jjgman21

I think he's talking straight more right now that any other interview I've ever heard. quite critical, quite honest.

Quade showing that it's ST for coaches too, but it works out. and the squeeze.

you mean figuratively "killed" of course. I believe it was reiterated several times that he follows Lilly on Saturday.

Basically, he's getting paid $108mil total from this season through 2010. Although in 2001 he agreed to defer $4mil/yr for 2007 & 2008, and $5mil/yr for 2009 and 2010. So, he's down to $23mil-$23mil-$22mil-$22mil for the seasons 2007-2010. *If* Texas's contributions to the salary after paying deferred money, are evenly distributed, that brings A-Rod down to a cost to any team of $17mil-$17mil-$16mil-$16mil for the 2007-2010 time frame. If the Yankees raise his salary for 2009 and 2010 $5mil/yr (their cost of $21mil) he doesn't get to opt out. To me, that's almost a feasible thing for them to do. http://www.rangerfans.com/roster/former/alex_rodriguez.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AkZtfqSM8cSJvMVJT6n8xsG8vLYF?slug=cnnsi-rileyspeaksup&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns

look, I don't think Dawson should be in, but http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dawsoan01.shtml dominant player in his era, period. http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithoz01.shtml not dominant player in any era, period.

nor should anyone with a career OPS+ of 87. Whose OPS+ does that belong to? Ozzie Smith. Smith should be in the hall, he was a decent hitter for a SS of that era. I think you could make a better case against Lou Brock if you want to slam a Cardinal HOFer. yeah, let's put Omar Vizquel in too. oh, but he lacks the most important element when comparing the two. backflips.

nor should anyone with a career OPS+ of 87. Whose OPS+ does that belong to? Ozzie Smith. jjgman21, notice I said corner OFers. note I said "anyone." even with those career numbers, Dawson was in the top 150 or so in career OPS+ in the history of baseball.

nor should anyone with a career OPS+ of 87. Whose OPS+ does that belong to? the Wizzard of Backflips

nor should anyone with a career OPS+ of 87.

I think it goes without saying that the harder you hit the ball, the better chance that you get a hit. that said I wish they would just start measuring the speed at which the ball leaves the players bat and take the mystery out of all of this. how hard can it be?

I hadn't seen it either but that's a pretty deliberate slam to the ground while Deng was up in the air completely exposed. I have no problem with a hard foul going for the ball, but he didn't even attempt to get the ball. went for the neck, then grabbed the shoulder and threw him down. short of a football tackle, I'm not sure how it gets much worse. I'm not trying to say it was clean, it was dirty and I understand the feelings considering Posey's past and who got fouled. That said, I don't see any throw down on Posey's part. are you looking at the same video as I am? Deng is coming straight down after the initial foul then his legs suddenly come out from under him. look at the video at about 1:08. whys does Posey's left leg kick out, other than to gain leverage to slam Deng down? why does he follow through with the right arm to the point where it almost hits the hardwood? it's a blatant slam to the ground.

I hadn't seen it either but that's a pretty deliberate slam to the ground while Deng was up in the air completely exposed. I have no problem with a hard foul going for the ball, but he didn't even attempt to get the ball. went for the neck, then grabbed the shoulder and threw him down. short of a football tackle, I'm not sure how it gets much worse.

The reason is simple. This defense could play much more physical football----and indeed WANTS to play much more physical football. So they get many more phantom roughing penalties, more of those stupid horsecollars (Bears have 2 of those I believe, and while I'm sure others have gotten them too I haven't seen it), more offsides (including several by Tommie Harris which clearly were not offsides). The Bears defense wants to play like the defenses of yore. But the league's new rules and enforcement won't allow it. the phantom roughing penalties are indeed what is going on from what I have seen. I think the Bears have been called for blows to the QBs head about 8-10 times this year where they either didn't hit the head at all or the blow to the head was an incidental brush by the arm. there have been several downfield plays where the refs call would have been more accurate had he said "personal foul, hitting too hard." back to what you were saying about holding, can't say I agree with your assessment. while holding may be down around the league, I haven't seen defensive lineman routinely tackled from behind by O-lineman without drawing the hanky in any non-Bears game. said scenerio literally happens about 3-4 times per game. in the meantime, the past few weeks I have seen several instances of the Bears offense being called for holding and then even the broadcasters say "not sure where the hold was in that" after the replay. and whoever made the point about the Patriots game was right on. there were 3-4 non calls on PA in the first half that completely changed the game (and that's just the sort of thing that can get into a young QBs head), and the tackles from behind by O-lineman that I just discussed happened on just about every pass play the Patriots ran the whole game. can't block em? just grab an ankle as they pass by. the stripes are cool with that.

