Velcro Posted July 15, 2004 Group: Member Topic Count: 999 Content Count: 19,229 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/14/2002 Author Share Posted July 15, 2004 ahead of Bern's? that is a very grandiose statement... It must be **** good then. I loved Bern's... i've never been to anywhere better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TripleB Posted July 15, 2004 Group: Member Topic Count: 99 Content Count: 4,517 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/28/2003 Share Posted July 15, 2004 Funny to hear the rich get richer with somebody talking about the red sox who have not won a world series since 1918. I said "rich", not successful .............. Don't the Red Sox have one of the highest payrolls along with the Stankees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
___ Eats It Posted July 15, 2004 Group: Member Topic Count: 1,088 Content Count: 8,158 Reputation: 107 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/11/2004 Share Posted July 15, 2004 ahead of Bern's?  that is a very grandiose statement...  It must be **** good then.  I loved Bern's... i've never been to anywhere better.  In terms of the service, Berns has a slight edge on presentation. The QUALITY of service is stellar in both places.However, Legal has the edge simply because a good steakhouse is a dime a dozen in Florida. However, in a state where Shell's passes as good seafood, Legal is hands down the best seafood place I've ever been to.It's really a toss up. You can't go wrong with both places. Just don't eat at the Legal in Terminal B of Logan. Only bad service I've ever had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velcro Posted July 15, 2004 Group: Member Topic Count: 999 Content Count: 19,229 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/14/2002 Author Share Posted July 15, 2004 But a steakhouse in florida is equivilant to a seafood restraunt in new england, both are "their" thing.I'll take your word though that Legal is the Berns of the north ;DI would guess that Legal is cheaper than Berns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightsRule Posted July 16, 2004 Group: Member Topic Count: 104 Content Count: 2,464 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2003 Share Posted July 16, 2004 I said "rich", not successful ..............  Don't the Red Sox have one of the highest payrolls along with the Stankees? High payrolls dont mean chit. Ask peter angelos about that. I do hear what you are saying but the sox could spend 500 million a year and if they dont win a **** series how good did it work. You know kinda like the Yanks the last three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smazza Posted July 16, 2004 Group: Member Topic Count: 9,898 Content Count: 66,091 Reputation: 2,434 Days Won: 172 Joined: 01/01/2001 Share Posted July 16, 2004 boston would be crazy to go after johnson and give up top prospectsthey will not catch the yankees with johnsoni do not want giants to give up prospects to get johnson for a year or to on the chance he has something lefty in tank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightsRule Posted July 16, 2004 Group: Member Topic Count: 104 Content Count: 2,464 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2003 Share Posted July 16, 2004 boston would be crazy to go after johnson and give up top prospectsthey will not catch the yankees with johnsoni do not want giants to give up prospects to get johnson for a year or to on the chance he has something lefty in tankThey dont have to catch the yankees. They need to make the playoffs and beat the yankees in the playoffs. Having Schilling, RJ, and Pedro pitching in any playoff series is pretty nasty. Also, Sox have no prospects as they would probably trade Nomar for prospects and then deal those prospects so it would be kinda like nomar for big unit and nomar is probably leaving in free agency anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velcro Posted July 16, 2004 Group: Member Topic Count: 999 Content Count: 19,229 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/14/2002 Author Share Posted July 16, 2004 Sox have some prospects that are good, but i would be more for using Kim, Mendoza, and Millar as trade bait, if we could keep Nomar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightsRule Posted July 16, 2004 Group: Member Topic Count: 104 Content Count: 2,464 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2003 Share Posted July 16, 2004 Sox have some prospects that are good, but i would be more for using Kim, Mendoza, and Millar as trade bait, if we could keep Nomar.Boston Herald has an article saying sox are not pursuing RJ and have about a 1-10% chance of landing him. I hope this is just smoke and mirrors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velcro Posted July 16, 2004 Group: Member Topic Count: 999 Content Count: 19,229 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/14/2002 Author Share Posted July 16, 2004 I heard that Gammons said on ESPN radio this morning that the Yanks are going to trade cash for RJ and no talent... If Bud "hypocrite" selig lets this deal go through, the rest of the league should just quit and form a new baseball league and not invite the yankees or selig.He said after the Arod deal that he wouldn't allow any Cash only deals.I hope that gammons is wrong, like he usually is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now