scs_paradise

I can't stand this sentiment. Pie is a prospect. Damon is a known commodity. Who says Pie will even be able to smell Damon's jock in three years? Why bet on something when you can guarantee it.... Why pay $10M a year for something that you could possibly get for 400K? Pie is right around the corner. Damon may be more of a sure thing, but I'd be willing to bet that he won't be worth anywhere near what he'll get paid. Why make the playoffs when we can keep filling seats for a .500 club? I agree it would be great if Pie pans out for 400k, but we haven't had very good luck with homegrown position players. If the missing piece is a leadoff guy why wouldn't we spend the money to get it this year instead of hoping for next year. There is a reason they are called prospects and not sure things....Hill, Choi, Patterson didn't do anything for us, thank God we traded two of them for productivity. If Pie is everything he's supposed to be then we can trade Damon or Pie for whatever we need to fill holes at that time.

I can't stand this sentiment. Pie is a prospect. Damon is a known commodity. Who says Pie will even be able to smell Damon's jock in three years? Why bet on something when you can guarantee it....

wrong thread.... :oops:

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=9660 God! I hope not. I don't see the need to give Damon a long term deal when we have Felix Pie on the rise. Normally I agree but at this point with this manager I would rather take a known commodity like Damon than a guess in Pie. Pie is still a prospect, sign Damon, trade Pie....

my perception was that lidge's failures stemmed from overuse. I haven't looked it up but it seemed lidge pitched every single game, mostly in situations where he isn't normally used.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=dw-whitesox102605&prov=yhoo&type=lgns What is really funny and almost baffling is that Selig would choose this fight. It really makes him look like he has a dog in the fight....

Does this allow selig to require a certain length of infield grass if one of the teams is very fast? Does this allow selig to determine when and how much water will be laid down before and in the game? Does this allow him to move the center field fence in during the Series so the hill is taken out of the dimensions? Does this allow selig to call the game a tie in the 14th inning if they all run out of pitchers? (j/k) Of course he shouldn't be allowed to make any of these home town decisions, and he shouldn't have been allowed to make the decision about the roof.

I've heard a sentiment touched on here but not reinforced to my knowledge. If we want Dusty to be a good manager we have to give him a team that he can win with, perhaps that's what you mean by dusty proof. There are several managers that I can imagine could have won with our previous years teams dusty just isn't one of them. I would contend that typically a manager is not a good all around manager, exeption perhaps is Bobby Cox. Some managers need a team of youngsters to excel, but if you put them on a team of veterans they fall apart. Vise Versa, you have managers like Dusty, who perhaps do very well with a veteran team but fail when it comes to rookies and young players. This failure is not the failure of Dusty the manager (although he does have many failures of his own doing) its a failure of Hendry/MacPhail for either hiring the wrong manager for the future of this team or for not realizing the team they need to put together for dusty to be successful. Dusty can not win with this team. Dusty is a manager that needs a team of solid veterans and maybe one superstar. When you look at the successes Dusty has had I think it supports this argument. The Giants solid vets and Bonds, the Cubs '03 bunch of vets and Sosa. '04 - '05 cubs young guys with emerging stars...

My prediction is blowout one way or the other. Both have been living on pitching, my bet is that the Sox's staff doesn't show up....

does anyone else get annoyed when players predict how a series will go. In the last day I've heard both Guillen and Peralphabetski say something like the following: Guillen: and Sure it may look like that on paper, but when "experts" go along saying things like this it usually doesn't come true. I hope the 'Stros blow the Sox out in every game or hit a two run homer in the first and hold out til Lidge....humor....

=D>

I'm in the aviation industry (the airline I work for is one of the ones that just declared bankruptcy). As far as not allowing them to take anything....its still their choice, but if your career depends on what you put in your body then you will be damn sure you know what's in it. Each of these guys has the resources at hand to make sure they know what's in what they take. I would allow one exception and that is if a player takes a supplement approved by his team doctor or pharmacist than the player would not suffer any penalty and the team would be fined a large sum that would then be placed into a fund for informing young people about the dangers....

First I work in an industry where if I ever test positive one time for drugs OR alcohol my career is over. No second chance, no "oh I thought if I stopped drinking 12 hours ago it would be enough", they would just say tough and I wouldn't be able to get hired by anyone in my industry again....EVER. Second, I used to be against the congressional proposal for many of the same reasons stated earlier but I changed my mind when I stopped thinking about the players as poor souls just trying to get an edge and started thinking of them as responsible adults who ought to be able to make correct decisions when it comes to their careers. Now I'm all for the congressional proposal. Afraid you might take something that will cause a false positive? My answer is don't take any supplements then. I would welcome a return to normal looking people playing baseball. Besides if it came down to a 2 yr suspension then lifetime ban you would see every team issuing the supplements and it would be written into their contracts that the player could not take any supplement not approved by the team. In 5 years it would be no big thing, I think most of you are overreacting Third, the congress has the right to govern baseball because of the special exemption granted MLB from anit-trust legislation. Congress could always revoke that exemption and that is why MLB will do just about anything congress wants it to.

