CubinNY

My wife made the same comment. I had no idea what song they were playing. One more thing I cannot stand about OSU, They are so proud of their band. The members acturally wear TBDBL (The Best Damn Band in the Land) t-shirts around campus. I dont get it either. Its just a college band. Fans buy CD's of the band playing. What the hell. I have an ND band CD (although I only play it during Irish games). Too much information.:wink: ------------- A Buckeye is a poisonous nut.

My wife made the same comment. I had no idea what song they were playing. One more thing I cannot stand about OSU, They are so proud of their band. The members acturally wear TBDBL (The Best Damn Band in the Land) t-shirts around campus.

Ohio State looks awful. One mistake after another and they can't stop the short to intermediate passing game. Tressell has a big job at half time. Eddie Geroge was dead on. They've gotten down and paniced and then they try to gain 25 yards on each play. I expect continued domination by Florida in the second half. This is as bad as ever seen OSU look under Tressell.

They're worse than terrible.

The point I am trying to make, perhaps not so wel is this: If the Cubs actually find a time share partner for Murton I think it is a poor use of recources. People can call it what they like, I don't really care. To me the big question is, what are the Cubs going to do about CF if JJ is traded? I don't think Pie is ready, and hope is not a plan.

Otherwise, anyone who doesn't play 162 games is apparently in a platoon. "Platoon" and "share time" might be semantics on a layman's level but they are certainly different intentions when it comes to managing a club. The funny thing is we're debating whether "share time" actually means "platoon" when the person who used the phrase clarified he didn't mean a platoon. The concept of a platoon essentially is allocating the position amongst multiple players around a predetermined variable - speed vs power, RHP vs. LHP, etc. Signing a backup for the position is not assigning a platoon and so far every indication from the club, and those close to it, are that Murton is the primary LF. Are they planning on getting a time share partner for Lee or Aramis or Izturis or Soriano? I believe all of them will have someone who can back them up. Bruce didn't clairify anything. He saind "not necessarily a platoon". He did not say "not a platoon partner". Every indication is that the Cubs once again don't have a clue as to how to allocate resources.

Here's an idea, don't be a pompous jerk who thinks the world revolves around you because you have money and are borderline famous. Then you won't have to worry about going to jail. again, that's not really a crime that should get you arrested. I agree. Just call a tow truck. Peavy acted like a jerk, but parking a car illegally is hardly a cause to get arrested.

The implication is that if Sosa was going to be ran out of town they better have a plan to replace him. They could have be proactive and gone after Beltran or done any number of different things then replace him with Burnitz. It wasn't an either or. Saying "sharing time" and "platoon" is only different on a sematic level. If he's sharing time with someone it will be a platoon. How much? I've already stated I think Murton would get less than 450 PAs. How much less? I can say. Regardless, Murton doesn't need a platoon/time share partner. It seems a bit simplistic to say the Cubs should have had a better plan to replace Sosa and should have been proactive and gone after Beltran. Sosa had an albatross contract with a clause the gave him a guaranteed option year if traded. It was very hard to move without eating a lot of money and/or getting him to waive the option. He was coming off a year that did not exactly make him a hot commodity. This was the MacPhail era, so the Cubs were not going to be signing Beltran without at least clearing the Sosa money off the books. Also, IMO platoon means one guy against righties and another against lefties. Giving a guy most of the starts with occassional relief versus especially tough righties is not a platoon, it is sharing time. Therefore, more than a semantic difference and I believe that was also the intended point of the post you are using as your support that it will be a platoon. It seems a bit simplistic to say that the Cubs had to trade Sosa and not have a plan. About the platoon, whatever. It is so Cubs like to waste rescources in one spot it is not needed while leaving CF wide open. The Cubs have put all their eggs in the Pie baskett.

The implication is that if Sosa was going to be ran out of town they better have a plan to replace him. They could have be proactive and gone after Beltran or done any number of different things then replace him with Burnitz. It wasn't an either or. Saying "sharing time" and "platoon" is only different on a sematic level. If he's sharing time with someone it will be a platoon. How much? I've already stated I think Murton would get less than 450 PAs. How much less? I can't say. Regardless, Murton doesn't need a platoon/time share partner.

