wondernorm

I don't get your opinion. Glaus is likely the better player at this point, on a shorter, cheaper contract. How does this hurt, especially for "awhile?"

Would you also teach your kids it's OK to cheat their way through college so they could get better grades and presumably a higher paying job? Or to trade on inside information in violation of the securities laws because it would allow them to make a great deal of money? Absolutely not, but those aren't games meant for public enjoyment.[/quote] So you would be OK teaching your kids that being unethical, not following the rules and cheating is OK as long as it's in a "game meant for public enjoyment" and it allowed them to make a lot of money? Not the lesson I would want to teach my kids but hey to each his own. Let me ask you a question. Imagine you are a 24 year old minor league pitcher. You know the only thing keeping you from becoming a major leaguer is a better fastball. If you thought you could take something that would give you an extra 5-8mph on your fastball and get you to the big leagues, would you take it or just continue to toil in the minors for no money knowing you're not going to make it? Would I place fame and fortune above honesty and integrity? NO, I couldn't live with myself. I would hang up the cleats and find a way to make a honest living. I'd have less money but at least when I talked to my kids about values like honesty and integrity I could look them in the eye and wouldn't be a hypochrite. Now how about answering my question. Sure. What's the question? So you would be OK teaching your kids that being unethical, not following the rules and cheating is OK as long as it's in a "game meant for public enjoyment" and it allowed them to make a lot of money? No, I wouldn't teach them that. Oh I see. Your one of those do as I say not as I do guys. Not a walk the talk guy like me. Oh well like I said to each his own. So you've never done something, or been tempted to do something, that you wouldn't want to teach your kids to do? If so, that is pretty damn remarkable.

Are you suggesting that Ankiel didn't seek HGH out, but instead the doctor gave it to him? That's the gist I'm getting from this post. Is it way off-base? I don't really know what you're trying to get at (I'm dense). I think the point being made is that if Ankiel goes to the doctor, says "I need HGH," and the doctor prescribes it, as long as he didn't mislead the doctor the illegality it not on Ankiel, it is on the doctor. Obviously this just reflects the legal position, not moral.

This is my favorite part: What does that even mean? To quote Brian Fantana, "maybe you should stop talking for a bit, Ozzie."

Anyone see the Mighty Poolie these days? He was in the dugout every game during the homestand. he is not traveling with the team during the roadtrip because the team told him not to on Wed. (he is injured) but I am sure people will spin that as well... Sounds like he has sometime during the day it seems to face the media and address this issue. He can't think with all that is going on, this will simply blowover and go away. Many media people would love to clear all of this up. What's a couple hours gonna hurt? I would hate to think that the Mighty Poolie could be playing a 'little dodgeball' here. HE has come out and said he was innocent in the past couple weeks and you created a thread calling him a coward. His name is not rumored to be in this affidavit. His trainers name is the rumor and the trainer has denied it...the rest is just 7 degrees of conection speculation... Poolie and his HGH connection even made MSNBC last night. You may believe that at some point he won't have to raise his hand and swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" somewhere. I think he knows that's a real possibility. The Feds don't give up so easily. Just like his buddy Big Yak, if there wasn't something there on substance abuse, he would be out there talking to the press and trying to salvage his name. Where is he then? Salvage his name? I think at this point, you are making a bigger deal out of this than it really is. Worst case, at this point, is that it is Mihlfeld's name in the affidavit. If so, that means Grimsley said Mihlfeld told him where he could get amphetamines. No implication of Pujols, just a trainer telling someone where to get greenies. I don't think Pujols has anything to defend himself against at this point. Things may change, but at the point it is a very tenuous case against Pujols.

I agree with Beerman, Mihlfeld doesn't have any motivation to lie about it either, it would do much more damage to him if he lied about and then his name showed up. If it is his name, and he didn't say anything, when it does come out, he could simply say, "yeah, i told him where to get greenies, but thats it," and there would at least be the possiblity of believeability. but if he lied about his name being on it, no on will believe anything he says about the connection. Just too much to lose and little to gain by lying about it at this point.

