LuckyLopez

Business incompetence and insanity aside, the Scranton sales team has always been presented as very good at their jobs. Michael's clearly a gifted salesman who's strange methods have been shown to land a number of big sales. Dwight's been shown to be the best sales man for Dunder Mifflin. Jim, though a slacker, has always been presented to us as a good salesman who the higher up see lots of potential in and who has nailed down sales when he works for them. Even Stanley was presumably a good enough salesman to warrant Karen trying to lure him away to her branch with a bigger salary. Whereas we've kind of been shown that the rest of the company is a mess. They may not be as insane as the Scranton branch but its always struck me as a flip. Scranton's always struck me as the better salesmen, even if they're clearly the worse businessmen. I'm kind of interested to see if this is followed up on as far as Wallace trying to figure out the key. Wallace transferring Michael to a new branch to see if whatever he does can work on a new office could be a way he went. Or Dwight following in the steps of Jim and leaving the branch to be away from Angela and try to reshape the sales team of another branch. Of course either is probably too drastic a move and I'm more expecting the status quo.

I don't think Hernandez will get the push any more than I think he won't. I'm just reserving judgment. The match didn't do everything I hoped but it also wasn't bad for him, IMO. Next week's followup is probably where I'll make an opinion. If LAX confront the Mafia or Cornette I'll probably be pleased. If they do nothing I'll probably be antsy and waiting for the next week. If they just go on to other business with no mention of this week I'll be annoyed.

I can I possibly argue with "Its TNA so I already know its bad"? My apologies.

The point is it doesn't matter if Sting and Hernandez have a good match. If Sting puts Hernandez over well. Or if Hernandez comes out of the segment looking like a star. Because for days people will have already been CERTAIN that the match did nothing, Hernandez was wasted, and the whole think was another blown opportunity. Many of those people won't even watch the show to see if their assumption is right. But many of those who do will be going in with a preconception that will naturally shape opinions of it. That's the problem with spoilers and its especially true for TNA where they tape 2 weeks at a time and are known for leaving out backstage segments or recording the show out of order. That and TNA has this "Its TNA" rep that allows people to look at everything in the worst case possible because "that's TNA." And I'm not even saying this wasn't a mistake or a blown opportunity or a bad segment. I'm just saying that doesn't it make SOME sense to wait until the company actually presents it as intended to judge it?

This is the inherent problem with TNA as far as spoilers go. By the time that match airs people will have already have formed opinions on it after days of arguing it. Even though they've seen nothing more than a basic 2 sentence writeup with no knowledge of how accurate or detailed it is or if there was anything to follow it that didn't air to the audience. And if Hernandez has a segment NEXT week following up on this? Won't matter a bit because a core of the audience will have spent 2 weeks formulating their opinion and already decided the shot was wasted and Hernandez' momentum was buried. We haven't seen a thing but we're already saying the match was poor, Hernandez didn't look special, and it was all overshadowed by the Dudleyz and LAX were forgotten about.

I think you can probably have them rationalize involving younger guys on the grounds of grooming them. "When we decide to let go YOU will be he the hand chosen successors." But if its not in the plans I can certainly understand them not doing it. I don't know. I'm personally willing to give TNA a pass on Kip. They were in a tough spot. A few hours before the show. The gimmick of the stable makes it tough to find an appropriate fill in. The limited time made it impossible to go outside the available roster. They don't want to rewrite the booking on the fly for the purpose of 1 6 man tag. Handicap match means Steiner and Booker need to carry the full load, and Steiner's not up to it. If Sting and Angle get involved than the Frontline look like huge losers if they don't (more so than with their slow run ins on Impact) so you can't book it how you want without making it a giant war. You can put a guy like Morgan in but that means changing up plans. Its kind of a mess. I can give them a pass on thinking they could get away with Kip on the grounds that he kinda fit and was available. But I also understand how the main event shapes the view of a PPV for many people so the reactions. I'm just more prone to forgive bad main events, especially if there were extenuating circumstances.

