Illini Iceman

so unless a trade happens, it looks like Theriot will be on the Opening Day roster. A temporary one until April 15th, though. He may get longer than that. If they have Williams in long relief they could use him as the 5th starter once one is needed and then a roster move would not be necessary until Wood is activated off the DL.

Yech - could Koronka be getting a bullpen spot? Dempster Howry Williamson Eyre Ohman Wuertz Koronka Actually, if it is the seventh spot I kind of rather Ryu goes to AAA and gets a lot of innings instead of rotting at the end of the bench waiting for a blow out to get some work. Koronka can hang around out there waiting for mop up work and then go down to AAA when they recall the fifth starter in mid April. Other possibility is that Hill or Marshall gets the 4th starter spot and Williams goes to the pen.

Gathright's defense is brutal.

I don't see any way that GMU overcomes a 9 point halftime deficit. I thought their only chance was to get ahead early and then hope to hold on at the end.

I don't understand why they would keep Grissom, which means they have to open up a 40 man roster spot for him, when they have a guy like Pagan who is very similar (if not better) who had a great spring and is already on the 40 man roster. So if they don't keep Grissom their bench is: Blanco Neifi Hairston Mabry Pagan ??? Who is your 6th bench guy? The only player on the 40 man roster that makes any sense is Theriot. Theriot is fine, but now you have three back-up middle infielders (Hairston, Neifi, Theriot) and only two back-up outfielders (Pagan, Mabry), with Pagan hardly being a sure thing to produce. Hairston can also be a back-up OF but indications seem to be that he will be getting a lot of starts at 2B so Walker will probably be on the bench as much if not more than him. I am not a big Grissom fan but with who Baker has left in camp I don't see any better options for now than keeping him around.

The 40-man roster is currently full, but unless Wellemeyer defies all odds and reason and makes the team, he will be off due to his out-of-options status. As such, there is effectively room on the 25-man roster for one NRI. IMO Wellemeyer is a lock at this point to make the opening day roster. 7 relievers Dempster Howry Williamson Eyre Ohman Wuertz Wellemeyer He may not stick once they need a 5th starter but until that time I don't see anyone else that would even be realistically competing for that 7th bullpen spot since Novoa is out indefinitely. I also don't see any way Grissom does not make the opening day roster. If he doesn't then Pagan has to be the 5th outfielder and Theriot would have to make the team as the 7th infielder. There are no other reasonable candidates already on the 40 man. Therefore, Hendry needs to clear two 40 man roster spots and I assume he will do that by trading some guys away for prospects(e.g. - Walker).

Aardsma was hitting 94 mph on the WGN speed readings today so that is promising unless it is a fast gun. He could develop this year as a nice Wuertz type set up man.

I am sure that is just more of that stinking Boston media misinformation on EVERY player that leaves. Now they even have his agent in on it! When will it stop!?!?!

I think Wellemeyer and Wuertz are both in, at least to start the season. No one else has stepped up to take the spot and Hendry will not want to risk losing Wellemeyer to waivers when the organization's pitching is so thin right now due to injuries. Wuertz has enough of a track record from last year that he does not lose his position just due to a couple rough spring outings. I also have a feeling Pagan is going to get the last bench spot though personally I would prefer Restovich. Pagan is already on the 40 man and Hendry will already need to clear one spot for Grissom. He will probably not want to have to drop two players from the 40 man to get Restovich a spot, especially when you consider that he will also have to clear room again in May when Miller is ready (hopefully!).

