Dee-Nee Forums

General => RBI Baseball => Topic started by: Gwynn3k on 06/07/02, 08:54:43 AM

Title: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Gwynn3k on 06/07/02, 08:54:43 AM
rbi legend don sutton is on the shelf for the next 6 week as his kidney was removed.  a growth was found there...  a biopsy will be performed to see if the growth was cancerous.

get well soon mr. perm!
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: GDavis on 06/07/02, 09:30:10 AM
We like to call him "Don Slutton"
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Gwynn3k on 06/07/02, 04:10:07 PM
the thing i will always remember about don is that horrible weave that he sports on his head... that hairdo is brutal...  almost as bad as skip carey's voice...  
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Gwynn3k on 06/08/02, 05:42:04 PM
looks like don is going to make it...  he is in stable condition and hopes to be back in the booth with harry's son in 6 weeks...  donnie moore is going to have to wait for company in the deceased category... i will take odds that either doc gooden or darryl will be the first to join him...  
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: B on 06/09/02, 09:35:24 AM
those are two good bets, but id say that jose may be taken out before he prints his tell all book...mlb wont let that shit get out without a hit
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: GPines on 06/09/02, 05:48:30 PM
Either way, before the book comes out, or after, Jose might go down.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Gwynn3k on 06/09/02, 05:51:47 PM
it is amazing....  just looking at the before and after 'roids shots...  it is totally obvious... the guy was a twig and then he becomes  a trunk... the same goes for big mac and bonds... but mlb wont let that information come out...  canseco better watch his back.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Burnzky on 06/16/02, 09:34:24 PM
They shouldn't be aloud to use steriods in the first place.  They didn't have them when Ruth and Maris played, but they still hit 60.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Gantry on 06/18/02, 11:50:00 AM
FYI:  On this date in 1986 Donnie Sutton got his 300th career victory.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: redsfan1470 on 06/21/02, 12:09:57 PM
QuoteFYI:  On this date in 1986 Donnie Sutton got his 300th career victory.

On what date did he get his curly mullet?  That cracks me up.  I also like Jeff Brantley's greasy mullet on Baseball Tonight.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Gwynn3k on 06/21/02, 03:20:25 PM
dont forget gary carter... his permed-mullet is second to none.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: redsfan1470 on 06/24/02, 06:51:17 AM
Quotedont forget gary carter... his permed-mullet is second to none.

Ah, yes...  I saw a movie on HBO called "The Last Home Run" where Gary Carter starred.  Let's just say that ol' Gary isn't going to be winning an Oscar anytime soon.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Gantry on 06/24/02, 07:23:57 AM
You're a brave man to watch a movie starring Gary Carter....
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: witt is the shitt on 06/27/02, 06:11:39 PM
Quotethe thing i will always remember about don is that horrible weave that he sports on his head... that hairdo is brutal...  almost as bad as skip carey's voice...  

it's hilarious when rich eisen makes fun of skip carey
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Gwynn3k on 06/28/02, 02:31:57 PM
that is classic...  skip carey needs to go away and maybe tell his son to do something with his son's bushy-ass eyebrows.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Gwynn3k on 07/01/02, 10:48:57 PM
well, the perm is back in the booth... good to see we dont have to add a deceased to the watn yet... just wait till one of the 86 mets kicks the bucket.


welcome back permboy.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: witt is the shitt on 07/08/02, 05:27:48 PM
QuoteI also like Jeff Brantley's greasy mullet on Baseball Tonight.

I was watching Baseball Tonight last night and Brantley said "For the NL MVP at the break, I have one word for you......Barry Bonds."  So that got me thinking, does the length and greasyness of your mullet increase your intelligence?
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: redsfan1470 on 07/09/02, 12:04:28 PM
In a word, "No."  Brantley probably just wrote down a list of 10 NL players and then did a hair toss.  Whichever name on the list had the most grease on it became Brantley's MVP.  Hey, it can't be any less accurate than the writers' voting!
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Gwynn3k on 07/10/02, 01:46:12 PM
brantley's ability to combine the mullet and the perm is quite impressive...   his takes on baseball tonight are bland and lacking insight.  i prefer the writers (kirkjian and stark) to the ex-players...   i cant stand buck showalter... he needs to get a manager job so i dont have to look at his ugly ass any more.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Burnzky on 07/10/02, 03:11:21 PM


   So are u saying that u dont like ex-player tony gwynn commentating Joe.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: witt is the shitt on 07/10/02, 07:39:07 PM
there are some ex-players (like gwynn) who seem destined for commentating.  but, there are some (like brantley) that have no business commentating and are doing it just because they played major league baseball.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: redsfan1470 on 07/11/02, 12:29:06 PM
Kurkijan is great because he seems like such a tool.  One time Fred McGriff had a good game and Ravech and H.R. started woofing and barking whenever the Crime Dog got a hit.  Then Kurkijan said in his dorky voice, "Do I have to bark?"  We still get mileage out of that one.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: witt is the shitt on 07/11/02, 01:40:07 PM
QuoteKurkijan is great because he seems like such a tool.

seems like?
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: redsfan1470 on 07/12/02, 09:53:24 AM
OK... He is a big tool.  But it's still funny to laugh at him, and he isn't as creepy as Mike McFarlane.  And he doesn't have a 1970s porn 'stache like Jayson Stark.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Gwynn3k on 07/15/02, 03:03:43 PM
i'll take stark and his porn stache over macfarlane and his bland insight any day...  as for red sox homer gammons, someone needs to tell him there other teams outside chowdville.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Wilfong on 04/01/05, 10:48:15 AM
Quote from: Gwynn3k on 06/08/02, 05:42:04 PM
looks like don is going to make it...  he is in stable condition and hopes to be back in the booth with harry's son in 6 weeks...  donnie moore is going to have to wait for company in the deceased category... i will take odds that either doc gooden or darryl will be the first to join him...  

