jjgman21

watching the channel 7 mid-day news and heard this gem and umpires can treat people like that? umpires can't go shoving players and/or managers either, but you sure seemed to violate that one. umpires also "can't" make calls with regard to the uniform like you have done for 35 years now either there Bruce. nevermind the thing Lou said immediately following that which was 'he looked safe from the dugout.' Bruce, you have a great future at Fox News. another interesting aside from the report

are you familiar with a team called the Yankees?

this is what irritates me most about this. we've seen MLB administer justice differently and give proportionally larger punishment to Cubs serveral times over the pasat few years, this is just the latest example. I don't ever remember MLB suspending anyone the day following an incident, especially on a Sunday. in that respect, this suspension is essentially unprecedented. if I am not mistaken, MLB offices aren't even open on the weekend. we also have an 'indefinite' suspension, for a phantom kick. yet last year, when Charlie Manual unintentionally popped an umpire with the bill of his cap, he got one game. we've seen it with Kerry Wood, Moises Alou, a couple relief pitchers, etc over the years. equal conduct results in greater punishment if you wear the big red C. edit - as a for instance, Cox putting the ball on the chalk line last week to show where it hit was showing up an umpire in about as big of a way possible. it was excessive conduct by Cox. no suspension. just lots of nice flowery stories about how he's about the break the ejections record. also, as I pointed out in a different thread, LoDuca can stand at home plate screaming at the first base umpire. no problem. just get it off your chest Paul, and we'll continue when you are done. go NY.

Nick Swisher's dad was a total badass. there was once a brawl by the secondbaseman while the Cubs were on defense. he ran out, hurled players out of the way like they were toothpicks, until he found whoever he wanted and just went to town on him.

No. Think it is pretty much the 2 philosophies at work: the old school wanting strength up the middle at the 4 spots, and the new school wanting to max out OPS. Third school developing taking philosophys from both. Easy one as i lived near there at the time. 1987 Twins- Tim Laudner was the catcher (Ops=631) and Greg Gagne at SS (Ops=740). Edit for More: 1981 Dodgers: Scioscia 686 Russell 576. 1984 Cardinals: Porter 749 Smith 653. 1985 Royals: Sundberg 689 Concepcion 490. 1988 Dodgers: Scioscia 642 Griffin 512. 1989 A's: Steinbach 671 Gallego 655. 1992 Blue Jays: Borders 675 Lee 659. 2005 WhiteSux: AJidiot 728 Uribe 713. 2006 Cardinals: Molina 595 Eckstein 694. some 'dynasties' 91-96, 99-02 Braves Cardinals of early-mid 80's All the good Astros teams of the past decade late 80's A's most good Dodger teams from mid 70's- mid 80's

why Paul LoDuca is allowed to stand at home plate and yell at the first base umpire because he didn't like a check swing call, not only after the call, but again a few pitches later after he eventually K's? can't stomach to watch the Cubs right now so I'm watching the Mets-Giants. ump just stands there like it's all nothing. didn't Cliff Floyd get run for mumbling under his breath on his way back to the dugout a couple weeks ago and the ump followed him yelling? LoDuca stands there yelling, nothing happens. amazing how a year, and a change of uniform, can change things.

why did they have it in for Moises Alou in 2004? why did Greg Maddux's strikezone shrink for three years, then get bigger again? more serious - why do so many umpires prefer to call strikes by where the pitch was in relation to where the catcher set up as opposed to where it crosses the plate. or - what happened to the high strike that was called in 01-03 ish?

it's gone well beyond criticizing lawsuits they feel are without merit and he seems to be claiming people shouldn't have a right to bring a lawsuit. Article 3 is just as much a part of the United States Constitution as Amendment 1. Article 6 is just as much a part of the Illinois Constitution as Article 1.