But the reason he and Boras are balking at Boston's (possible) out-clause is probably becuase they don't like his chances to play well enough this season that he would be an attractive 2008 FA. I don't think that is the case. If he was hurt this year he didn't show it. To Giles Bros., I don't want to trade Murton. I love Ginger Kids. However, the Cubs don't, or at least they don't seem too. They've talked repeatedly about a platoon for Murton this year. This will be his third season in the bigs and if they are talking platoon they obviously don't value him very highly. The Cubs have never talked about a platoon for Murton. With the Cubs statements about wanting to get a left-handed bat, many people have assumed they want a platoon for Murton, but the Cubs have never come out and said it-they could want another left-handed bat for center field, for example. All the Cubs have said about Murton is that he will get plenty of playing time. Not according to Bruce Miles. Can you point me to where he said it? I didn't think he said that, but I certainly could be wrong (and probably am, if you remember him saying it)-do you know if it was in the paper, or what thread it was in? http://www.northsidebaseball.com/PremiumForum/viewtopic.php?t=37701&start=20 "Share time" is a platoon by any ohter name. I guess I just don't believe that if Murton gets 70-75 percent of the at-bats over a guy like Cliff Floyd it proves that the organization doesn't value Murton. It is more of a case that they want a left-handed guy with pop for the bench. To get somebody really good, they have to promise him some starts. Right now, Murton is really the only candidate to give away some of those starts, unless that person can play CF (which is unlikely). Will a guy like Floyd's presence help the team next year? Almost definitely. Will it hurt Murton's development? Maybe-but it really depends on how much of the playing time Murton gets, and if he gets 70-75 percent I don't think it will impair his development much at all. If the roster stays as it is right now, I can't see Murton not getting just about all of the at-bats, unless they determine Pie is ready and give Jones some of Murton's AB's. Platooning Murton makes little sense. If they bring in a someone to "share time" with him, Murton will get less than 450 PAs. If they want to platoon someone they should find a mate for JJ. However, JJ will likely not be on the team. I really have no idea what the Cubs are going to do. The outfield has been a mess since Sosa was ran out of town.

But the reason he and Boras are balking at Boston's (possible) out-clause is probably becuase they don't like his chances to play well enough this season that he would be an attractive 2008 FA. I don't think that is the case. If he was hurt this year he didn't show it. To Giles Bros., I don't want to trade Murton. I love Ginger Kids. However, the Cubs don't, or at least they don't seem too. They've talked repeatedly about a platoon for Murton this year. This will be his third season in the bigs and if they are talking platoon they obviously don't value him very highly. The Cubs have never talked about a platoon for Murton. With the Cubs statements about wanting to get a left-handed bat, many people have assumed they want a platoon for Murton, but the Cubs have never come out and said it-they could want another left-handed bat for center field, for example. All the Cubs have said about Murton is that he will get plenty of playing time. Not according to Bruce Miles. Can you point me to where he said it? I didn't think he said that, but I certainly could be wrong (and probably am, if you remember him saying it)-do you know if it was in the paper, or what thread it was in? http://www.northsidebaseball.com/PremiumForum/viewtopic.php?t=37701&start=20 "Share time" is a platoon by any ohter name.

But the reason he and Boras are balking at Boston's (possible) out-clause is probably becuase they don't like his chances to play well enough this season that he would be an attractive 2008 FA. I don't think that is the case. If he was hurt this year he didn't show it. To Giles Bros., I don't want to trade Murton. I love Ginger Kids. However, the Cubs don't, or at least they don't seem too. They've talked repeatedly about a platoon for Murton this year. This will be his third season in the bigs and if they are talking platoon they obviously don't value him very highly. The Cubs have never talked about a platoon for Murton. With the Cubs statements about wanting to get a left-handed bat, many people have assumed they want a platoon for Murton, but the Cubs have never come out and said it-they could want another left-handed bat for center field, for example. All the Cubs have said about Murton is that he will get plenty of playing time. Not according to Bruce Miles.