Who are going to be the next RBIers to kick the bucket? My top five (#1 being the most likely to go next). Yep, 4/5 were Mets. Canseco seems like he should have played there for a couple years.

1. Straw
2. Canseco
3. Doc K
4. Orosco
5. Nails

This thread is also interesting for the perm mullet discussion and steroid talk. We're going back to 2002 here.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: BeeJay on 04/01/05, 11:05:59 AM
I like how all the edits were done on New Year's Eve, 1969.  So Gantry and Gdavis, can you tell all us kids what the summer of '69 was like?
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Gantry on 04/02/05, 01:37:57 PM
That's even older than Zorba...

I'm going with an oddball and say Steve Lombardozzi will be the first RBI'er to die in the 21st Century...
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: nightwulf on 04/03/05, 01:58:05 PM
Quote from: BeeJay on 04/01/05, 11:05:59 AM
I like how all the edits were done on New Year's Eve, 1969.  So Gantry and Gdavis, can you tell all us kids what the summer of '69 was like?

Best guess? The forum software at the time those edits were made didn't store the specific date/time when a post was edited. The current software must (stupidly) not be handling this correctly, and using a time of "0." In POSIX-compliant operating systems (all flavors of Linux, basically any OS that ends in an 'x'), dates are stored as a number of seconds since "the epoch." Most systems define "the epoch" as 11:59:59 pm on December 31, 1969 (I'm not sure where 6:00pm is coming from). So, a time of '1' would be midnight on New Year's Day, 1970. As I write this post, it's currently 1112554584.

So that's where New Year's Eve, 1969 is coming from. Not that you were asking or probably care, but I'm full of useless knowledge like this, and it's my duty to spread it around.

Edit: stranger still ... see the "1029042000" in each of those "edited on" strings? That works out to be midnight on August 11, 2002.

Nightwulf
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: TempoGL on 03/09/09, 02:38:54 AM
Quote from: nightwulf on 04/03/05, 01:58:05 PM
Quote from: BeeJay on 04/01/05, 11:05:59 AM
I like how all the edits were done on New Year's Eve, 1969.  So Gantry and Gdavis, can you tell all us kids what the summer of '69 was like?

Best guess? The forum software at the time those edits were made didn't store the specific date/time when a post was edited. The current software must (stupidly) not be handling this correctly, and using a time of "0." In POSIX-compliant operating systems (all flavors of Linux, basically any OS that ends in an 'x'), dates are stored as a number of seconds since "the epoch." Most systems define "the epoch" as 11:59:59 pm on December 31, 1969 (I'm not sure where 6:00pm is coming from). So, a time of '1' would be midnight on New Year's Day, 1970. As I write this post, it's currently 1112554584.

So that's where New Year's Eve, 1969 is coming from. Not that you were asking or probably care, but I'm full of useless knowledge like this, and it's my duty to spread it around.

Edit: stranger still ... see the "1029042000" in each of those "edited on" strings? That works out to be midnight on August 11, 2002.

Nightwulf

linux nerds, what "time" is it now? is anyone geeky enough to actually refer to time as such on a consistent basis?
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: defen on 03/09/09, 08:51:58 AM
Quote from: Strassy on 03/09/09, 02:38:54 AM
Quote from: nightwulf on 04/03/05, 01:58:05 PM
Quote from: BeeJay on 04/01/05, 11:05:59 AM
I like how all the edits were done on New Year's Eve, 1969.  So Gantry and Gdavis, can you tell all us kids what the summer of '69 was like?

Best guess? The forum software at the time those edits were made didn't store the specific date/time when a post was edited. The current software must (stupidly) not be handling this correctly, and using a time of "0." In POSIX-compliant operating systems (all flavors of Linux, basically any OS that ends in an 'x'), dates are stored as a number of seconds since "the epoch." Most systems define "the epoch" as 11:59:59 pm on December 31, 1969 (I'm not sure where 6:00pm is coming from). So, a time of '1' would be midnight on New Year's Day, 1970. As I write this post, it's currently 1112554584.

So that's where New Year's Eve, 1969 is coming from. Not that you were asking or probably care, but I'm full of useless knowledge like this, and it's my duty to spread it around.

Edit: stranger still ... see the "1029042000" in each of those "edited on" strings? That works out to be midnight on August 11, 2002.

Nightwulf

linux nerds, what "time" is it now? is anyone geeky enough to actually refer to time as such on a consistent basis?

There was a big to-do about how the time hit 1234567890 a few days ago.  I'm pretty sure the answer to your question is no, though.
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Gantry on 03/09/09, 09:53:41 AM
I would have to say that nobody is that fkn dorky, as it would take a lot of math that would have to be done all the time. 
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: Gantry on 03/09/09, 09:54:14 AM
PS - I see this thread bumped and I thought Don Sutton was dead.  Thanks a ton Strassy
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: ultimate7 on 03/10/09, 11:11:04 PM
Time right now is 1236744664
Title: Re: Poor Don Sutton
Post by: ultimate7 on 03/10/09, 11:12:20 PM
Quote from: this actually happened at this time: on 02/13/09, 05:31:30 PM

There was a big to-do about how the time hit 1234567890 a few days ago.  I'm pretty sure the answer to your question is no, though.