I'm thinking he was showing off his humility, trying to play the humble card. He's leaving the door open for the Cubs to have a press conference with videotape showing Greg standing behind Speier giving fake signs to screw with the baserunners. If they want to dump him, they probably can. But it would be messy, and it's not realistic. He's coming back. And he'll get his $9m one way or another. They could buy him out for $8.5 m, and he'll sign elsewhere for the rest (plus some). But basically it was a throw away line, completely meaningless. probably, but then his "I'd love to come back" line was throw away as well or possibly PR before he leaves so it doesn't seem like he didn't like being on two underachieving teams who whined like babies most of the time...

With the talk from Dusty a month ago of retirement, do you think the cubs let maddux walk? The Cubs have no say in the matter. did you not see the bold quote??? it appears maddux is giving the cubs an out...obviously with a buyout so which would you take, a buyout or maddux? I read the quote, and I read it in he Suntimes this morning. Regardless, the Cubs have no say in the matter. There is no buy out. Maddux certainly has the right to retire, but the Cubs are in no position to make a unilateral move to keep him from the 2006 roster. You asked if the Cubs let Maddux walk, and it is quite simple, it is not their call. well I read it two hours ago, this morning, and last night....WHAT?? anyway, the cubs could certainly talk to maddux about restructuring, retirement, or a buyout. 2 out of those three the cubs would have a 50% call in....that is what I'm asking about, why so snooty? No snoot on my part. You came up with "did you not see the bold quote??? " The point is Maddux doesnt have to talk to them at all. It is up to him if he wishes to do that favor for the Cubs. It has nothing to do with your original question, which is what I answered. Can the Cubs let Maddux walk? Again, no. Can Maddux voluntarily give up money for next season? Well sure. Do not be confused as to whose court the ball is in though. so what exactly do you think maddux meant by "if they want me back" which is why I highlighted it, which is why I'm asking the question, it seems to open a door, I'm asking do the cubs walk through it. its not me that's putting the ball in the cubs court, its maddux....

double post

With the talk from Dusty a month ago of retirement, do you think the cubs let maddux walk? The Cubs have no say in the matter. did you not see the bold quote??? it appears maddux is giving the cubs an out...obviously with a buyout so which would you take, a buyout or maddux? I read the quote, and I read it in he Suntimes this morning. Regardless, the Cubs have no say in the matter. There is no buy out. Maddux certainly has the right to retire, but the Cubs are in no position to make a unilateral move to keep him from the 2006 roster. You asked if the Cubs let Maddux walk, and it is quite simple, it is not their call. well I read it two hours ago, this morning, and last night....WHAT?? anyway, the cubs could certainly talk to maddux about restructuring, retirement, or a buyout. 2 out of those three the cubs would have a 50% call in....that is what I'm asking about, why so snooty?

With the talk from Dusty a month ago of retirement, do you think the cubs let maddux walk? The Cubs have no say in the matter. did you not see the bold quote??? it appears maddux is giving the cubs an out...obviously with a buyout so which would you take, a buyout or maddux?

From KFFL With the talk from Dusty a month ago of retirement, do you think the cubs let maddux walk?

Why? He hasn't. He hasn't been as bad as some feared, but he's been awful. His presence in the lineup significantly hurt the team's chances. He's not a 2 hitter, he's not an 8 hitter, he's a defensive replacement with no offensive value. As for putting the ball in play, I'd love to have seen 17 more strikeouts instead of his 17 GIDP. he's just trying to unclog the bases.

Its not that that actually bothers me, its that those who use far less demeaning terms than Frost used for many of the posters eare chastized and then he makes a post that is incredibly insulting on many different levels to many different people given the tone and target of his nonsense. This kind of stuff is just irritating the hell out of me, that's all. And for the record, I don't want Neifi to play again this season. He's been pretty darn awful sans April and provides no future potential for this team. Giving Cedeno a chance to prove himself could give you money to save on Rafael Furcal. But then I guess the league would have the "book" on him, then :roll: sensitivity....hmmmmmm

you should try photoshop instead of paint.

I think a good manager can easily make a difference in 10 games. How many times did baker bring in remmy in situations where NO ONE else would have? You could never prove it obviously but I don't think its a stretch to say Dusty's poor decisions of ommision and commision have cost us 10 games.

Terry Tate Office Linebacker HERE COMES THE PAIN TRAIN CHOO CHOO!!!!!

It wouldn't bother me as a manager unless I didn't have a real reason why I did it the way I did. I wouldn't mind discussing my decision if I had reasons to back it up...the point we should draw from this is that Dusty doesn't have a clue, that is why he makes bad moves in the first place and why he gets mad when its pointed out.