HE SAID: Moving

February 10, 2010

Here’s a solution, click here and break out your Visa, Mastercard or Amex (but not Discovercard, those are for losers).  For those too lazy to click on the link, it’s a google search for Vermont area moving companies.  The last time I moved all I really had was clothes, a few random kitchen things, and a TV.  And I swore I’d never do it again.

Seriously, I’d rather take out a second mortgage to pay movers to move my shit for me.  Break something? So long as it’s not my flatscreen or sega genesis, I could really give a shit.  While I admire you for your gusto (read: thriftiness) in moving yourself, as Denzel said in Book of Eli (which really impressed me), “There is always a choice.”  The choice here: move yourself and be miserable for a week, or spend a bit of your savings/lay off the drugs for a bit and pay someone to do it for you.  Just kidding, my cowriter does not have a drug problem, as far as I know.

Clearly, I agree with everything you said in your post regarding moving, otherwise I wouldn’t be arguing so vehemently  about paying movers to do it for you.  Thus, I feel no need to repeat what you said.  But there is one crucial apsect to moving that you didn’t seem to mention – unpacking.

All those boxes aren’t gonna unpack themselves.  You need to reorganize all that shit yourself.  To me, that’s the worst part.  I’ve spent the last 3.5 years getting my condo in order how I like it…now you are telling me I have to do it all again?  As far as I know, moving companies will unpack the big stuff for you and set it up, but they aren’t hanging your framed October 28, 2004 front page from the Boston Globe above your shitter for you so you can see Varitek jumping into Foulke’s arms every time you take a leak.

So I guess what I’m saying is – never move.  Unless you are A. living with a crackhead roommate B. in a bad relationship C. living next to Snookie.


SHE SAID: Andre Agassi

November 11, 2009

Maybe it’s because of the people I hang out with, but there has been a lot of talk about this Agassi fellow of late.


I remember when he was big in the early nineties, when acid washed jean shorts, florescent colors and frosted tips weren’t a sign to run as quickly as you could in the other direction as they are today, but actually considered cool.  Unfortunately, 60 minutes showed some advertising footage of Agassi from the nineties the other night, and I was disappointed because what I remembered was a hell of a lot cooler than the actuality.  Then came the later years, symbolized by a shaved head and a more serious persona.  By the time he retired, most of the people who had been so adamantly against him when he was a flamboyant and rebellious newcomer embraced him as one of the greatest players the sport had seen and many even went so far as to consider themselves fans.  And no matter how you felt about him, most sports fans remember his stirring speech when he retired from the sport at the 2006 US Open.


For a long time I didn’t hear anything from or about Agassi.

And then I hear that he’s written a book.  And that in that book he discusses his use of crystal meth.

Nadal and Federer were not pleased.  Navratilova was damning.

And after reading many articles, watching both 60 Minutes’ and ESPN’s coverage, I’m torn.  I can’t decide if this is a case of someone used to living years in the spotlight and being controversial having trouble fading into the background?  Or is this a genuine gesture motivated by the need to be honest and forthcoming?

Agassi doesn’t have bad intentions in writing his book and coming clean about what was going on behind the scenes throughout his tennis career.  Had it been me advising him, I would not have told him to refrain from writing or publishing the book, but I would have told him to wait.  Because it is a fascinating story and he is a compelling personality, and his story should be told and there are many waiting to soak it up.  But, I would have told him to wait until his name wasn’t as recognized among kids who now might think of the drug as less dangerous since he is associated with it and was able to play at a high level while using it.  To wait until a few more of his rivals had retired so those that competed against him might feel a little less cheapened by his blatant disrespect not only for the sport but for their contribution to it as well as their time and energy.

But now it’s out there.  And while part of me wants to appreciate the book for what he claims it is, an open and honest look into his life, I can’t help but think that the motivation was more than slightly tainted with that old Agassi urge to rebel.  To be noticed.  To be different.  To fight, even when you’re not quite sure who you’re fighting against.

HE SAID: Andre Agassi

November 11, 2009

Ok so in the interest of full disclosure, this opinion is coming from someone who never liked Agassi as a player.  I definitely rocked a pair of jean shorts with spandex underneath in the 10 and unders, but besides that, he annoyed me.  He was a hothead who cared more about flamboyant shots than winning and lacked worth ethic.  Actually, now I realize why I disliked him so much during the first part of his career – he was too similar to myself.  I was a hothead who care more about flamboyant shots than winning and lacked worth ethic.  Then during the second half of his career (post meth), he seemed incredibly fake with his lame kisses to the crowd after every match.  Now, with the stuff that has come out of this book, those lame kisses make sense…seems to me that he was thanking the crowd for putting up with him being an ass for a decade, and for being a methhead.

