I’ll trust my daughter and her brains to recognize a specious argument.

He didn’t bring it up! It wasn’t his discussion.
And he was making the very point that they are separate sport, and in hers, she is the best.

The thing is, in this case there was no argument. He was correcting a fatuous statement by interviewer. If there is some actual argument to be made, go ahead and make it.

But she’s pregant! Timeout from talking tennis about world famous tennis player!

700 is only an exaggeration if you think she could beat a hypothetical 700

It’s better just to pretend, then?

Wow, she really put her foot in her mouth!

Truly. She should be scolding the interviewer, who was the one who brought her up and invaded her “privacy.”

Except that no one denied Serena’s amazingness. It’s when someone proposes she is the best tennis player in the world that things go into the fantasy realm.

The thing is, McEnroe never piped up. He was just answering questions, and he was perfectly measured and factual; I’m not sure what she is quibbling with. If you say he put his foot in your mouth, you should be factually based and say how.

Now, larceny on the other hand ...

OK, but be realistic about what the “epidemic” is.

But how can people pay good money just to see players in the same uniform?

I can’t believe what a minority view this is. Where do people think the Bulls would have gone by keeping Butler, and eventually paying him a quarter of a billion dollars? Why does everyone assume that if they were the GM, Boston would have coughed up the draft pick, or someone else would have paid a “fair price”?

You really don’t think any kind of bidding was solicited? Why does everyone assume there were all kinds of great offers available if just Garpax had listened.

It won’t happen. I listen to sports radio and people still talk about the crap Bulls lineup as if it’s the Jordan days. They fill the United Center game after game simply because it’s “the Bulls” and the NBA. I have no idea why.

Often the simplest explanation is the best one: Yes, that is the best they could get. If somehow you could empirically say, they could not get a fair return (never mind that the market is the ultimate determinant, not what you “think they should get”). What would be the point of them keeping Butler? Most people…

Gee, we are writing a headline and story about what a player’s trainer said. Let’s see what the housekeeper thinks before we conclude anything. And isn’t his implication that his employer, and he,  is pissed about having to depart this “worst culture”?

Except maybe he didn’t. What do you think they could have or should have gotten? Had they passed on best offers, then what. Retaining Butler and .500 purgatory for the coming years—as there is no evidence they can build a winner around him—and ending up paying him a quarter of a billion dollars? It’s great to say they…

I’m not really getting the Perron thing. Shouldn’t a “goal scorer” score goals?