what goes into this ranking? I don't understand how they give the minor leagues a B when they will turn around in a month or two and say the Cubs have crappy prospects.

no, I was just trying to be a martyr. this is a 92 win team. 100+ if they get a couple breaks. I hope what you believe is true, but I don't see a 92 win team unless the Prior of 2003-2004 shows up. If that happens, maybe. But right now, I think the Cubs are an 84-88 win team. We might contend in a weak division, but I don't see 90+ wins from this team. It might happen if Rich Hill continues to pitch like he did in the second half and Prior returns healthy and effictive. If that's the case, this team could be very good. But those are huge "ifs" and even with those, we have to hope that Marquis is effective or if not, the Cubs are willing to cut bait and eat a lot of money while someone takes his place. I would love to see 100 wins from a Cubs team, I just don't think the current 2007 version can produce that. I was being sarcastic. I think this is an 88 win team as it stands right now. if the two ifs you describe work out, it's probably around a 96-97 win team. that would make Z the third best pitcher on the Cubs.

no, I was just trying to be a martyr. this is a 92 win team. 100+ if they get a couple breaks.

lot's of 'the Bears haven't beaten anybody' talk lately, both in the threads and in the media. let's look at the wins against .500+ competition by the playoff bound teams NFC Chi - Sea, NYJ Philly - Dallas (x2) Dallas - Tenn, Indy (do they count as a team with a winning record anymore?) NO - Philly, Dallas Sea - Denver AFC SD - Tenn, Denver (x2), KC, Sea Indy - Jax, NYJ, Tenn, Den, NE, Philly, Cincy Balt - SD, NO, Tenn, KC NE - NYJ, Cincy, Chi, Jax NJY - Tenn, NE Den - KC, NE, Balt, Cincy conclusion, the only teams with a half way impressive resumes are the flailing Colts and the going nowhere Broncos.

people were talking some Vlad talk in another thread, so this applies to that too... didn't I see that Rivera busted up his leg pretty bad in Venezuala? if so, look for Angels rumors to abound from now until April.

I'm pretty sure that's just called liking guys that hit for high average. tongue-in-cheek. I don't particularly like the job Hendry has done or the way he goes about building the team, but that's not really the point of this.

are you so daft that you can't figure out what I am asking for is some sort of explanation, based on analysis of the roster, as to how that conclusion was reached? again, the same kind of analysis you would demand if someone else gave any sort of projection you didn't agree with?

Forming opinions is more than just baseless conjecture and hyperbole. I happen to think it's a bit unreasonable for someone to require facts or proof on an opinion of something that hasn't happened yet. It's all guess work, including your opinion. I could go out on a limb and state that the major league baseball season will IN FACT be played in its entirety next year, but it won't truly be a fact until after the fact. that's lame, particularly coming from three guys who will be the first to jump up and demand facts or proof whenever someone gives any kind of projection opinion that is not in line with their own. if I said "Soriano will have a .360 OBP and a 1.000+ OPS" would you all demand that I give a basis for that prediction? of course you would. probably after hurling insults and sarcasm, but you certainly would demand I back up such a claim with fact based argument. that's all I'm asking for here. Instead I get replies that just prove my other point, that the pessimists keep arguing facts and stats when it's convenient for their argument, but when it may show their pessimism unwarranted, they like to stick with conjecture, hyperbole, and the aforementioned macro generalization type bs.

won't somebody please make a comment like this and actually state your case. back this up with some analysis please. Your constant badgering of people to backup with analysis is bordering on trolling for arguments. The analysis has been stated, repeatedly. trolling. whatever. I could make a stronger case that constant whining without backing it with an argument is closer to trolling than anything I am doing here. no, no analysis has been given other than this macro genernalization type bs. nobody has said the Cubs will be terrible and then gone on to give their own projections on a player by player or position by position analysis, or even Pecota (which I understand isn't even out yet) or Zips projections. I did. projected to 800+ runs. it stirs no discussion. it elicited no mia culpa. is just bitching really that much more interesting than discussing why that will or will not be? you want to whine about how bad the Cubs will be, but won't put your overwhelming knowledge to work, come up with some projections for where the players will finish, from that determine where they will be at the end of September. I really thought that's what the purpose of this discussion board was. reasoned analysis and debate before baseless conjecture and hyperbole.

won't somebody please make a comment like this and actually state your case. back this up with some analysis please.

and Cesar just evaporates into thin air. I assume you have him going to Baltimore.