I guess that isn’t really what you were posting about…you seem to be questioning on whether or not this full blown memoir is a good idea, and why did he bother?  Before I answer fully, I’d really like to read the book first.  People need to take all these excerpts and interviews with a few grains of salt.  As in, he wrote the book for three apparent reasons: 1. A lesson for others so they don’t make the same mistakes 2. to make some dough 3. self-serving divulgence of information to clear his conscience 4. to get back in the spotlight.

Those reasons were not in order.  Anyone want to take a guesstimate as to the order of importance for those reasons? 2, 3, 1.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive, in my humble opinion.As for reason number 4, I really don’t know where that fits, could be in first position, could be in last position.

“But Jeremy, he already has so much money…no way is he writing this to make a buck.”  No, he is not writing this to make some extra cash.  He is writing this to make millions of bucks.  He is writing this because maybe it will be made into a ABC movie of the week HBO miniseries (do they do movie’s of the week anymore?)  That’s why all these excerpts are coming out…notice how they aren’t crazy revelations about his day to day training routine.  No, they divulge such info as the crystal meth use, hairplugs, hatred of his father…Agassi (and his publisher) are trying to sell freaking books.  Oh, and yes, Agassi and his wife have millions and millions of dollars (much of which they have done amazing philanthropic work with)…but he is probably relatively bored, and if telling his story is going to make him millions more, why not?

Wow, I really didn’t expect to come across so angry.  But I guess meth just does that to me.  I mean, talking about meth, not taking it.  Believe me, after seeing this clip, I steered clear.

Dear. Big Papi

July 31, 2009



I am not a fool, there is literally no one in the game of Major League Baseball that I would be shocked to hear took steroids in the early part of this decade.  With the exception of Derek Jeter, you ask me about pretty much every superstar in baseball, and force me to gamble my mortgage on whether or not they liked a good needle in their ass, I’d probably bet in the affirmative.

That being said, it didn’t hurt me nearly as much as many when your name was leaked as part of the 104 players who tested positive in 2003 (note to everyone involved in MLB: unless all 104 names are just announced, this black mark on baseball will keep creeping up (second parenthesees – is it ok to use “black” mark, or I am going to be suddenly summoned to a meeting with our President with my favorite six pack?)).  But please, Mr. Ortiz, I beg of you, just handle this the right way.  So far, so good with your “wait til I get all the facts…I do want to address this with my team and the public.”

Your legacy has not been tarnished in my eyes.  Your walkoff hits against the Yankees in the 2004 ALCS will still be legendary…it’s just that the legends will be part of the Steroid Era.  It is what it is.




I had a conversation at dinner last night.  The question was, if you were Ortiz, how would you react?  There was a flurry of, well, if we were Ortiz we would know if we were guilty or not.  At which point my brother looked at me as if I had asked him how to spell the word “and”.

You have handled this controversy, thus far, as well as could be expected given a crappy set of circumstances in a town that loves to either love or hate it’s baseball players.  My sister-in-law pointed out that Manny has it a little easier – LA journalists aren’t as hawkish towards their players.  Given your scenario, keep hitting three run home runs doing your charity work, and people will move on.  Someone else’s name will be leaked and the attention will shift.  Not that I’m condoning drug use, but 2003 was a don’t ask/don’t tell gray area of steroid use.

This bizarre, marketing/paper selling name dropping scheme is getting annoying.  First off, the federal government being involved in substance use and abuse in baseball is a little confusing and seems over the top.  Doesn’t the government have better things to worry about?   There is this little skirmish going on in the Middle East … and some famines, genocide, epidemics, pandemics …

I don’t think the entire list should be published, but I do think that the leak should be determined and shut up (yes, I’m the master of the obvious).  It is not only tainting the sport and the era, but the sensationalism is making the sport, the athletes and the fans all seem cheaper.

Steroid use was not regulated in 2003.  You agreed to anonymous testing in an effort to determine if drug use should be monitored and are getting screwed over 6 years later.  It sucks and I’m sorry you and the other’s who were tested aren’t being treated with the respect you deserve.