swordsman

I do not think that word means what you think it means. And also: Anybody want a peanut?

I had no dog in the fight last night. I went to USC and my heart belongs to Northwestern. I tuned in because my daughters wanted to watch football. I kept watching/listening because I liked seeing a team that was so highly thought of get wanked all over the field. That was priceless. I still don't care that the Gators won or that the Buckeyes lost or about any of the individual stories that played out. But I liked the story of the game.

I'm not sure this counts as that. If he were against them because they beat their wives or stepped on puppies or something that would be one thing. Not voting because you aren't sure about them actually cheating on the field of play (regardles of how unlikely that is given the players) hardly counts as "moralizing and romanticising" baseball. Isn't his whole thing that he doesn't know who used and who didn't, so he's not voting for anyone because if they used they cheated, and that is a stain on the game? I can't imagine his logic doesn't lead him there, and that's stupid. As has been said tons of times before, the history of baseball is rife with cheating, and the HOF is full of guys who openly cheated. But they're romanticised, and guys who may (or may not) have used PED's are damned because sportswriters now grew up with a silly romantic notion of baseball, and hate the fact that suspected cheaters broke the hallowed, sacred records they grew up revering. Throw the know cheaters out, don't add new cheaters in. I don't see how discouraging cheating "romanticizes" the sport. The problem is that the old cheaters are thought of as colorful. That's hyporcitical. I agree, that's why admitted or proven cheaters should not be in the hall of fame or in the record books. I have no problem with that.

I'm not sure this counts as that. If he were against them because they beat their wives or stepped on puppies or something that would be one thing. Not voting because you aren't sure about them actually cheating on the field of play (regardles of how unlikely that is given the players) hardly counts as "moralizing and romanticising" baseball. Isn't his whole thing that he doesn't know who used and who didn't, so he's not voting for anyone because if they used they cheated, and that is a stain on the game? I can't imagine his logic doesn't lead him there, and that's stupid. As has been said tons of times before, the history of baseball is rife with cheating, and the HOF is full of guys who openly cheated. But they're romanticised, and guys who may (or may not) have used PED's are damned because sportswriters now grew up with a silly romantic notion of baseball, and hate the fact that suspected cheaters broke the hallowed, sacred records they grew up revering. Throw the know cheaters out, don't add new cheaters in. I don't see how discouraging cheating "romanticizes" the sport.

I'm not sure this counts as that. If he were against them because they beat their wives or stepped on puppies or something that would be one thing. Not voting because you aren't sure about them actually cheating on the field of play (regardles of how unlikely that is given the players) hardly counts as "moralizing and romanticising" baseball.

Did you play baseball, OMC?

Maybe. Does he get off the hook if someone else doesn't vote for them?

Is it? I've never seen a ballot. If it has a yes box and a no box next to each name, then this would seem to be an abstention, wouldn't it?

Do abstentions count against something being considered unanimous?

Here! Here! or Hear! Hear! I'm never sure which it is but whatever. What Tim said.

Why would they publish his stats at the end of that article? I, for one, am glad to see that cops are a-holes to everyone..jerks like me and jerks like him..regardless of his W-L or ERA.

With regards to the Cubs... do you know who he is? Please don't post the answer or hints or anything. I'm just curious to see who knows who he is. No cheating.

Dave Kaplan replied and said Hendry will be on at 8:10. Give it a listen!

Hello all, I just heard from David Kaplan on WGN Radio that Jim Hendry will be on Sports Central tonight. I have an e-mail into David about what time he will be on. I'll post any response I receive. you can listen online if you want WGN Radio

Dave Kaplan just rpeported on WGN radio that there is a "Strong Rumor" going around that Man Ram will be traded to the Mariners.

My 6yr old and 4 yr old daughters are offended by that comment. Take it back.

The thread was clearly titled. You weren't tricked into opening and reading it by any kind of legerdemain. Get a new vocabulary list in class today? Or is it a word-a-day calendar?

I'm in the Lilly will "not be great, but won't be bad" group. But I rather have him, then say....Jeff Suppan or Jason Marquis. My camp is expanding to: "Lilly=bad, Suppan & Marquis=also bad." They're average-ish guys who are likely to be even worse in Wrigley (especially Lilly). Not worth the money. Padilla would be almost worth the money, but I've heard of too many character issues with him. Pass. ok, so who do you want the cubs to get then? Excellent point. It's pretty easy to be against any player. Hey even the best make an out 2/3 of the time.

Someone activate the Bruce Signal.

DAGNABIT!!!! they went back to thier regular programming. Mods can delete this thread

take a listen Press conference on the radio

Ken Griffey, Jr. (Seattle Mariners) – No stranger to injury, Griffey once missed a game after suffering a pinched testicle from his protective cup. OW!

RIGHT, 'cus NSBB'ers are definately of one mind about how to make the team better.

Favorite for what, chomping on, cooking with, caramel?

Dave Kaplan (WGN Radio 720) is refering to DeRosa as the Cubs new "Starting 2nd Baseman".