So a couple of days ago on the drive to work I caught Greeny complaining that a Baltimore Sun columnist used the word "interesting" when talking about the possibility of the Orioles going to a six-man rotation. He said he couldn't think of anything less interesting.

He then went on for ten minutes about whether or not Andre Agassi should be seeded at the US Open.

Draw your own conclusion.

EXCELLENT observation, EIU!!! I remember thinking that I couldn't care less about Agassi's seeding. HE'S the one that's chosen to cut back his playing time, removing the possibility of Open seeding. Why should some young player worthy of the #16 spot be penalized to prop up an over-the-hill part-time player?

Bad call, Greenie! You should have spent the 10 minutes campaigning for David Ortiz's MVP candidacy, which you aren't doing nearly enough....

Too bad the great god AROD isn't in the running again. Gotta record some new jingles....

_________________
If winning isn't important, why keep score?

I hereby crown Frankfort G as "The King of Tennis."

I would venture to say that 99% of this board's readers had no idea that Andre Agassi had "chosen to cut back his playing time."

The last time I watched tennis was Borg-McEnroe, circa 1978.

_________________
1923-1927-1928-1932-1936-1937-1938-1939
1941-1943-1947-1949-1950-1951-1952-1953
1956-1958-1961-1962-1977-1978-1996-1998
1999-2000-2009
----------
XXI - XXV - XLII - XLVI

On the bright side...Greenberg getting 10 minutes out of Agassi probably saved the listeners from another lame story about one of Golic's kids.