Point taken. if it were your dad that died in that car accident, and that car accident were caused by the other driver, I bet your mom wouldn't feel a lawsuit was an abuse of the judicial system. I bet your mom would not only be distraught over losing a person she loved, but she would also be wondering how she is going to keep her house, her car, and you and your siblings fed now that she no longer has your dad's income to help raise the family. I think this post really shows how you are looking at these issues with blinders on and as the other person said, imposing your values onto everyone else. I think it also shows just how out of step you are with mainstream society on many of these issues. I suggest you stop talking about my family you brought it up like ten times. i guess you don't like people talking about stuff they know nothing about. now you know how everyone feels when you post. I probably stepped over the line, but I've seen the effects of injury on dozens of families. good, hardworking people, who get abosolutely screwed by a system that heavily favors the insurance industry, up to the point of having insult added to injury with investigators taking pictures through their windows. forced to forego any sort of future and settle for pennies on the dollar, because they need their medical treatment, medicine, food, school clothes right fricken now, not when the insurance company is through with their petty, baseless motions. then this guy comes along, and not only implies (states?) that these people shouldn't have the right to make their lives whole, but further, that this is an abuse of the justice system? he argues that I am moralling wrong for trying to help people who's lives have been ruined? he uses his family to prove his moral authority, then gets sanctimonious about his family when trying to induce him to where another man's shoes? no freaking way.

Point taken. if it were your dad that died in that car accident, and that car accident were caused by the other driver, I bet your mom wouldn't feel a lawsuit was an abuse of the judicial system. I bet your mom would not only be distraught over losing a person she loved, but she would also be wondering how she is going to keep her house, her car, and you and your siblings fed now that she no longer has your dad's income to help raise the family. I think this post really shows how you are looking at these issues with blinders on and as the other person said, imposing your values onto everyone else. I think it also shows just how out of step you are with mainstream society on many of these issues. I suggest you stop talking about my family no, you brought them up. I suggest you stop baselessly attacking something you know nothing about and using your families tragedy to do so if you don't want your family brought into this.

Let me ask you this. If instead of rear-ending that towtruck, Hancock had swerved and crashed into a carful of your loved ones, killing them all instantly, who would you be suing? Just Josh Hancock? Or would you be going after all of the folks that arguably had a role in the accident? Because the list of parties that you should be seeking damages from should look the same as Dean Hancock's list (less his own son of course). ummm, I have answered this question before in this thread. A family member of mine was killed by a drunk driver, and no we did not sue. of course there could have been a dozen reasons you didn't sue. one is that the drunk drivers insurance company just cut a check. another could be that the drunk driver was judgement proof (ie. had no insurance and no assets). another could be that the relative had noone to support, and therefore noone had standing to bring the claim. now if your family just decided that the decision not to sue was because they felt it would be an abuse of the system, well hat's off. but that's not how the vast majority of our society feels, so again, stop imposing your values on others. you're real big on people 'accepting responsiblity' for their actions. part of the way society holds people responsible for their actions is by creating liability when those actions harm another. why not sue, and thus hold the drunk driver accountable for the loss he caused? why let him off the hook? are you just such forgiving people it never entered into your minds, or is something else at play here? was your relative somehow just as responsible for the accident, and therefore your family felt it necessary to forego your rights because you guys also needed to accept responsibility for your actions?

Point taken. if it were your dad that died in that car accident, and that car accident were caused by the other driver, I bet your mom wouldn't feel a lawsuit was an abuse of the judicial system. I bet your mom would not only be distraught over losing a person she loved, but she would also be wondering how she is going to keep her house, her car, and you and your siblings fed now that she no longer has your dad's income to help raise the family. I think this post really shows how you are looking at these issues with blinders on and as the other person said, imposing your values onto everyone else. I think it also shows just how out of step you are with mainstream society on many of these issues.

well, with a certain notable exception

good abs, bad luck.

what do you guys make of Piniella cussing on Barrett? first, Eyre has say over what pitch was throw. second, Ethier looked pretty silly on the first two breaking balls, so a third one isn't a bad pitch there. Bob wasn't accurate. Barrett was set up on the outside corner. it's up to Eyre to put it in a good spot. seems like Barrett is a bit of a scapegoat for Lou's bad move.

please stop watching yourself take the ball out of the glove. thank you.

not sure if I am angrier at Izzy for swing at ball 4, or the ump for the 3-0 bs charity strike on the pitch before.

