You seem like one of those tedious Internet types who’s set on turning everything into a conflict by mischaracterizing arguments all so you can angrily strut around:

Speaks volumes about the state of sports journalism that we can’t dismiss one of these sides out of hand. We should be able to laugh at the idea of some hack writer ever fabricating or recklessly propagating false rumors about one of the highest-profile athletes in the world.

Nah. I think Dusty ironed all that out in Cinci, didn’t he?

“I’m wondering how it becomes a liability that they won that year because Harper was healthy.”

It’s not necessarily that they’re terribly run. It’s that they’re not well-run and you would think anyone who could amass the necessary fortune to acquire a pro baseball team would be able to run it well.

You trade a sunk cost for whatever you can get. Or you cut it. Or you don’t acquire it in the first place when there’s no pressing need.

Yep, I agree with that.

I guess we’ll see.

Except that both the Nationals and Redskins would be more valuable if the on-field product was better. I don’t know many highly successful professionals who don’t believe in maximizing profitability.

What? I just listed a bunch of objective facts:

No.

You’re just wrong.

Fair enough, but I’d argue that’s more coincidence than causation:

I say again, the only thing Kanye West ever had to save his weak lyrics and even weaker delivery were beats. And these beats aren’t nearly good enough.

I would love to see a long-form investigation of the other businesses run by the owners of ass-backward franchises.

Whenever I think I’m reading an AP English paper, I know who the author is.

Hey, if video games are your thing, more power to you.

Holy shit, man.

You forgot to mention that he’s just not a very good writer.

I love baseball above all other sports and always will—barring an NFL-style outbreak of hyper-narcissism with a side of stomping on women—but I would sincerely love to hear someone rationalize this nonsense.