You realize, my good sir, that your presence automatically raises the hipster quotient?

Have you met GBB?  He ain't got no hips.

Do you really find watching some guy waving a hot dog around like it's his dick to be fun?

More fun than watching the Astros.

This is for business related drinking purposes, so sex is out of the question. Unless they want to talk real money.

Sorrel (W. Alabama @ Kirby) is a fabulous restaurant, that also has a really cool bar.  Music plays at a level more than comfortable for serious conversation (there are TVs, but they're unobtrusive).  The food and drinks at this place are amazing (recently enjoyed a "whisky dinner" there - a 5-course meal, each course paired with a different whisky).  Happy hour drinks* and small plates are awesome.

* They offer a summer shandy - which in Limeyland is refreshing drink consisting of a beer, diluted with Sprite.  In Sorrel, they take a Shocktop wheat ale, and dilute it with vodka.

If Paul is tending bar, just drop mine or Miss Mrs Limey's name.

In other words, exactly the opposite of what I'm seeking?

Also, in my defense, Mugsy's is only "trendy" on Friday and Saturday night.  The rest of the time, it's a solid bar.  It never used to have TVs*, but they added them for some reason.  It's a lesser place for it, IMHO.

* They had one down the back end of the place, far away from the bar, and that was it.

Is there one left...anywhere?  I don't want a sports bar, I don't want a DJ, I don't want a "casual atmosphere", I don't want ferns, I don't want a TV, I don't want free shots, and I don't want strippers or hipsters or sandal-wearing dog lovers.  Not that those things don't have their place, but it's not what I'm asking about.  Is the regular old "bar" simply gone from this humongous city of ours?

Mugsy's on Richmond or The Cellar Bar.

Ausmus was very good at it. Very quiet, soft hands, caught the ball close to his body etc.  The only thing about Ausmus was that he wasn't very big. I don't know how much that meant to the pitchers he caught, but I've heard pitchers say they like a bigger catcher.

They may have just been being polite to you.

This is where I have a bit of difficulty. I believe the new ownership group has said, "fuck it," in term of fielding a competitive team for now. I resent the hell out of that attitude but I understand the choice, given what they were left with. I realize there is a natural ebb and flow of talent and over time every team will experience a fluctuation in it's ability to compete, but one should always try to make the best effort to win. I understand the spin, to not have mediocre vets take ABs away from unproven youngsters with potential. However, I also believe and history has proven, the best place to develop talent is in the Minors. I think you can hurt a player's growth buy putting one in a position where they haven't sufficiently proven themselves. A chance to fail is a chance to succeed but the odds aren't the same. I just feel that a team has a responsibility to the other teams and it's fans to make a better effort to put a more competitive team on the field.

The problem with the Astros it that their major weakness is at pitching and that was a problem anyone could have seen coming five or six years ago. And for this I can't wholly blame Crane and company because this is what they bought. Other than Wandy, the Astros haven't developed a successful starting pitcher in 13 years. Am I overlooking someone? I acknowledge that the free agent market for pitchers is never good for buyers. I also see effort through blind hope in bringing in guys like Humber or Galarraga.

It sucks all around. But I can't give the new guys a pass in my tiny brain, maybe because I think Crane is a major fuckstick.

I also think that Crane is a fuckstick, but that doesn't make him unique amongst major sports franchise owners.

However, I think what we are seeing here is the Astros blazing a trail that will be followed by other teams in the future.  They are taking maximum advantage of a recent rule change and, assuming it works, other teams in similar predicaments will do the same.

What's the difference between what the Astros are doing here and what, say, the Colts did two years ago?  They really laid down over the last couple of games to ensure they got the worst record and the opportunity to draft Luck.  Then they roared right back into the playoffs.  Things happen faster in football, because of the college system maturing the players for them, but this is the same strategy that the Astros are using.  It's just that this is the first time it's been deployed in baseball.

The line between a major league caliber and not a major league caliber is very thin. You have to find out. But the reason they are losing is not because they basically are wrong in their evaluations or are purposely trying to lose. The reason they can't win consistently is because the organization is bypassing integrating young players that may (or may not) help you win into a core group of veterans. Houston is doing that differently than anyone else, hoping the kids respond to the challenge.