Yeah, it seemed pretty slim odds that Hernandez would win so that's no surprise. Winning by DQ certainly gives good reason to give him another title shot and this gives LAX reason to be involved in this top shelf story. It seems a little early to call it a waste when LAX could easily show up next week in Foley or Cornette's office and demand a title shot for Hernandez. And yeah, the DQ rule has been gone for plenty of time and this isn't the first title match to end with a DQ since then. And it was, oddly enough, explained away very simply and logically as a NWA rule that no longer mattered as they were no longer NWA titles.

That is the rub. He's cutting guys who have potential, haven't had much time to sink or swim, and probably don't cost WWE that much. Cutting guys like D'Lo and Venis is easy for WWE because they know what they've got. But with the younger talent you always have the potential that WCW had Undertaker, Diesel/Kevin Nash, Razor Ramon/Scott Hall, and HHH under contract and couldn't manage to get even a fraction of their potential out of them. He's just cutting people because he's never heard of them. Scotty Goldman/Colt Cabana has long been considered one of the most WWE ready indie guys and has yet to get a chance to see if he could get over in WWE. He could well be a money maker for WWE. And as was said, you don't HAVE to be a main eventer to make WWE money. But if you just cut anyone and everyone who isn't over than you're not really using any judgment as to whether the guy actually has ability that YOU have failed to tap or that he has failed to fully show. Sure, potential can amount to nothing but none of those stars he mentioned were sure things that no one doubted when they first debuted. Austin had a character sure to get cut by that criteria before he became Stone Cold. As did the Rock, HHH, Cena, and others. Never mind that he's cutting people who ARE over like Swagger and Killings. Or even contemplating cutting Miz & Morrison when they've been one of the most over undercard acts in WWE for a long time and WWE seems to deem them valuable enough to use them on all 3 shows. I actually think much of his list is defensible but the method just seems completely backwards.

I've never had too much trouble but I've certainly heard people complain enough. I've ordered a few times including on Thanksgiving and I got it fast enough. Probably not as fast as Amazon but no more than 10 days or so and faster than most of my ROH orders have come. But like I said, I've heard enough complaints that it might not be incredibly rare to have that problem.

I don't know. Clearly its just baseless speculation but I really do personally think Dixie's right and more of the figures get bought by adults to put on the wall or a shelf than kids to play with. Maybe that shifts with WWE that clearly has a wider audience and a larger number of kids in it but TNA's a product that has never aired before 9 PM and has spent most of its run outside of prime time or even cable television. Its a niche product and to that end I'd assume its merchandise is sold to a niche audience. WWE is a niche product as well but it has a large foundation in our culture, a much wider reach, and a clearly larger youth audience. Again, baseless speculation, but if its true that the TNA figures don't show up in Toys R Us that often that just seems more evidence to suggest that TNA expects people to go looking for their figures online or in specialty stores. Or at least that the possibility of kids picking it up isn't enough to warrant putting them out there for them. A kid goes to Toys R Us to get his toys, but a 20 something has no problem going to TNAwrestling.com or highspots.com because he's happy to blow $30-40 on a pair of Beer Money figures for his shelf. Lord knows I fought with my nerd self a month ago when I saw an Arn Anderson/Tully Blanchard set. Obviously figures like that are going to be more themed to older WWE fans since kids won't have the slightest clue who Blanchard is. But still, while I figure there are some kids out there playing with their 6 sided ring their parents bought half off or because it was weird or because they are big time TNA fans... it just seems more likely to me that the Senshi figure is being bought by the 30-year-old who wants to complete his Triple X set. With WWE kids might be a larger audience. But this is a case where TNA's limited scope would suggest to me that just as their audience has often be the hardcore niche instead of the "casual" wrestling fan that they're selling their merch to the same people and not the same kids who might be buying Rey Mysterio Halloween costumes or John Cena Chain Gang gift sets. (Or, you know, whose parents buy them.)

