Electron Blue

I'm actually the source. Just ask me anything. Do you know any names of secret CIA operatives?

Sure, I'll try, but what do you want me to ask him? For one thing, a little bit more analysis of the possible deal from your friend might really go a long ways in returning some confidence. Maybe you could ask him what would still have to happen to get a deal finalized. Like, are the players finalized, with just a few minor details left? Or are they just talking? Is there any chance that the Cubs would go for Kearns if the Dunn deal falls through?

Assuming you are telling the truth, I have this to say: just don't worry about what people think of you right now. Later on, if you're proven right, they'll all like you just fine :). And like others have said, even if a deal doesn't come, that doesn't mean you're a troll, and as long as you stick around and particpate as a regular member, no one will hold this against you. Whether you're right or not, my fingers are crossed for Dunn. Edit: and if you are lying, then myself and many others around here have no respect for you, or anyone else who would do something like this if it weren't true. It's childish, pure and simple. ^-- Just in case . . .

Color me disgusted. How in the world do you live with an open wound that continues to leak blood a year after surgery? That can't be good. If he's gonna be bleedin all over the place, we'd have to start worrying more about a BP of 120 over 80, than an OBP of over .600 :wink:

He actually did give another screen name from ESPN......alot of pages ago. But did someone check it out :?:

The Fanzone Trumpet post kinda surprised me. It was pretty harsh of this sweetpotato guy. But why? Fanzone, are you just guessing, or do you know this first-time poster from another board? I don't Fanzone or Sweet, so for now I'll trust the starter of this thread because he's telling me what I want to hear :) I know the pattern from previous false alarms; it's uncannily similar. In fact, I could have mentioned other things like the trade happening in 48 hours and the fellow claiming to be a regular poster on Cubs and ESPN who would NEVER troll. Granted, but let me put it this way. In a bad cop movie, the guy they arrest always says, "I didn't do it!" and the cop says, "That's what they all say." That movie would be as bad as that argument, because even the innocent ones say they're innocent. Whether he's telling the truth or not, he's going to phrase it like that. All I'm saying is that when you called him out a few pages back, you didn't leave a lot of room for doubt in your phrasing.

The Fanzone Trumpet post kinda surprised me. It was pretty harsh of this sweetpotato guy. But why? Fanzone, are you just guessing, or do you know this first-time poster from another board? I don't Fanzone or Sweet, so for now I'll trust the starter of this thread because he's telling me what I want to hear :) I don't see your point (literally). Are you just saying that you doubt this poster because of the similarity to vance's scoop? Because earlier you called him out as a *troll* - which is a different, harsher accusation if it's not true. I just want to know if you're guessing that he's a troll, or if you know . . .

The Fanzone Trumpet post kinda surprised me. It was pretty harsh of this sweetpotato guy. But why? Fanzone, are you just guessing, or do you know this first-time poster from another board? I don't Fanzone or Sweet, so for now I'll trust the starter of this thread because he's telling me what I want to hear :)

I appreciate your concern in regards to creating a new thread for a similar discussion, I really do. My only concern was the line about Sosa. There are many posters on this site that love still love Sosa and will back him regardless of how he plays. With that being said, a line of "Sammy hurting the O's updated" (IMHO) makes this a thread not to discuss the deal but a place to rip on Sammy. I understand your concern, I will relabel the the thread to not be so inflammatory? I don't know if that question mark is unintentional or subtly sarcastic, because either way makes sense. This is a message board for discussion. We aren't professional owners and managers who have to carefully choose our criticisms. We're fans. And if you (badger), or anyone, wants to bring forth a negative article about Sosa and then label it as such, where's the problem? We have no reason to try and seperate the praising and the complaining. A messageboard works best with discussion. To seperate these two types of opinions creates one Love-fest and one Hate-fest -- neither being truthful, fair, or interesting. Sorry for the rant, but that's just my $ .02 on bashing/defending players. In regards to your point I agree 100%. However, where is a discussion when the title of the thread expressly lets you know that the intent of the thread is to talk about how "bad" someone is doing? Why not label it, "Sosa continues hurting the O's?"? Good point. Sorry I wasn't very clear about that. My perception of your request was that you felt badger was being too harshly critical of Sammy. This didn't seem right sense it was relevantly related to the content of the article he was linking. Though, now that I'm thinking at the same speed as typing, I actually see you point quite clearly: the (now changed) title of the thread didn't reflect some of the other (i.e. supportive) opinions contained in it. Now we're on the same page :)

