20 June 2010

Fiery, Venerable Outfit Arrives At Chase


After another lukewarm roadtrip, something exciting is finally coming to Chase Field. Something destined to make local ballfans open their wallets and maybe even their mouths.

Yes, Derrick Hall has partnered with Macayos! To feed mediocre Tex-Mex to highly valued consumers of less than mediocre baseball. A cobranded win-win, or wince-wince, if ever there was one.



It's hard to say exactly what happened to Garcias, whose magnificent vegetarian burritos have been here since the beginning. Maybe their adios had something to do with SB1070 and Mr Kendrick's patronage of legislators supporting the bill? Or perhaps Garcias followed McDonalds' earlier disassociation with the regime, on financial or contractual grounds? After all, what would McDonalds know about running a business?

We may never know for sure, although history instructs us to brace for a Hall press release, insisting Garcia's opted out to spend more time with its family. For now, let's revel in the knowledge that Daron Sutton's prayers have finally been answered. For years, he's been pleading on-air,

"Let's get some RUUUUNNNNSSSS!!!"

Macayos to the rescue!

In other news, the Yankees and their thumpers are coming to town, presumably in search of tortillas.

24 comments:

Gary said...

Finally, we'll see some real baseball at Chase. I loved it when the Red Sox where here a few years ago. The ballpark was electric and had a feel of a real baseball game.
A lot of people are missing these games on purpose due to the large number of bandwagon Yankee fans expected, but I fear nobody. And I can finally let loose cheering and taunting at a ballgame without getting dirty looks from some blue haired as if I was interrupting her church service. I'll be there Monday and Wednesday. You going to any?
I'll get excited when they bring Band-Aides or Cheetah's to the ballpark to help enhance the experience.

Diamondhacks said...

I've found that rooting for losing teams often has honor, but this will be the first NYY series I miss - and likely the first season in thirteen I dont make it to Chase at all. Partly because I dont believe our FO adequately returns the favor. Of honor, civic reciprocation and respect.

Not when they raise the min ticket price by 60% after a last place finish, amid a regional depression. Not when Kendrick hosts right wing fundraisers(in our publicly financed facility during games) - days after his media hack insists the club doesnt take 'political stands', amidst SB1070 fallout.

They dont share my ethical values or deserve my patronage. Colangelo, who happened to be a staunch Republican, did - to a much greater extent. That's my personal calculus and I'm not trying to impose it on you or anyone else.

Stick up for your city. Under these circumstances, you've got nothing to lose. And Yankee fans are notoriously easy to make fun of. They practically make fun of themselves :-)

Enjoy! And thx for the visit.

Russell said...

Ha! I got quite nostalgic seeing you and Jim locking horns on Az Central.

As always it's a mystery why he's perfectly willing to celebrate the 2001 win at all times yet can't seem to make the leap to accepting that Colangelo was in some way involved in it.

Diamondhacks said...

R,

Or at least that there were compelling tradeoffs involved. Totally different tradeoffs than today. Strategic tradeoffs, financial tradeoffs. Chronological tradeoffs. And needless to say, mistakes to be made.

Jim wasnt here back then. I guess he visited, but it's painfully clear he has little to no in-depth knowledge of what transpired. In itself, that wouldnt be an problem, except that he pretends to be such an authority about the early history. The ignorance, in my view, is more forgivable than the corresponding pretense and hubris.

Finally, to your point about celebrating the WS while flaming Colangelo. Criticism's fine, but this "franchise as fraud" campaign he's been maliciously spewing for years is all about positioning himself as the Dbacks' chronicler of The True Renaissance. The first real, "pure" Victory. A title that "matters". Denigrate what's come before, so you can prop up and cash in on the rebound. It's untrue, and more important to me, selfish and ungracious.

I did not liken Jim to Ken Kendrick and Bud Selig lightly.

Jim McLennan said...

