erik316wttn

Yeah, he's boned. Just how boned, though, is up to him. Right now I'd be looking at plea bargain options, because the Feds have something like a 98% all-time conviction rate.

I had to look twice at that first D-Lee pic. I can hardly believe that's him! Did he just stay in Chicago or did he fly to meet the Braves and then is flying back into Chicago? I predict a big weekend for Mr Lee, because why the hell not?

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m100/fishmaster17/mon-motivated-13.jpg

Keep up at that pace and 100 losses will be easily attainable.

Fine. I, sir, am offended at your comment!

If I had to bet, I'd say nowhere near as poorly as you think. PROVE HIM WRONG. A) At least Grassbass did. At the very least he had the brains and motivation to go and find the stats, which is more than can be said for you. All you did was piss and moan. B) I don't think they even keep stats on such a thing.

that was quick. I would like to see where the Cubs rank in the last 5 years or so in % of half innings where they gave up runs immediately after scoring them.

Well, if they're going to pursue the option of him being a starting RF then he still needs more time out there. It's a catch-22 because I doubt this would even come up if he was a lock-down defender out there, but he's not, and RF at Wrigley is obviously a tough position to hold over the course of a season. If they're even considering him being the starter out there they need to focus on him getting playing time there instead of 1B. What if they just view Colvin as a strong bench option moving forward. Like you pointed out earlier, his numbers are coming back down to earth. Maybe they see him as a guy that can give some players a day off now and then and provide some roster flexibility if he learns another position (which we happen to need someone at for the rest of this season). I see it more as that, however I could see Hendry not pursuing a 1B option in the offseason if his bat starts to heat up again, thinking we've got an option in-house, so the thought of that kinda scares me a bit.

I certainly wouldn't mind taking a flyer on him.

I'm partial to Black & Decker, myself.

Does it really matter if he's a starter or not next year? I don't think signing 32 year old Adam Dunn to a longish contract so we don't have to tolerate Colvin at 1st is in the teams long term best interest. Dunn/Pena/other FA 1B won't make enough of a difference next year anyway. Dunn won't turn 32 until the end of the 2011 season. And Dunn or a re-surged Pena would likely be a huge difference over Colvin. Agreed. I don't want Colvin to be our starting 1B next season, either, but for the rest of the year it's not going to do any harm. It's not like we're playing for anything anyway.

Guess this thread doesn't matter much now, does it?

Hooray for 1 page game threads.

Good luck in Atlanta, Derrek.

Hey guys! I had the story first! Me! David Kaplan! Aren't you impressed? Guys? Seriously, I had it first! Please like me...

Wow. Wellington Castro gets a start.

According to MLBTR, Lee probably would have ended up as a Type B free agent, which would have netted the Cubs a pick in the supplemental first round had they offered him arbitration. I'm expecting something along the lines of the Lilly/Theriot trade sans DeWitt. That wouldn't be horrible. We got some prospects in that trade that might be useful/pretty decent some day.

I assume the Braves have a pretty stacked system, like they have for the past 20 years or so? I'd like to get some bats this time, though, as we seem to have more than enough pitching in the system.

Most managers wouldn't want to use him in a dual role like that, though. He'd either pitch or hit, and not do both. Aren't most managers morons? (See Piniella, Lou and Baker, Dusty) If he is OK with it and can be successful, I don't see it being a problem. That's kinda my point.

Most managers wouldn't want to use him in a dual role like that, though. He'd either pitch or hit, and not do both.

I guess I don't understand the Soriano to 1st idea. He has had trouble on defense ever since he started in the majors because he has terrible hands. He can't consistently pick up a ball bouncing towards him and has minor troubles catching the ball at times as well. But he does have some huge positives to his game as well with good speed and a strong, accurate throwing arm. I'm not sure why you would want to move him to a position that forces him to use his weakness constantly and gives him no chance to show off his range or arm. It's an awful fit. If he were to be moved to the infield, back to 2nd would be a much better fit even though we know he would be terrible defensively there. Plus he'd hop every time he caught a throw and the runner would be safe more often than not.

Do we REALLY want Hendry going into the off-season thinking, "We need to spend more on the bullpen!"? and lefties? and speed? and a leadoff hitter? That's what Hendry does. Don't forget guys who can catch the ball.

I was just responding in the way I interpreted your post. I thought you were not including fighting as a dangerous activity. It may not be specifically outlined in his contract, like you said. I get that. It's just a shame, is all I'm saying. This may be arguing semantics, but you said out clauses were limited to "dangerous activities" and then you said it didn't matter if fighting was dangerous. If it was dangerous it would matter, because then it would fall under the "dangerous activities" clause or whatever. But, that's really neither here nor there. Like I said, semantics. I just hate legal stuff where something "isn't specifically outlined" and therefore someone can get away with it. That's why you have "WARNING: DO NOT USE IN SHOWER" labels on hairdryers. No, this isn't that. It's absolutely nothing like that. Stupid warnings are there to try to protect companies from being sued by people who do stupid things (the old lady who burned her cootchie on hot McD's coffee situations). Sounds similar to me. Stupid warning labels: There to prevent companies from paying people who do stupid things "Out" clauses in contracts: There to prevent companies from continuing to pay people who do stupid things All I'm saying is that it's a shame that the Mets will have to continue to pay K-Rod because of his stupidity. If there was justice they wouldn't have to.

aren't they typically more specific to "dangerous activities" like doing a wheelie on your motorcycle? I'd be shocked if you could really fit punching someone into any of the out clauses in a MLB contract. Getting into a fight is absolutely a "dangerous activity". Even if he hadn't hurt his hand punching the other guy, if he gets into a fight injuries could be inflicted upon him by the other person. I'm sorry, erik, but that's just not the way it works. You can't just say "this is how I think the world should be" and expect it to be that way. Fighting is almost assuredly not one of the triggers for the out clauses under the CBA. It doesn't matter if fighting is dangerous. I was just responding in the way I interpreted your post. I thought you were not including fighting as a dangerous activity. It may not be specifically outlined in his contract, like you said. I get that. It's just a shame, is all I'm saying. This may be arguing semantics, but you said out clauses were limited to "dangerous activities" and then you said it didn't matter if fighting was dangerous. If it was dangerous it would matter, because then it would fall under the "dangerous activities" clause or whatever. But, that's really neither here nor there. Like I said, semantics. I just hate legal stuff where something "isn't specifically outlined" and therefore someone can get away with it. That's why you have "WARNING: DO NOT USE IN SHOWER" labels on hairdryers.

We'd have to go 12-30 the rest of the way to get to 100 losses. This team sucks, but I don't think it sucks quite to that extent. Although I've been wrong before.