She simply called upon a popular and well known character that was an exaggerated extreme of a very real demographic. And really, the Virgin's friends thought his toys were cool too. That's just 18-35 year old men or whatever. And that's wrestling's demographic. And that's who they've been selling these action figures/collectibles to forever. Not just TNA or wrestling but all those MacFarlane and Palisades figures. Its mildly comical that she called on such a character to try and describe the audience but isn't it also pretty obvious? Wrestling fans often are comic fans and buy action figures, spend a ton on DVDs, internet folks, etc. Geeks. Geeks are certainly a group TNA and WWE WANT to get a ton of money from as we/they tend to spend lots on stupid stuff like video games and action figures and DVDs. Of course a kid who watches TNA would theoretically want the toys too, but I think its probably safe to assume that in 2009 this VERY lucrative business of collectibles and action figures is largely marketed to adults. After all, the place I know where to look for them a decade ago wasn't the toy store as much as it was the comic book store, sports collectible store, or video game store.

Well again, I just think that's more nuanced scheduling. Cena wouldn't HAVE to take a break on April 1st or whenever he was scheduled. He could easily work another month and just come back a month later. If a wrestler was deemed healthy enough he could certainly work an extra grind and go a year or more without time off. A lot of this would be rooted in Setting a frozen schedule and abiding strictly by that would fall apart within 6 months. Wrestlers would get hurt, others would get suspended, others would get hot right before their break was scheduled. Obviously leeway would be needed with such a system. And responsible individuals would have to run it. Doctors who gave responsible and credible health reports, testers who gave legitimate test results, wrestlers who were honest about how they felt, and bookers who handled this all properly. It would be a culture change and would take people paying attention. But at the same time it sounds overly complicated when it really amounts to "every wrestlers gets 2-3 months off a year from the travel schedule." If a wrestler ended up going 10-12 months without a break then there should be someone there keeping track and saying "Hey, you know he worked through his 'break' for booking plans but maybe we should give him some cooling off period." Or a wrestler that has only had 5 months since his break could say "I'm hurting so we might have to move this up." Its wrestling. No one would stay healthy on schedule, suspensions and personal issues wouldn't disappear, and hot runs and good angles would necessitate changing things up. But if 10 wrestlers are "scheduled" to a take a break on April 1st and 8 of them do that helps (in theory) to lessen the wear and tear and need for drugs on the roster as a whole. Then the issue becomes making sure those 2 who kept working don't end up going 18 months without anything resembling a break. Of course the wrestling world isn't too good at self control and discipline, which is basically the problem.

Wrestlers disappear routinely so I don't know that it would be a big issue. I honestly don't think it would be a problem to just leave it out there and let people assume the truth. "So-and-so is taking time off to rest and be with his family." But even if you wanted to keep kayfabe sure, you could write people out with injuries, suspensions, and other stories. It would make it a bit more involved but not that much more difficult, as long as you didn't get too redundant with stories. I mean I get your point. It could become overly gimmicky and redundant if a dozen guys were suspended or injured on August 31st and then all recovered/returned January 1st. But I don't think it takes too much more effort to do it a bit more casually. Undercard wrestlers disappear from TV all the time. We've seen a number of midcarders and main eventers take time off after a story finishes up (like Edge when Taker "sent him to hell"). How many guys just disappear for months on end after the Draft, some we STILL haven't seen surface on their brands and a guy like Deuce Snuka who went forever. Its a bit harder to make that top 3rd of the WWE roster disappear but with Orton punting people in the head and Taker sending people to hell and HBK wanting time away with his family... I honestly don't think its THAT hard to do. The problem with the brand cycling is that it screws with WWE's money and their TV schedules. ECW can't take up the house show slack for RAW when they have off and USA certainly wouldn't want to lose RAW for 2 months nor take ECW in exchange. There's complications with a general roster cycling but they seem MUCH bigger with entire brand cycling. Losing half a dozen guys from RAW at most, 2 or 3 who had serious roles, threatens to dilute the RAW product a bit. Something which can be lessened a bit with the cross branding they've done the last couple of years. And of course there are other ways to play it. Santino could take his 3 months off and still fly in every Monday to cut a promo. JBL could take his 3 months off but still sit in on announcing. Regal could take his and be acting commishioner. Orton could be the mouth piece for Legacy. Or WWE could even fly CM Punk in every other Monday to wrestle a 8 minute match and keep him fresh in our minds even if he doesn't have an active story. As long as they're still getting 6 days a week off and not living that brutal travel schedule. And really, in the brand cycling it seems like you HAVE to just acknowledge to the audience that an entire brand needs time off to rest in their "offseason." So if you're willing to do it there then I see no big reason not to just be able to say "Randy Orton is taking time off after his failed bid to win back the title to rest up some injuries and regroup." Its certainly not an idea without complications or risks to the WWE product. It just strikes me as much less disruptive than full blown offseasons for brands or the roster as a whole. If RAW needs to run for 2 months without Cena and JBL that might hurt them a bit, but it has to be better than doing nothing. And in theory if WWE is competent enough it should lead them to building stronger rosters to compensate. EDIT: But again, I don't believe its any more likely to happen than a full blown offseason. I'm just talking.