He denied involvement, that should be no surprise. Palmeiro told all of America he had never used steriods. Period. We all know how his story ended. this is different. It has been rumored his name was in the affidavit. That is where all of this started. He is saying his name is not in the affidavit at all...it is easy to prove one way or the other unlike other things. Either his name is there or it isn't...I have seen somewhere else that the number of spaces crossed out does not even add up to the amout of letters in his name...let the rumors fly. That's not exaclty a scientific conclusion you have come up with. If by his denial you believe people will just stop digging into him and his relatioship with Pujols you are wrong. by the way, I hope people dig all they want. I have no problem with that. But this is not that. This is a site saying a persons name is on an affidavit and the other person saying it is not at all. This will be proved either way. This is about a site posting a rumor and people jumping all aboard with no proof whatsoever...and then if his name is not there it doesn't matter because the damage is done... wait, you are saying that Mihlfield said his name isn't in the affidavit? How would he know? he didn't give the affidavit, and I doubt the authorities would come to him to reassure him that he wasn't named...so who cares what the trainer said? If I'm misunderstanding you then please explain who said that Mihlfield isn't in it, unless its Grimsley or the authorities, I wouldn't buy it. Did you read the latest article that was posted on here with Mihlfield denying all of this? He said Grimsley and his attorney told him his name was not on the affidavit at all. like I said until Grimsley says that he's not on it, I don't buy it. If I'm under that kind of pressure and guilty, I would freaking lie to get the media to back off. So I guess to me it doesn't prove he is and doesn't prove he isn't. So you dont believe Mihlfeld that Grimsley said he wasn't on it, because Mihlfeld might be under pressure and guilty, but you'd believe it if it came straight from Grimsley?

He denied involvement, that should be no surprise. Palmeiro told all of America he had never used steriods. Period. We all know how his story ended. this is different. It has been rumored his name was in the affidavit. That is where all of this started. He is saying his name is not in the affidavit at all...it is easy to prove one way or the other unlike other things. Either his name is there or it isn't...I have seen somewhere else that the number of spaces crossed out does not even add up to the amout of letters in his name...let the rumors fly. That's not exaclty a scientific conclusion you have come up with. If by his denial you believe people will just stop digging into him and his relatioship with Pujols you are wrong. by the way, I hope people dig all they want. I have no problem with that. But this is not that. This is a site saying a persons name is on an affidavit and the other person saying it is not at all. This will be proved either way. This is about a site posting a rumor and people jumping all aboard with no proof whatsoever...and then if his name is not there it doesn't matter because the damage is done... wait, you are saying that Mihlfield said his name isn't in the affidavit? How would he know? he didn't give the affidavit, and I doubt the authorities would come to him to reassure him that he wasn't named...so who cares what the trainer said? If I'm misunderstanding you then please explain who said that Mihlfield isn't in it, unless its Grimsley or the authorities, I wouldn't buy it. Mihlfeld said that Grimsley and his attorney assured him his name was not in the affidavit.

WADA-approved means nothing. A 99% false positive rate would be good enough for them, so long as they got the 1 out of 100 that was doping.

Thats not quite what it says... it says the trainer (supposedly Mihlfeld) referred him to a source for amphetamines. At some later point, the source, not the trainer, provided him with amphetamines, steroids, and hgh. So what it comes down to, if the name really is Mihlfeld, is that Grimsley claims the Pujols' trainer told him where he could get amphetamines, and through that amphetamine source, he also obtained other drugs. Not good, but certainly not a smoking gun.

Sorry if this was posted somewhere already... According to Bernie Miklasz, Ron Santo has been hospitalized and will miss the series this weekend. Hope it is nothing serious, Ron has been through enough. (There is also some sad news about Bruce Sutter) http://www.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=362826

I'm betting yes. I really doubt it, especially when you take into account the relative importance of the players. In many cases these are key players the Cubs have lost. I can't think of many examples over the last four years of players getting injured the way Cubs' players have. I would bet most teams would have relatively the same amount. Just look at the Cardinals (Rolen, Sanders, Walker, Edmonds, Isringhausen, Williams, Matheny, etc.) and the Astros (Bagwell, Pettite, Berkman, Backe) It just seems like the Cubs have more.

Only difference being Jones is locked in for 3/16 while Ponson is making the minimum for 1 year. A lot easier to cut bait. :wink:

Watching that made me very uncomfortable.

McGwire's OPS was over 200 points higher than Sosa's. The only categories he was better in are team-dependent, like runs scored and rbi. The only reason he won the MVP was because the Cubs made the playoffs, as is likely to be the case this year with Pujols, particularly if he closes the gap or passes Lee in a category or two.

Yep, almost Biggio too. And considering Dawson played mostly corner OF and Biggio played mostly 2B, that doesn't say alot for Dawson

I don't think you can say Biggio shouldn't be in because Santo isn't in. Because they play(ed) different positions it is releative. 3B is traditionally an offensive position, while 2B is not. And without taking that into account, Santo isn't clearly superior offensively. Santo has a higher SLG%, more HR, more RBI. Biggio has a higher BA and OBP, more hits, and more SB. Santo had 5 GG while Biggio has 4. Biggio also has a pretty good shot at getting to 3000 hits. Overall, Santo and Biggio are comparable offensively and defensively, but because Biggio plays a traditionally defensive position, I think he has the edge for the HOF. Also, look at the similar batters on baseball-reference and see who is in better company.

Wait, wasn't this thread started to complain about Cards fans not voting for the best player?