Bonds did not admit that at all, nor did the government prove that what he did take was steroids. Go back and look at the articles and show me where it says that Bonds did the substances known as the cream and the clear. Show me where Bonds knows either before or after he took them that there were steroids in them. So far up to this points Bonds has stated that there are no steroids in him nor has he ever taken them. He has never said that he unknowingly took them or knowingly took them. Nor has the government ever actually made a direct link of steroid and bonds. They have evidence for sure but there is no smoking gun. No Bonds purchased the drugs, no Anderson saying I saw Bonds take the drugs, nothing. What we have is BALCO selling drugs to Anderson and then the assumption that the drugs are for Bonds. It may very well be true but the government has not been able to make that connection yet. If they had then Bonds would be indicted by now, he has not been. Am I defending BOnds? No, I think he used steroids, I also don't care that he used steroids. But the point isn't what we think but what we "know" and what we can prove. This is about law and order. I wanted Barry BOnds to have the full protection of the law and rules that govern us. Because if somebody like him, somebody who everyone wants to "get" is protected from improper processing then that means I am protected as well, an innocent. Lynch mobs maybe expediate and may even solve a problem in the short run but when a society sets asides its laws and procedure for the sake of expediance then no one is safe in that society from the lynch mob. I think the leaked federal grand jury testimony has him admitting to taking the cream but claiming that at the time he did not know it was steroids. Obviously this is not confirmable other than by the source that leaked it because this testimony is supposed to be sealed and the source actually committed a crime by letting anyone know about it. You can question the credibility of the leak if you like, but you can not claim to know what he has and has not said since his testimony is sealed as part of his agreement to testify against BALCO. The government has virtually no interest in Bonds on the steroid charges. They want BALCO and are happy to give him immunity for his testimony. Federal tax evasion, however, could be another matter.

Thestar.com Why is it that when pitchers on other teams shut down for 5 days they are then able to resume their normal throwing regimen but when a Cubs pitcher gets shut down like this they say he has lost arm strength and his progress gets pushed back about 2-3 weeks (e.g. - Mark Prior)?

I don't care about Bud's ego trip. It would have given me no great pride to see the USA win. This type of event will never prove anything because in baseball there is no way to get the timing right so all the players are at their optimal performance level unless you interefered with what REALLY matters, the MLB season.

Meh. You can blame the refs if you want a scapegoat but 5/18 from the 3 point line including 0/5 from Smith is pretty bad shooting or pretty darn good defense. Game was there for the Illini to take if they could have made some shots down the stretch. Doesn't really bother me much - I don't think they had any chance against UConn anyway if they did advance.

Duke seems to always get the early Saturday game when no one else is playing since obviously EVERYONE wants to see them. Duke is to CBS as the Yankees are to ESPN.

You do realize Steve Stone isn't a doctor, never gives any real solid baseball information when interviewed, usually gives vague answeres to specific questions and has a Paul Bunyan sized axe to grind with the Cubs, right? And he is negative about everything so considering he is commenting about the Cubs has a better than average chance of being right even if he has no clue what he is talking about.

That was a smart shot.

Is there any explanation about why anyone is interviewing Turk Wendell in the first place?

How many times can they possibly play that Applebee's commercial?

I didn't say that. I said you don't set aside a roster spot for the mythical longman. Glendon Rusch went 2 and a third on opening day. Then he had 2 outings where he went one third, and then he went 3 innings. The Cubs can get similar pitching out of some of the 7 guys they will have. If you start with 4 starters, bring your best 7 relievers. Don't bring a Rusch impersonator because you think you might need him one day. Who in our bullpen is going to go 3 innings? Wuertz, Eyre, Howry, Williamson, Dempster, Ohman? That's 6 guys who are likely locked in. That leaves one spot for a guy who can pitch more than 2 innings (Welly, Hill), and you take that guy over Novoa who can't, IMO. I think they will give Welly a spot since it will provide the long relief option you reference plus avoid (at least temporarily) needing to put him on waivers since he is out of options.