Actually, I moved here in 2000, so am well-aware of what happened in the Colangelo era, despite the attempt to paint me as some kind of revisionist newcomer. I started writing about the team in 2003, so covered the 111-loss season, when Jerry's deferred chickens really started coming home to roost. I've complained about him since then, not that n00bs like 'Hacks would know this. :-)

I've never denied Colangelo's part in 2001. But the cost was horrendous, continuing to significantly hamper operations through 2012, more than a decade later. Anyone who pines mindlessly for a return to the Colangelo age, not appreciating what that meant - such as the guy on AZCentral, which is how that all got started - lives in a fantasy world.

Diamondhacks said...

I moved here in 2000, so am well-aware of what happened in the Colangelo era

Jim, nothing personal, but you have no idea how smug and stupid that makes you sound. Your relatively late arrival, combined with a doctrinaire penchant for dismissing most anything that threatens you (see Barry Bonds, Colangelo, immigration, me, etc), conspire to oversimplify and misinform your dogma. It sounds like you really started paying attention around 2003, which is an egregiously awkward start point for evaluating Colangelo, and explains so, so much. Thank you for sharing that timeline.

Anyone who pines mindlessly for a return to the Colangelo age, not appreciating what that meant - such as the guy on AZCentral, which is how that all got started - lives in a fantasy world.

We agree there's alot of mindless drivel on AZcentral, but disagree on who "started" this or who truly doesnt appreciate "what that meant". It seems like any time a fan generically pines for "Colangelo" (ie winning), you immediately assume a ferocious responsibility for degrading and reducing what amounts to a rather complex 17 yr (and counting) legacy into one or two derogatory buzzwords or slogans:

A Quarter Billion in Debt! Grossly Irresponsible! Fraudulent! Bankrupt or Brink of Bankruptcy! And my favorite, "Partying With Other People's Money"!

You're almost as simplistic and misinformed as the online Neanderthals you mock, yet they generally dont hide their ignorance behind such an indefensibly superior attitude. The only buzzword that really applies is "unsustainable" and nobody I know's suggested otherwise. The others are self serving propaganda from interests at odds with Colangelo, that knowingly or not, you perpetuate.

And it's beyond numbing, that even now, after our azcentral debate and my riff above about tradeoffs, that you still lack any real appreciation of, or intellectual curiosity about, the challenges and circumstances Colangelo actually faced and surmounted. Please dont pretend that you do, because your kneejerk campaigns to besmirch him betray you. You'll never respect his accomplishments or understand the depth of his legacy, just like you're incapable of ever seeing Bonds, or me or immigration, through any eyes but your own beady, hateful ones.

On a related matter, I was wrong, of course, about SB Nation and MLB. I dont say that as a courtesy to you, because you rarely reciprocate or deserve such civility. I say it to correct the general dialogue and because, unlike you, it actually bothers me when I fuck up and misinform people, even on a relatively minor point. It gnaws at my conscience. Not the mistake itself, which was an inadvertent recall error (it was SB's affiliation with Yahoo I got mixed up about) . But letting that misinformation just sit there, out in the ether, bothered me about as much as your consistent misinformation bothers me.
That's a big difference between us. I'm not saying you dont have a conscience. I dont kow you well enough to say that, especially in other aspects of your life. But I've watched you operate online for a while now and suffered your illogical, petulant bullshit long enough to realize you dont have much of one. Again, nothing personal.

Jim McLennan said...

It sounds like you really started paying attention around 2003, which is an egregiously awkward start point for evaluating Colangelo, and explains so, so much.

Apparently, a) you can't be "paying attention" unless you're writing a blog, and b) you can't have an opinion on history unless you experienced it. Thus, the entire field of American Civil War study vanishes in a puff of 'Hacks logic. We should also completely ignore YOUR opinions on the entire Colangelo era, since your MLBLog started in June 2005 - which must be when you "really started paying attention"?

I've been following the D-backs since before they played their first game, and there's a wealth of documentation still available to anyone on the team's formation and history. I'd recommend you perhaps start with Big League, Big Time, for instance. Reading that was quite an eye-opener for me, a meticulously-researched contrast to the adoring propaganda of the Republic [which, of course, was a team partner at the time].