Giving time off wouldn't require an offseason or a whole brand laying back. It would just take some planning and organization to cycle guys around. For example, if you determined that Cena, HHH, Orton, Batista, Taker, and HBK were the top 6 guys in the company than you work out a schedule. Cena and HHH have off April to June, Orton and Batista have off July to September, Taker and HBK have off October to December. January to March would be the mandatory on time where the whole roster was available from Rumble to Mania, in theory making that period more special thanks to a larger roster and creating automatic "returns" for the Rumble. You'd have to work down the roster to break it up. You could cut the breaks from 3 months to 2 if that seemed reasonable, thus meaning you could fit in 4 cycles and have less guys missing from the roster. If Cena got hurt in July after he returned from his break then you could adjust the schedule to have Orton return a month early but grab a month of rest somewhere else when HBK returns a month early. If you planned it all out very well then it could improve the product by keeping wrestlers away from each other for large periods of time and building anticipation for matchups. It would open doors for midcarders to punch through into the main event, it would make it harder for a guy like Punk to be lost in the shuffle, and if you happened to make a new star in April than the combination of the breaks and cross brand stuff could mean he'd go 6 months before facing off against a big star. It would take organization and planning and it would take a certain level of commitment. It might even end up killing the brand split but that's basically dead as is. But if they ever decided they wanted to do it they could do it without having to take months off and losing a ton of money. Of course giving talent time off risks diluting the product but forcing yourself to be without key stars for a certain amount of time also forces yourself to elevate and use new talent. Such a plan would probably require the Tag, IC, and US title divisions being handled better. It would take a large change in booking since WWE is all about the main event stars, but if they wanted to it could be done. Of course they don't want to so its moot. I just think that even as pointless as it is to discuss an "off season" it should be noted that you don't need to give EVERYONE the same vacation and close up shop in order to make sure everyone gets the same amount of rest.

For what its worth from what I read it isn't necessarily Time Warner's fault. They claim Viacom is trying to gauge the subscribers to make up for decline ad rates from poorly rated networks. It certainly sounds possible. True or not they're argument is that they don't want to have to raise your bill or set a precedent where other channels do this and you get a big bump. Its not like this is a case where Cablevision refuses to carry SNY or YES (for a YEAR) because they were angry over losing the Mets and Yankees from MSG. Or a channel and a cable company fighting over whether a channel should be included on an existing package or be a separate subscription cost. TW SEEMS to be trying to help you. Of course I'm not a TW subscriber so I haven't paid attention much. But either way, Viacom doesn't want to lose millions of households including much of LA and NY. Spike may get blocked out tomorrow but I wouldn't bet on it taking more than a week or 2 for a deal to be struck.

I never play win Win Shares so I apologize if I'm totally misunderstanding them. But isn't 3 players accounting for the same numbers as 4 a clear improvement? SOMEONE will fill that 4th spot and assuming he brings any win shares that's a gain, no? Doesn't it mean that Swisher, Nady, or whoever replaces Abreu is all gain? Besides what Nady brought in last season? Again, correct me if I'm wrong but the Yanks failed to sign their 1st and 2nd Rd draft picks last season. Doesn't that mean they're going to end up with a 1st and 2nd Rd pick in compensation despite all of this? Which probably strikes me as the true injustice of this system of the Brewers get a 2nd Rd pick and the Blue Jays get a 3rd while the Yankees still have a 1st. Obviously that's 2 less players the Yankees added last year so in the end the system has the same number of picks and prospects. But the Yanks won't be out of the draft next season and will have the opportunity to add top prospects. As I understand it they're guaranteed the 29th pick for Gerrit Cole and the 76th from Scott Bittle. And with so few players offered arbitration this offseason the sandwich rounds should be shorter and help the placement of that Bittle pick as well as the Yankees' 4th Rd pick. No? Unless I'm just completely off.

And in theory silence works as effectively as an announcer raising his voice. Either deviation from the norm implies to the viewer that something of note is happening. But yeah, Tenay and West do neither. I've learned to deal with the announcers. You tone them out, you lower the volume a bit, whatever. But there's never those moments in which you stop and say "Hey, the announcers are excited/silent. What about?" And even if you ARE paying attention stuff like that works as subtle storytelling devices. I'm not a big fan of JR but the two things he undeniably does well are turn it up for a big moment (usually with the catchphrases) and shut up when its appropriate and let the wrestlers/images do the talking.

I think there's something to be said for wrestling being like sports that many people keep it on in the background or zone in and out. You don't have to stay focused to the story as you would a drama. And if you are talking or washing dishes or what have you then the commentators can act as cues to tune in and out and follow the story. The problem is that I think the announcer drawing you back in for something notable is a big part of that. The announcer's tone changes when the bases are loaded or the team is in the red zone. They get excited when there's a HR or a TD. But Tenay and West are always so ON their excitement becomes the baseline and there are no moments in which your attention is drawn because they just got MORE excited. They're ALWAYS yelling for you to be watching.

It seems plenty possible that JBL is in fact a tough guy who can hold his own in a fight but is also a giant bully who picks on people smaller than him to boost himself up. And that he got put on his ass by a man half his size not because of either of their respective toughness or fighting ability but because he was drinking, off balance, unprepared, overconfident, or whatever.

I think a lot of fans DO ignore that this is a job for the wrestlers and they may well be satisfying making a good payday and not care in the slightest about their characters or on screen success. But I also think those people who insist that its all business constantly ignore that there's a basic level of satisfaction with your job that's going to at least occasionally be tied to those things. It may be a job but the reason most of these people decided to work is because they enjoy it. Its a crazy business (especially for women) filled with drugs, poor job security, horrible travel schedules, little time at home, few places of employment, and physically demanding tasks that destroy your body and any responsible doctor would tell you to stop immediately. They enjoy wrestling. So at some point some of these people are going to stop enjoying it if it just becomes a dull routine. There isn't a right or wrong answer to it. One wrestler can be satisfied with money while another want some creative satisfaction. They're individuals with their own individual priorities. Assuming someone is miserable because they're jobbing makes as much as sense as assuming they don't care about putting over people with half the talent because the office doesn't deem them attractive enough. They're human and capable of either.

Is there any reason that's logically flawed? The match last year stipulated he be fired. He was. It didn't stipulate he be banned from TNA or retire. If anything TNA could theoretically establish that the firing comes with a 1 year ban from TNA and Daniels is now free to return. But if they don't do anything like that there was nothing within the idea of Feast or Fired (that I remember) that suggested Daniels couldn't get hired back eventually. And a year's absence is a lot longer than most "firings" in wrestling. Agreed. I want Cide to take the X title and I'd be comfortable with Lethal & Creed (I assume) taking the tag belts. But I don't expect or necessarily want Hernandez to win the world title. Especially the Edge way. A face winning the belt in that regard is pretty tricky and you end up having to deal with him having screwed the champ and stolen the belt without truly earning it on a level playing field. Its fine for a heel and Punk doing it to Edge had a certain karmic justice to it, but it seems like a heel move. But besides that it seems way early to push Hernandez as the champ before he's had more than a handful of singles matches. Let him have a good showing against Sting and either get screwed or get a show of respect from Sting. The match can serve to get him into the singles world (especially if Cide wins the X title leaving him without a full time partner) and could get him mixed up with the Mafia and Frontline. Booker and the Legend title seem like a better belt for Hernandez to win at this stage.

TNA has called tag champs World Champs forever so it should have seemed an obvious possibility going in. Angle himself refers to his X and Tag title runs as "World" Titles when he calls himself a X-time World Champion. Whether they ARE "World Titles" is certainly an argument that TNA/Angle would probably lose with most fans but they're pretty consistent with their interpretation. Team 3D reasserted this just over a week ago when they played up the fact that they fit the MEM because they two were former World Champions. TNA may be stupid or silly for calling them World Champs but its what they do as much as WWE does or doesn't consider the ECW title a "World Title". The PPV seemed enjoyable enough to me but nothing terribly good or worth buying. The matches were mostly fun but not memorable except for the spotfest of ForF and the chickenshit behavior of Beer Money. And the show had a weird pacing to it. It felt like TNA said "We threw 75% of our roster into 2 matches and thus came up with a short card. So lets load up on the promos and backstage stuff to eat up time." The odd/good thing was that they basically turned to Alex Shelley and Chris Sabin to do it for them as it seemed like they were cutting a promo after every match. And with a variety of people like Borash, Young, Foley, and Cornette. So it was kind of weird and fun to see Shelley get that much mic time. The show wasn't great and wasn't worth $30 IMO but it also didn't fall short. It was a bad card going in so if you bought it you knew going in what it would be like. The matches managed to be pretty entertaining and if you're a Shelley fan you got a ton of him through the night. I don't know the point of this tournament and stripping but I too am glad to see the belt off Daivari. I have no idea where the tournament is going. It seems obvious Lethal/Creed vs MCMG is set, it would seem pointless to do a tournament just to put the belt back on Young or Bashir, and Dutt has no heat. So unless they plan to give it to a guy in his 3rd or 4th match in TNA it just seems odd. I'd actually be more interested if guys like Suicide and Doug Williams were involved making much of the tournament wildcards and making it feel like a new day for the X division. But I'm hoping it doesn't matter because Homicide finds the X title shot in his briefcase and takes the belt from the tournament winner. It seems like a great way to build up LAX as singles players to have Cide win the X title and then Hernandez go against Sting trying to go 2-for-2. He wouldn't win but a strong showing would immediately set him up to be a player. And Cide having the X title would give Hernandez a good reason to stay singles and maybe even take the Legends belt from Booker. I'd love to see the two of them as singles champs soon but still together. A tag team just climbing up the singles ladder instead of needing to feud or forget about each other.

I've always been ok with Roode as a tag wrestler and at times have even seen him in a tag team or stable and said that he might have the ability to be a singles star. I've always hated him as a singles star and hated how much time he was getting. The cynical side of me says that means Roode is just one of those guys who should spend his career in a tag team so he doesn't wear out his welcome, but there's still that silly side of me that thinks maybe someone could find some way to make him a star. But I don't think he has the charisma or ability to do it on his own without some kind of gimmick or story to get him there. And neither the rich guy thing nor the abusive guy were it. At this point the problem is that Roode spent so much time in the TNA midcard being shoved down our throats and so little of it was entertaining that we're locked in to an idea about him. So even if he is an equal contributor to Beer Money we're naturally going to assume that the credit goes to the guy who was doing great stuff as a singles star and not the guy who was boring us as a singles star.

Agreed. That's why I apologized.

I apologize, I didn't mean to ignore that. I'm just saying its a lot of "maybes" stemming out of a "what if?" Which is not to say that it isn't a worthwhile point of discussion but it seems like a lot of folks around the web are just taking it for granted. "Brink of a mass talent exit" sort of stuff. Christian's been rumored to be out for months, Sting was rumored to retire a year ago, and Angle is rumored to be considering leaving TNA in a year or so. When Chris Harris and Monty Brown left TNA for WWE wasn't there a similar "mass exodus" reaction? I dunno, I was just saying that I thought the idea was a bit presumptuous. But in all honesty that was a bit rude of me as I tend to think "if you're not interested in the discussion you need not read it." So my apologies.