That's pretty much the reality of the situation. As a Cub fan, it's not a whole lot of fun to be on the other end of the lies. I don't think it's too much to expect honesty for the money we give to this franchise. If they want to protect injured players' rights to privacy, I'm fine with that. Make a blanket policy statement: We will not discuss player health unless league rules dictate we must. Don't come out on the radio & in the newspapers with blatant lies: "He's fine" "There's no injury, he's just building strength" yada yada yada. Just report the truth, or state it is not club policy to disclose. There's no excuse for lies, over & over. Other teams don't do this. Pretty much it's only the Cubs who have institutionalized lying about player health. Or, of course, there is the possibility that he really wasn't hurt and they were just using a gradual buildup program like Rotschild had been saying he would do this year since last ST. But I guess since you have decided that them lying is the "reality of the situation" it is since you have so much proof that he was really injured. I love conspiracy theories but this one makes no sense because no one involved in the so called conspiracy had anything to gain from a cover up. I'm not sure they have nothing to gain. Keeping injuries quiet prior to selling tickets is a good reason, even if Wrigley is usually a good bet to sell out. Keeping additional heat off of a management which has been racked with questions regarding its forthrightness and early identification of injuries is certainly another advantage. The Chicago Cub management over the last 3 years or so has been inept with every aspect of injuries to its players. Keeping that discussion out of the papers is beneficial to everyone involved. For anyone to even suggest that the Cubs have been competent in the area of injuries is ridiculous. I don't understand the argument. In order to avoid the "heat" regarding early identification of injuries and to keep that discussion out of the papers you are accusing them of supposedly conspiring in holding back on reporting the early identification of an injury and in the process generating an enormous amount of discussion about that in the papers? How do they gain from that?

That's pretty much the reality of the situation. As a Cub fan, it's not a whole lot of fun to be on the other end of the lies. I don't think it's too much to expect honesty for the money we give to this franchise. If they want to protect injured players' rights to privacy, I'm fine with that. Make a blanket policy statement: We will not discuss player health unless league rules dictate we must. Don't come out on the radio & in the newspapers with blatant lies: "He's fine" "There's no injury, he's just building strength" yada yada yada. Just report the truth, or state it is not club policy to disclose. There's no excuse for lies, over & over. Other teams don't do this. Pretty much it's only the Cubs who have institutionalized lying about player health. Or, of course, there is the possibility that he really wasn't hurt and they were just using a gradual buildup program like Rotschild had been saying he would do this year since last ST. But I guess since you have decided that them lying is the "reality of the situation" it is since you have so much proof that he was really injured. I love conspiracy theories but this one makes no sense because no one involved in the so called conspiracy had anything to gain from a cover up.

Does Lee have to sit in the lobby reading old National Geographics while he waits for Yocum to be done with Prior?

Randle El is this year's football equivalent to Carl Pavano. He was in the right place at the right time and cashed in. It makes no sense to pay big money to a guy that has not shown he can be a consistent impact player just because he happens to be the best free agent available at a position of need.

"in case" Pierre sprains an ankle isn't good enough reason for me to validate holding up a roster spot. Why would you rather have Grissom than Greenberg? Well I'm not gonna rehash for the 10th time in this thread exactly why, you can read one of my many redundant posts on why, but for starters his .285 career Avg against Lefties (over .310 last 4 seasons I believe) and his career .467 SLG against Lefties, would suit this current team much better than anything Greenberg could add. Just 1 of many reasons why I'd rather have Grissom right now than Greenberg. The better question is why I would rather have Mabry than Greenberg. That would atleast be more debatable, barely. I don't think you can ignore that Grissom was abominably bad against RHP and LHP last year at age 38. Greenberg provides better defense at all 3 positions, plus he didn't have much of a platoon split at AA last year, in fact he was better against LHP(.856 OPS) than RHP(.780). Sing is off to a good start today. If he has a hot spring and Grissom and Restovich don't show much he could be a sleeper for a bench spot. The fact he hits RH makes him a better complement to LH Mabry than Greenberg. Plus Sing has more power which is always nice for a pinch hitter late in games.

Actually it was in 4.2 innings and the reason his pitch count got so high is that Dusty was trying to let him get through 5 so he would qualify for the win. Whether Dusty should have been that concerned about having Z qualify for the win is arguable but it gives a little more perspective than just saying he pitched 5.2 as part of an opening day blow-out. I think when Dusty finally pulled him in the 5th the D-Backs had actually made it interesting and the Cubs then pulled away again later in the game. The score was 9-3 CUBS when Zambrano was pulled in the 5th inning. I thought it was closer than that since I remember getting a little nervous, but then again I am a Cubs fan so no lead is safe. :lol: