                No, I think his PED usage and the disgusting revelations about him, coupled with the lack of opportunity to cash in on him without hurting your business, is what's doing him in.

                Comment


                • #9
                  B-R doesn't even need to lower the asking price just desteroid his stats.

                  1999 - ERA+ of 103
                  2000 - ERA+ of 95
                  2001 - ERA+ of 90
                  2002 - ERA+ of 85 in a partial season

                  Retires before the 2003 season at the age of 40.
                  1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988

                  1889 1890 1899 1900 1916 1920
                  1941 1947 1949 1952 1953 1956
                  1966 1974 1977 1978


                  1983 1985 1995 2004 2008 2009
                  2013 2014


                  1996 2006

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BlueBlood View Post
                    B-R doesn't even need to lower the asking price just desteroid his stats.

                    1999 - ERA+ of 103
                    2000 - ERA+ of 95
                    2001 - ERA+ of 90
                    2002 - ERA+ of 85 in a partial season

                    Retires before the 2003 season at the age of 40.

                    Love how fans are so selective in the years a player used PED's based on assumption. PED's don't locate the ball or put movement on the ball which is more important then velocity in which most PED articles say is 0-3mph.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BlueBlood View Post
                      B-R doesn't even need to lower the asking price just desteroid his stats.

                      1999 - ERA+ of 103
                      2000 - ERA+ of 95
                      2001 - ERA+ of 90
                      2002 - ERA+ of 85 in a partial season

                      Retires before the 2003 season at the age of 40.
                      Says you.

                      I'm sure some people would just love this, but if there is one thing I can't stand, it's revisionist history, which is what you want to do.
                      46 wins to match last year's total

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Gregory Pratt View Post
                        No, I think his PED usage and the disgusting revelations about him, coupled with the lack of opportunity to cash in on him without hurting your business, is what's doing him in.
                        No way. Bonds page is sponsored and the advertiser is getting more views.


                        33% in that national poll they conducted think that Clemens is innocent so there go's your thinking on that.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Um, first of all, it's goes. Second of all, Clemens doesn't equal Bonds -- Clemens is a nasty man who people suspect of child molestation as a result of an NYDN article that doesn't say they started a relationship when she was fifteen but most have read as such, and Bonds is a steroid user with a bad attitude who is NOT under the type of personal allegations as Clemens. Third, Bonds' sponsor has the good opportunity as his name is very similarly related to the product, so there's some small market there. Unless NASA wants to sponsor a man perceived by and large as a pedophile and a cheat and a bat-throwing lunatic, there's no market out there for "Rocket." Those are the key differences.

                          Since you obviously believe in Clemens -- with your previous nonsense about McNamee being less credible than Clemens, and your present bull about that national poll and how it go's -- why don't you sponsor the damn page.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Old Sweater View Post
                            33% in that national poll they conducted think that Clemens is innocent so there go's your thinking on that.
                            That doesn't prove anything on its own. We need to know how many people were surveyed and what their general tendencies are to believe such things. That plays a factor too. Besides, I think Jayson Stark put it best yesterday in an article: Clemens isn't acting like an innocent man, or a man who is even sorry for what he did, simply because of the "scorched-earth" tactic he decided to take.
                            46 wins to match last year's total

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SamtheBravesFan View Post
                              That doesn't prove anything on its own. We need to know how many people were surveyed and what their general tendencies are to believe such things. That plays a factor too. Besides, I think Jayson Stark put it best yesterday in an article: Clemens isn't acting like an innocent man, or a man who is even sorry for what he did, simply because of the "scorched-earth" tactic he decided to take.
                              Sure it does. It proves for every rat lover out there, there is also a rat hater.


                              Take Pratt for instance. For every thing that he despises Clemens for Mcnamee is worse and he takes his word at face value.

                              Until Clemens admits to something I'm in his corner over a rats word.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X