I appreciate your concern in regards to creating a new thread for a similar discussion, I really do. My only concern was the line about Sosa. There are many posters on this site that love still love Sosa and will back him regardless of how he plays. With that being said, a line of "Sammy hurting the O's updated" (IMHO) makes this a thread not to discuss the deal but a place to rip on Sammy. I understand your concern, I will relabel the the thread to not be so inflammatory? I don't know if that question mark is unintentional or subtly sarcastic, because either way makes sense. This is a message board for discussion. We aren't professional owners and managers who have to carefully choose our criticisms. We're fans. And if you (badger), or anyone, wants to bring forth a negative article about Sosa and then label it as such, where's the problem? We have no reason to try and seperate the praising and the complaining. A messageboard works best with discussion. To seperate these two types of opinions creates one Love-fest and one Hate-fest -- neither being truthful, fair, or interesting. Sorry for the rant, but that's just my $ .02 on bashing/defending players.

I've read about half of these 27 pages, so I don't know if this was posted yet. For those who like to care about these things, Cubs.com has updated his player page: http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_425506.jpg

doh' - he has played in all 92 games. He has started 89. Nevermind. The reds announcer and I are both senile :)

doh' - he has played in all 92 games. He has started 89. Nevermind. The reds announcer and I are both senile :)

I'm 97% certain that he has not. But the Reds announcers said last night that he was the only Cub to start all 92 games. After checking espn.com's player page for him, sure enough, it showed him at 92. Am I senile or is ervyone else?

fun little quiz. 8/10

He does realize that a baseball owner can't run onto the field during the game, right? Seriously though, I kinda like Mark Cuban. He's a showboating, semi-arrogant bottle of insane energy. As negative as all of that can be, it's nice to see every once in awhile, compared to most sports team owners. What could he do for the Cubs? Hard to say. He definitly loves to win, and will do quite a bit to get the job done, unlike the Tribune (some have said, at times).

Walker also hit the snot out of the ball...it was just one of those days for him. Hairston-Walker-Lee is definitely the best top of the order for this team. Brenly even made some comments about the bad decisions of Neifi and CPatt in the 1 and 2 spots (although I'm not sure he called them by name.) Bob said that putting higher OBP guys like Hairston and Walker in those spots would result in more than 100 more baserunners in the season. Better yet, those baserunners would be on for D Lee, ARam, and Burnitz to drive in. I know it's common sense, but it was refreshing to hear. Maybe Bob will get run out of town for offering a valid opinion. If the 2005 Cubs was the novel Animal Farm, Brenly would be Squealer "Dusty is always right" to Steve Stone's Snowball. As much as I like the Animal Farm reference, you gotta admit that Brenly, at least in the part you quoted, wasn't blindly praising or supporting Dusty.

Sounds to me like this is the main rationale for making the move. Is that what you're saying? If that's true I wouldn't do it if I'm the white sox. Joe McCarthy is a pretty big prospect isn't he? And Marte, I believe (without consulting his stat line), is steady. So why fix what clearly isn't broken? You don't make a big name trade for the sake of the big name when you're contending to win it all . . .

Hahah, all of them are 0 or 2 out except two. That means in all those at-bats, Corey and Neifi made the first two outs in the inning 5 times, and that Neifi made the last out in the inning before 9 times. Nice analysis IMB. Sad.

That's a good point. We can't make this lineup like the Cards' overnight, though. Moving Patterson and Perez to the bottom of the order is by no means an ideal solution. We don't want the level of production at all, but it's the best the Cubs can do with this set of players, and thus should be done.

What does everyone interpret this part as meaning? The Cubs are talking to other teams about a bigger player (Dunn)? Or they're asking for more in return from TB (reliever)?