So they use which part of the plate then? I watch a lot of college baseball, and they pitch inside plenty. Nevertheless, two things make hitting with a metal bat important. The first is the weight. In resent years high school and colleges have restricted the length to weight ratio to -3. That means if the batter is using a 34 inch bat it can only weigh a minimum of 31 ounces. Metal fabrication technology has progress to a point were Easton and Lousiville Slugger were making bats with ultra thin skins, creating both less weight (as much as -6 or-7) and more elasticity, meaning that balls fly faster and balls fly farther. In short, the less the bat weighs, the faster you can swing it. The faster you can swing it, the farther the ball will go. The second thing is the diameter of the barrell. The barrell of an alluminium bat is bigger than that of a wood bat creating a bigger sweat spot. That's part of the reason why it's hard to jam a hitter using an aluminum bat (the other part being bat speed). High school and college now have new rules about diameter too. It's not so much about breaking wood but about a faster swing and a bigger sweat spot.

But the reason he and Boras are balking at Boston's (possible) out-clause is probably becuase they don't like his chances to play well enough this season that he would be an attractive 2008 FA. I don't think that is the case. If he was hurt this year he didn't show it. To Giles Bros., I don't want to trade Murton. I love Ginger Kids. However, the Cubs don't, or at least they don't seem too. They've talked repeatedly about a platoon for Murton this year. This will be his third season in the bigs and if they are talking platoon they obviously don't value him very highly.

This doesn't make any sense. They lost 3 games (and maybe 4) because they had some tough matchups. Arkansas played a top 10 Wisconsin team. Alabama was mediocre and played a similarly mediocre Okie State team. You also had the SEC showing its depth by teams like Kentucky and Georgia pulling off upsets against favored opponents. Well one game is in the national championship game, so it's completely absurd that you're even including that one. As for the other two, you get the second or third best team in each conference to play each other in the Capitol One Bowl, making it the best non-BCS bowl out there, and sometimes better than the BCS bowls. Then the next team in line from each conference plays in the Outback Bowl, and that's usually a very good game as well. But to further answer your question, it's because you get two very good, high-profile teams from deep conferences to play in a bowl game, and that's good for ratings, and I'd argue that it's good for college football in general. Games like Arkansas-Wisconsin are definitely worth watching. I know you're all proud of your Big East, but let's not forget that two years ago they were getting completely embarassed by a Mountain West school in a BCS game. So let's have the Big East teams earn their stripes before we just automatically start assuming that they can hang depth-wise and talent-wise with the traditional power conferences. If Rutgers, WVU and Louisville all stay good and Pitt/Cincy/USF keep emerging, then I'm sure the Big East will get better, higher-profile bowl games. But to think that an 8-team conference that just lost three of its most prestigious members will receive the same treatment as well-established power conferences is idiotic. Isn't the Big East part of the BCS series? If so, I don't see what there is to gripe about. If a MAC, Sun Belt, Mountain West or WAC (is that still a conference?) school goes undefeated they don't even get a shot.

Exactly what job was this? Please don't tell me he was going to start... http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070105rogers,1,1154597.column?page=2&coll=cs-home-utility Buried in the column: If Drew doesn't get signed by the Red Sox I seriously hope the Cubs make a play for him. They can trade JJ to the Red Sox. If they get Drew I will be very optimistic about 2007. I'm curious as to why? Drew completely changes the dynamics of this team. He hits lefthanded, can play CF and will put up at least .850 OPS in the middle of the order. He would easily make the Cubs offense the best in the NL, at least on paper. Next year they could trade Murton to make room for Pie, if he's ready, and slide Soriano to LF.

That's funny Vance because that's how I view the SEC and Big 10. Plus, Thanks to Delaney (Big 10 Commish) we will NEVER have a playoff because he's too happy with the Rose Bowl the way it's set up now. But to a man, most of the big name coaches in the SEC are firmly in favor of a playoff. I know Miles, Myer, and Tubberville are for certain. Unfortunatly neither their Presidents or ADs are in favor.

Exactly what job was this? Please don't tell me he was going to start... http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070105rogers,1,1154597.column?page=2&coll=cs-home-utility Buried in the column: If Drew doesn't get signed by the Red Sox I seriously hope the Cubs make a play for him. They can trade JJ to the Red Sox. If they get Drew I will be very optimistic about 2007.