[Large chunk of "You just don't understand Jerry" skipped. There's no point: we have differing opinions on Colangelo and his legacy, and we'll never change each others minds on that.]

I was wrong, of course, about SB Nation and MLB.

Interesting you admit your error, not in the forum you made it, when I raised the issue, but instead, in a tranquil little Internet backwater, all but undisturbed by visitors. That says a great deal...

Good luck with LoveMyDbacks. I'm curious how long you'll allow his use of terms like "fag", which reflect badly on the site permitting them. I think you probably already understand why he wore out his welcome at the 'Pit.

Diamondhacks said...

Jim, you have the persuasive skills and attention span of a gnat.

A) I said "really" paying attention, not "paying attention". Wouldnt you agree that the writing/blogging process requires and reinforces the scope and intensity of "paying attention"?

B) This is your deflective, specific-to-general transference nonsense. I never implied "people", like you know, historians, scholars and disinterested observers cant admirably reconstruct the truth. I said YOU cant, and I was quite clear as to why:

"...a doctrinaire penchant for dismissing most anything that threatens you...

You dont have to agree with that, or like it, but there's nothing "illogical" about it. What's illogical is defensively dragging the fucking Civil War into a targeted claim about YOU .

I am delighted to learn that you read a book. I have not read it, but have read another book co- authored by Len Sherman, and what I find mildly interesting about your recommendation is that the book I've read is a horribly written, knob gobbling Colangelo hagiography.

Anyway, that you find any Sherman book "meticulously researched" makes me laugh, but again, I havent read it. So, we'll see.

May I reciprocate? I think a book that might do you some good is "Juicing The Game" by Howard Bryant. I dont know if you suffer African American authors, but it's a rich, very thoughtful history of Selig era baseball. Not Michael Lewis prose, but not all about steroids either, and impressively researched. There's even flattering nuggets about AJ Hinch you might like.

...in a tranquil little Internet backwater, all but undisturbed...

excellent line, made me laugh. But again, you're ignoring several important points. First, I explained on azcentral EXACTLY why I wasnt pursuing your line of questioning there. Because you werent engaging several of my questions. It's a give and take, asshole, at least it is when you dont run the fucking site. Get used to it.

Second, I'm pretty sure that at this juncture, our current thread is being read more than the original comments at azcentral. I could be wrong about that, but it's aged now and pretty deeply embedded, so I dont think either of us need worry "much" about our respective reputations. As I said earlier, I would've preferred to correct it there, but if you think you're going to impose your one-sided, self serving ground rules at azcentral, you're sadly mistaken.

I wasnt thrilled with anon's use of the word 'fag', although I thought several of his observations about the pit were colorful and spot on. As you well know, managing comments involves weighing a number of factors, and I'm certain we weigh them differently. Stick around, you might actually learn something about respecting others online.

Speaking of which, publicly divulging anon's snakepit user name, as a third party, is beyond the pale. For someone with your administrative background. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Jim McLennan said...

Wouldnt you agree that the writing/blogging process requires and reinforces the scope and intensity of "paying attention"?

Depends on the site. Writing multiple articles per day takes significant effort. Six posts since May 17: not so much. But the assumption that not writing inevitably equates to not paying attention - or, if you prefer, not "really" paying attention - is completely fallacious. Thousands of people follow the team closely without running sites about it.

[Ad hominem attacks deliberately ignored, including another thinly-disguised accusation of racism. Nice!]

Speaking of which, publicly divulging anon's snakepit user name, as a third party, is beyond the pale. For someone with your administrative background. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

You condone an anonymous commentator using such charming epithets as "fag," "flamer," etc. and I should be "ashamed" for recognizing him? He admitted to being banned SB Nation-wide, something already a matter of public record.

Proof, if any more were needed, of our radically-different standards. Mind you, given you prefer to hide behind "anonymity" too, I'm not surprised.

Diamondhacks said...