That they aren't is not because the strategy is to lose or even that some of these guys are not major league caliber. The reason is that Houston is in no position to integrate young with veteran... they had no farm system and they had players that were too old (other than Pence and Bourn). When Bagwell and Biggio passed the baton to Oswalt and Berkman, then Berkman and Oswalt had no one to pass the baton to unless you count Pence... and we all saw how that didn't work out. Pence, I don't care how much they tried to sell it... was not a leader nor good veteran to build around. He was so undiciplined and was a good addition to a team that had that in place already.

Add to this that McLane wanted out and you have a disaster of an organization to have to revive. I just plain do not like people saying Houston is losing on purpose... "tanking"... that's a bad word to me.

I understand exactly what the Astros are doing.  And I firmly believe that the Astros know that the players they are trotting out every night currently, are not major league calibre players.  I agree that they are doing this as part of a clear long-term strategy, and I have no problem with it per se, I just disagree with your comment that the club thinks it can win with this roster.  They know they can't.  Everybody knows they can't.  Even the players.  But they play hard every night to try to stand out and stay in the bigs when the Astros move them aside as the prospects come through.

I don't remember hearing the Landry's story. I'd like to, though, because in your case there's always a difference between an event-based boycott and not going somewhere simply because the food sucks.

Actually, Landry's is more of the latter.  Simply, I have no truck with their Borgesque strategy of buying up quality independent restaurants, removing the subtlety from the menu and replacing it with too much butter and salt, and then stamping them out like a production line all over the country.

how tall is that windmill, Don?

Not that tall, but it is part of a collection.

ETA:  MLB, Randall's, Samsung, Landry's, to name a few.

Me too, I totally reject the idea that the Astros are not trying to compete. Mebelieves the organization knows it's a long shot, but they do believe these are major league caliber players. It's up the players to prove otherwise (and they are doing a good job of it too).

I disagree that the organisation thinks these are major league calibre players.  For the most part, they are (very) cheap placeholders who are not up to the task, and the club knows it.

Or you can simply elect not to go in the first place.

Exactly.

FTR, I do not believe the Astros' are mailing it in and, under normal circumstances, I would be watching them.  My boycott is in protest of MLB's - and that arsewhole Selig's - treatment of the Astros, and the new owner's complicity in same.

Yeah...you're gonna have to help me out with that one...

Dick...grown soft.

Saying to the players that "they do not deserve your support" merely because they are losing is utter bullshit. 

Agreed.  But protesting a team who is mailing it in, is totally acceptable IMHO.

This is about soccer, but the theme is universal.

When I have mentioned that I'm quite happy to leave a game if my team are getting thrashed I've been accused of disloyalty. In my mind it's actually the people who stay who are doing more damage. Walking out is a form of protest. You are saying to the players that they do not deserve your support.

I am not one to leave a game early under almost any circumstances.  But I do agree with the sentiment that a mass walk out of home fans should be considered a form of protest, even though it mostly isn't.  However, the author, for the most part, seems to be using a bad performance to justify leaving early when leaving early is really just a convenience for him.  That's bullshit.

The absence of the comma in "my brother who doesn't" implies that there is a brother who *does*. The presence of a comma before "who doesn't" apparently would have limited the clause's scope. At least that's my understanding. It's pretty subtle.

I saw this the other day, and I thought that question was bullshit.  Also, Hillary is an androgynous name, just to add to the confusion.

FTR, I got 7/10.

The Onion weighs in on Tiger's victory:

Tiger Woods told the assembled crowd that he struck the ball well the entire week, that since his public meltdown four years ago his life has been a debilitating morass of personal and professional struggles that often leaves him emotionally crippled, and that he made some very good putts.

Out 3-7 days vs. 15.

Because... without Altuve for a few games, the Astros might start losing?


I can see this making sense in the heat of a pennant or wild card chase, but the Astros really don't need to be fucking with the rules this much.

Didn't the guy saying "Almost there..." miss the target and then get blasted to smithereens?

Weird. My father said the same thing to me a few months ago.

It's as if giving them money is an annoyance.