Short-sighted was going for all the old guys in the first place. This might not turn out great, but it's definitely not short-sighted. Myopia isn't confined to the near future; it's possible to be short-sighted about the past as well. The Yankees are looking at one bad year and trading away a guy who could put up a 4ish ERA in the AL East for a couple of prospects, neither of which is rated higher than a B. If the Yanks were rebuilding, I'd be all for it, but they should be in a position to win it all in 2007. We'll see how he does next year. You're right that his age makes him risky to project because there are so few comparables, but he should be at least Arizona's #2 in 2007. I don't disagree with you, but it is my understanding that Johnosn didn't much care for NY and the media attention. He's been hounded since his first day in NY when he swore at a news reporter and camera man. When the NY media turns on you NY can be a very unfriendly place for a high profile athlete. Maybe Johnson asked to be dealt?

On ESPN Robert Smith brought up a great point. ND hasn't won a bowl game in over a decade. It's because they are always playing someone they shouldn't. They are habitually overrated and only get into the bigger bowl games b/c they bring in a bigger audience. The bowls are about how much money can be generated, not about getting the best teams matched up. The entire BCS and all the bowls are a sham. --------------- ND hasn't beaten a top ten team since Lou Holtz coached them. Forget joining The Big Ten, maybe they'd have a better shot in the MAC.

The Yankees would probably be interested in Blaylock from Texas and they are in need of pitching- Cubs get: Arod+Pavano Rangers get:Marshall+Mateo+Gallagher? Yankees get Blaylock+Eyre as a cub fan i would be all over that. i dont see the other teams agreeing to this though. A more realistic deal would probably be Cubs: Arod + Pavano Rangers get: Veal + Prior Yankees get: Blalock + Eyre + Marshall At this point in time I don't think any "deal" that involves Prior is realistic. He has to show he is healthy first. If he doesn't pitch in ST games that will be a bad sign. He is without a doubt the Cubs most important question to be answered this season. With him the Cubs have the makings of a pretty good rotation. Without him they're just mediocre.

The 2007 Chicago Cubs: A jigsaw puzzle with 25 pieces, some of which don't fit.

Agreed. That was a bad, desperate trade. Not only Nolasco, but Pinto will more than likely end up being every bit as big a blunder. We have a ton of question marks at the #5 starter slot with Prior, Miller, Cotts or Marshall. For all I know Guzman will all of a sudden snap out of it and realize his potential. But I can guarantee we'd have had no problems worrying about the 5 hole or maybe even wouldn't have signed Marquis if not for they horrific lose/lose trade. I can rattle off a lot of Hendry moves that i liked and until that Pierre mess i always thought protecting Macias insrtead of Sisco was his worst move, but nope. Losing those 3 young arms for NOTHING was simply awful. I am actually quite pleased that we spent money rather than leveraged away any more siginificant farm pieces, but I still await with baited breath to see what is done about an impact CF. I don't think some unfilled potential, claimed off the scrap heap type gets it done. There are few options out there, but someone out of perhaps the Dodger or Brewer orgs may be helpful. Both seem to have a surplus of OF's with good upside. Repko or Corey Hart would be awesome--i'd even be happy with Brady Clark for a short term--he's 33--but very serviceable. Maybe a 3-way with another team could land him...the Brewers look loaded in the OF with T Gwynn Jr, Laynce Nix, Mench, Hart, Clark, Jenkins, Anderson and Gross. Even Nix would work for me--saw him in AAA for a couple games right after TX traded him and he flat killed the ball. Bill Hall will more than likely land in the OF as well... Pie needs a lightning bolt miracle to be ready before 2008...he doesn't seem to be even close right now. Lets wait to see who the Cubs get in the Supplemental Draft for Pierre before we bash Hendry for failing to trade him before the deadline. I would rather have a first round pick than a C level prospect. I don't think Slappy was a Type A free agent. I believe he is a Type B so the pick the Cubs get for him will likely be after the 2nd round. I think the Cubs could have done better if they would have traded him at the deadline. However, "better" might mean closer to MLB ready than a draft pick. Nevertheless, the initial trade was very, very bad, but not as bad as the contract he got with the Dodgers. He's going to block some young talent for a few years.

My point is that Lee may have lost some power with the writst injury. But either way, if Soriano hits a solo HR and then Lee follows it is still two runs. My thinking is that Lee has decent enough speed and a pretty good OBP. If he doesn't hit for a lot of power or less power he could be pretty good in that slot.

No. Just No. Ok. Why not? Well, we would probably lead MLB in solo HR's. Lee has a career OBP of .363 Murton has a career OBP of .370 Aramis is a lock to hit at least 25 HRs.