Jim,

Nobody's disputing your "effort" as chronicler of the Dbacks, or of promoting yourself in that vein. The issue at hand is the quality and depth of your understanding and coverage - specifically on franchise origins and early history. I appreciate that you've subsequently researched the era, but my general point about "writing" and specific critiques about "you" speak to the inevitable evolution of your chronicling abilities.

Your published perspective on that era is almost entirely second hand boilerplate. Broadly speaking, it's akin to me waxing about 1995 soccer (after chugging Red Bull and moving to Scotland). And no, that doesnt mean Shakespeare cant rekindle Caesar or that Stephen Hawking cant rediscover the origins of the universe. Kindly get over yourself. This is about you and me and Jerry Colangelo.

the assumption that not writing inevitably equates to not paying attention - or, if you prefer, not "really" paying attention - is completely fallacious.

True, but that's manifestly not what I said. I said the demands of writing presuppose a more robust thought (and understanding) process for most people. Which is especially vital for someone who didnt have much quality or in depth contact with the franchise early on and who enjoyed virtually no previous understanding of baseball on which to draw. This is another example of your specific-to-general fallacy. Whenever I qualify a general statement, with something about "You"(like your suspect early knowledge base), you inevitably ignore the qualifier and claim I'm talking about "everybody". How many times must we go over this?

...including another thinly-disguised accusation of racism. Nice!

I wasnt trying to disguise anything. I was referencing an historical topic that ironically, you've done a better job of "disguising" yourself recently. I think you're a racist, probably beyond the abstract notion we're all susceptible to some degree of subconscious bias. It seems to me and several others who've spoken of it, that you've demonstrated a disquieting pattern of insensitivity towards folks, based on or at least influenced by, race, sexual orientation, etc. I'd be delighted if you gave Bryant's book a chance.

cheers

Diamondhacks said...

You condone an anonymous commentator using such charming epithets as "fag," "flamer," etc.

Anon never called you a fag. I believe he called your blog gay and a fagpit. And you are a flamer. One of the most hostile trolls around, baiting posters for close to a decade, then turning huffy whenever you get outmaneuvered.

Condone? Yes and no. Yes in the sense I'm not reflexively censoring his participation. No in that I dont find that tone harmless or relevant, and will keep an eye on it. Dont assume I support every aspect of readers' comments, merely because I administer different standards than yours. I've actually been called a fag on this site, and neither provoked nor banned that response, as you so often do. Needless to say, that poster was effectively dealt with. I havent seen him in a long time.

and I should be "ashamed" for recognizing him?

Absolutely. Someone with your online background should be ashamed for disrespecting a potentially sensitive conversation clearly between two other people, under the guise of being helpful - and additionally ashamed for, even now, feigning ignorance of the transgression. Especially on my site, with a brand new commenter. Any halfwit could read my query and instinctively butt out. Everyone except one utterly shameless troll.

given you prefer to hide behind "anonymity" too, I'm not surprised.

Yeah, I'm really "hiding". You know my name and so do the principals of the Diamondbacks organization. They have my address and phone number, and according to Sitemeter, read this site regularly.

The reason you use your name and I dont has nothing to do with me "hiding" or you being virtuous or authentic. It's because we have entirely different goals. You wanna land a real writing job somewhere, which is fine, but it's all about YOU. The access, the bylines, the personal recognition. Propping yourself up. Those arent my goals, okay? My primary goal is to inform public discourse about the organization, which I've done in a variety of capacities, and I normally dont care much who gets the credit.

And the fact you cultivate a couple sites where, what, 90-95% of your esteemed members use aliases further undermines your smear. Are they all "hiding" too? Just add this dirty tidbit to your sedimentary record of mountainous hypocrisy.

cheers!

Anonymous said...