Here's the simple breakdown of three of our starters craptacular performances so far: Reyes: 0-7, 6.08 ERA, .259 BAA, 1.35 WHIP, 2.2 K/BB Wainwright: 4-3, 6.02 ERA, .346 BAA, 1.91 WHIP, 2.26 K/BB Wells: 2-8, 6.10 ERA, .251 BAA, 1.44 WHIP, 1.5 K/BB It clearly shows that at least Reyes has potential to improve and that he's had squat for run support. I think there were some problem signs that Reyes can work out in the minors. seems the runs he gives up comes in bunches, which may indicate a problem pitching out of the stretch. he also has a high p/ip. when looking at the other options you gave, they probably can't send Wells down, and Wainwright has thrown well 3 of the past 4 games.

Reyes sent down, Welley to the rotation.

anyone else see the evil eye Nomar gave to Abreu there? that's pretty classless. you could have ended the inning with a scoop there Nomar.

nope. they sure didn't. he's been hooking that outside pitch for dingers on a consistent basis against us for half a decade now. got lucky there. sorry to beleuguer a point, but by way of illustration 2002 - 1.080, 3 games, 1 HR 2003 - .808, 6 games, 2 HR 2004 - .720, 6 games, 1 HR, 1 2B 2005 - 1.653, 7 games, 5 HR, 3 2B 2006 - 1.059, 5 games, 1 HR, 3 2B it's not coincidence. it's the same pitch hit in the same way, time after time. Larry, please stop throwing Gonzalez low and outside.

nope. they sure didn't. he's been hooking that outside pitch for dingers on a consistent basis against us for half a decade now. got lucky there.

Larry Rothschild has worked Luis Gonzalez incorrectly since he became the pitching coast of the Cubs. let's hope a lefty starter will make a difference.

this entire discussion is based on relying on what has been said in the press about what happened and people's outrage because they think those accounts are sufficient to base a conclusion that there is no basis in fact for this lawsuit. the coroners office and cellphone records give no insight into the actions of the parties, accept the intoxication, which I'm sure is taken into account in MO caselaw (via, I believe someone stated earlier, comparative negligence). so we are left with the police and the video. every statement given to the police is one sided, and nothing in that video gives a clear indication of what happened. the police in fact are generally forbidden from releasing details in cases like this so as to not contaminate the investigation, so what you have is a cursory glance at a 'he said she said' contest. I bring up the press because of their inability or unwillingness to gather and present all the facts. instead they paste up a video that shows nothing and allow people's imaginations do the rest. do we know whether the driver of the other car was high? do we know what the policies of Shannon's was? do we know if the tow truck driver was on his 18th straight hour of driving the truck? no we do not. these are the types of questions answered through the litigation process, not via a statement from the StL PD or some fuzzy, edited video. The STL PD have been very accommodating at releasing details of this accident. They are the ones that released the video to the press. Why do we have to assume there is some nefarious scheme going on that everyone is trying to cover up and can only be solved with frivolous litigation? There is absolutely no evidence pointing to the things you are suggesting that might have been. the only insinuation I made is that people cover their own asses. if that meets your definition of nefarious schemes, then fine, there may be nefarious schemes. a police investigation is designed to see if a crime was committed. it is not designed to determine civil liability. I'm not going to discuss this point further. either you get it or you don't.

this entire discussion is based on relying on what has been said in the press about what happened and people's outrage because they think those accounts are sufficient to base a conclusion that there is no basis in fact for this lawsuit. the coroners office and cellphone records give no insight into the actions of the parties, accept the intoxication, which I'm sure is taken into account in MO caselaw (via, I believe someone stated earlier, comparative negligence). so we are left with the police and the video. every statement given to the police is one sided, and nothing in that video gives a clear indication of what happened. the police in fact are generally forbidden from releasing details in cases like this so as to not contaminate the investigation, so what you have is a cursory glance at a 'he said she said' contest. I bring up the press because of their inability or unwillingness to gather and present all the facts. instead they paste up a video that shows nothing and allow people's imaginations do the rest. do we know whether the driver of the other car was high? do we know what the policies of Shannon's was? do we know if the tow truck driver was on his 18th straight hour of driving the truck? no we do not. these are the types of questions answered through the litigation process, not via a statement from the StL PD or some fuzzy, edited video.