82 wins' meaning I
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, Sept. 20, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
For the first time in a generation, our Pittsburgh Pirates are winners again! All the suffering, the failed trades and the late-season collapses of 2011 and 2012 — it's all over. Pirates fans throughout the world rejoice with a collective “Hallelujah!”
While current Buccos try to pass their winning season off as a minor accomplishment, I feel the Pirates' faithful should be partying like they're at a South Side bar. We are rejuvenated, thrilled with the on-field product as well as with having competent ownership that doesn't elect to trade productive young assets for semiretired journeymen like Matt Morris.
We have witnessed teams with promise, featuring the likes of Oliver Perez, Jason Bay and a young Jose Bautista, that failed to raise the Jolly Roger 82 times in a season. My generation was born into the losing culture, witnessing numerous 10-0 routs at the hands of the St. Louis Cardinals during our childhoods.
This organization has come such a long way, and much credit is due to the Pirates' loyal fans for sticking by the team's side for two decades of futility. While players remain focused on the pennant chase, we have earned the right to go out and celebrate win number 82.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett’s budget claim
- Apollo-Ridge excellence
- Orwellian redefinitions
- Keep Laurel Point
- Stalin, Hitler, now Putin