And the fact you cultivate a couple sites where, what, 90-95% of your esteemed members use aliases further undermines your smear.
I love it. Jim hates the truth. He is nothing more than some fat ass scottish idiot that is running some bs site with 15-20 regulars. He seems to have power there banning people with the touch of a key on a keyboard. Wow, If I had such powers, my parents would be so proud. Stop coming to this site Jim following me. Hacks speaks the truth and you dont like your 15-20 followers of your bullshit seing that. Learn to speak proper English for one, if you want more followers to your bs site. That would be a start. Your ebonics and mis-spelling is horrific to say the least. And dude, your fat stomach is no match for me. You want to meet Hacks in person, we can all meet at Cooperstown anyday you'd like fat roll. Lets see, there are Thousands of Diamondbacks fans in the world, we do agree there, but your fat stomach has only 15-20 every gameday thread posting bs after bs. I like when you count total 'posts'. You're a fkn retard. Anyone for any team that posts 300 times in ONE game, needs to re-evaluate their life. That's pathetic, and with that said Jim, YOU are pathetic as well, fk you. (sorry hacks for that).

Anonymous said...

you dont like your 15-20 followers of your bullshit seing that. Learn to speak proper English for one,

That wasnt good :-)lolz

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jim McLennan said...

It's clear you permit racism, homophobia and abuse here, blowing out of the water anything I've ever seen on any other baseball forum. The stench of your hypocrisy as a mealy-mouthed apologist for your new "best friend" might be sad, if it wasn't so damn amusing to see the true 'Hacks, finally exposed in all his glory.

Oh, how the (self-proclaimed) mighty are fallen! Your site is now reduced to a desperate attempt to carry on a dialogue with a drunk possessing unhealthy racial and sexual obsessions. I'm sure the Diamondbacks organization are chortling heartily at seeing you reduced to this.

Have fun wallowing with LoveMyDbacks in this nasty little cesspool. You two truly deserve each other.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Diamondhacks said...

Anon,

Dont be fooled into thinking that our shared contempt for some of Jim's tactics give you free reign here. I've deleted one of your comments and you've exhausted your allotment of references to Jim's physical appearance.

Regarding ebonics, you need to make a case, with examples, for that observation - or refrain from making the claim. I have zero tolerance for that kind of wild, unsupported innuendo.

At this point, I dont really mind that you're rather single-mindedly using my site to criticise snakepit, but I do mind the tone and complete baseball irrelevance of your personal attacks on Jim. Knock it off.

You're my guest here. Act like one, or get out.

Diamondhacks said...

It's clear you permit racism, homophobia and abuse here...

Jim, get a hold of yourself. Please understand I'm just being made aware of this situation and am working my way through it. Unlike you, I dont employ a tittering band of real time Acceptability Police.

Assuming this guy isnt a plant of yours (and I assume he's not), I understand why you'd object to his personal attacks. I dont like them either.

The stench of your hypocrisy as a mealy-mouthed apologist for your new "best friend" might be sad, if it wasn't so damn amusing to see the true 'Hacks, finally exposed in all his glory. Oh, how the (self-proclaimed) mighty are fallen!

You sound like Rod Parsley. chill out

Your site is now reduced to a desperate attempt to carry on a dialogue with a drunk possessing unhealthy racial and sexual obsessions.

Am I the desperate one? I dont feel desperate at all. You sound like....well, alot like Rod Parsley.

I'm sure the Diamondbacks organization are chortling heartily at seeing you reduced to this.

Well, if you're gonna chortle, it's like I always say. Do it heartily, or just dont chortle.

Russell said...

Two points- the fact that Jim thinks that being "chortled" at by the Diamondback's organisation is such a terrible thing speaks volumes about his priorities.

The fact that he's removed your blog from the SnakePit's links speaks equally about the pettiness that makes him so incapable of competently managing the blog of a major sports team.

Diamondhacks said...

Russell,

Thx for the info. Even though I find Jim personally exasperating and aspects of his site administration obnoxious enough to have voluntarily removed myself from the 'pit for some time, his link will remain on this sidebar, as a valuable resource for Diamondback fans.

Anonymous said...

The stench of your hypocrisy as a mealy-mouthed apologist for your new "best friend".

awesome

Anonymous said...

It's a give and take, asshole, at least it is when you dont run the fucking site. Get used to it.

Too funny, I love it. Other than the asspit, Jim is nothing.

Blogger said...

Anyone here wants a FREE MC DONALD'S GIFTCARD?