Catman61

Ah, jealousy from the North Side is so sweet.

But you do have Izturis in his place who had an OPS of .613 to Cedeno's .610 And Izturis significantly underperformed his 2006 PECOTA

Nope, Howard had a LOT more help on offense 2-5 on the Phillies by VORP Utley - 65.2 Rollins - 45.2 Burrell - 27.5 Abreu - 25.5 2-5 on Cardinals by VORP Rolen - 36.6 Duncan - 24.8 Edmonds - 20.0 Spezio - 16.3 Think about that, 2 players one a superutility player the other starting the year in the minors and only playing 90 games were in the top 5 performers for the Cardinals in offensive production. Rolen's VORP would have been 4th on the Philles and none of the other 3 would have even made the Phillies top 5. No, Howard had FAR more offensive help than Pujols.

Runs Created: Pujols- 150 Howard- 138 Win Shares: Pujols- 39 Howard- 31 OPS Pujols- 1.102 Howard- 1.084 Nope. The right guy didn't get. I'm no fan of Pujols, but I just get upset when the voters screw things up. They messed it up last year and once again this year. OPS+ Pujols - 180 Howard - 170 WARP3 Pujols - 12.9 Howard 9.4 psst Vance HOW BOUT THEM COWBOYS!

Like they say, if you can throw left handed and have a pulse, you will always have a job in MLB.

Type B

When WJ signs Miles to a 3 yr/13M contract, that might be a valid comparison.

Anyone else read that the Cubs are quietly looking at Jason Marquis as a possible signing? And your thoughts?

Speaking of Niefi Rotoworld - The Cubs and Mark DeRosa have agreed to terms on a three-year deal worth about $13 million, ESPN's Buster Olney reports. It's way too much of a commitment to someone who only figures to be an asset against left-handers. A platoon of Jacque Jones and DeRosa in right field would be very productive, but the Cubs are probably going to give DeRosa a chance to be their primary second baseman. DeRosa turns 32 in February and is a career .260/.316/.366 hitter against righties (to put that in perspective, Neifi Perez is a career .268/.298/.376 hitter).

Sean Casey!

That would the Cubbie way.

If you think that then you didn't read the last 2 sentences of the previous post.

People who are innocent should not be expected to have to PROVE their innocence. Your statement implies that Pujols has to PROVE his innocence. no, I'm saying that neither article sheds any light on whether pujols did HGH or not. you're making something out of nothing. Not exactly this "I'm saying that neither article sheds any light on whether pujols did HGH or not." and this "this no more proves his innocence" are not the same thing and don't convey the same message. Proving innocence in a matter such this (steroids/HGH) could only be proven if someone was under close & personal 24 hr watch as that would be the only way to prove the negative. The connotation and implication of "this no more proves his innocence" is or comes across as you beleive he is guilty. If you don't beleive someone is doing something, you don't need proof that he/she is NOT doing it.

People who are innocent should not be expected to have to PROVE their innocence. Your statement implies that Pujols has to PROVE his innocence.

So you presume he is guilty until proven innocent? Nice. So how exactly does one go about proving a negative?