Sarcastic

Or just incredibly principled. But there are ways to make money off the ball and give a big F U to Bonds. See several previous suggestions.

That's not what they're bashing about, though. What else do people have to go on other than scouting reports combined with a history of ineptitude when it comes to position players? People should be ok with others making snap judgements based on the information at hand, and not freak out and cry "In Wilken We Trust" in response, and act like concern isn't warranted. I guess what I'm complaining about is the lack of consistency in rationale. Scouts are in love with Vitters, but people wanted Wieters because he put up big numbers in a major college conference. But people are complaining about Donaldson instead of Burgess because the scouts aren't raving even though he put up nearly as big numbers in another major college conference (probably even a tougher one). Perhaps I made my post too emotional with the word "bashing", but I was really just complaining about the apparent inconsistency in rationale being used for judgement. There's definitely a rationale. People want the players that were the concensus best picks in the media, or the players they had chosen to follow, for one reason or another. We didn't get them. So people are disappointed. That isn't necessarily the best rationale, but it is a rationale.

"Severe" case of patella tendinitis. He'll likely arrive here tomorrow and be available to pinch hit this weekend. They'd rather have him sit until Monday and then re-evaluate. I'm glad that it isn't anything more serious.

This nonsense again? I like how everytime people question a move by the Cubs they are being illogical pessimists. The first reaction that some posters had (the ones Tim was referring to) was to judge Donaldson very harshly based on a few blurbs about him, which in some cases was the first posters had even read about him. That is pessimism. I make no argument about pessimism regarding any other moves except on a per item basis. That is not pessimism, that is expressing a reaction to the first news you see. If the first stuff we saw was great, we'd have been much more positive. Your labeling of people as pessmists is just flat out ignorant. If people are expecting/wanting one thing, and they see something different, their first reaction is never going to be oh great this is awesome. Pessimism is predicting a bust no matter who a player is. Some people were anti-Vitters a long time ago, not knowing whether or not the Cubs would draft him. And there were a few names people wanted with the 2nd pick and the Cubs went in a completely different direction. That's it. That is actually basically what I said the deal was in the first place, if you go back and read the rest of my post that you only quoted the first sentence of. We just disagree on what to call it. I understand the dissappointment with the picks, I just think the gut reaction was a little more despairing than was warranted, that's all.

This nonsense again? I like how everytime people question a move by the Cubs they are being illogical pessimists. The first reaction that some posters had (the ones Tim was referring to) was to judge Donaldson very harshly based on a few blurbs about him. In some cases said reports were the first posters had ever heard of him. That is pessimism. I make no argument about pessimism regarding any other moves except on a per item basis.

Pessimism doesn't work on a logical basis. The main logic here, I think, is that people wanted Wilken to draft players who were more highly thought of by the sports media (players with more hype around them) because they expect them to play best. I don't think anybody really expected to get Donaldson, so it is easy to think of him as a no talent nobody drafted too high. For the record, I have no idea whether these picks will work out or not, just making an observation.

You mean, how much did he pay to get it? I think it was given to him.

Spoke too soon.

Hadn't thought about that angle, but yeah, I'd sell tickets to the destruction of Bond's homerun ball if I caught it.

It seems that he's a deeply polarizing figure on NSBB.

I'd like to see the ball destroyed, so that Bonds can never have it.

how come you still have wade miller and mark prior in your sig? Monuments to the stupidity of mankind.

What, you don't think the old Cubs luck will get them out of this with an inning-ending DP?? 8-[ Ahem.

Alright, bases loaded. Maybe they can be completely blown out in the first inning and we won't have to finish watching this garbage.

I'd bet that they allowed him to accrue service time because they knew they would lose the grievance and didn't want to piss him off. I'm still not convinced that a team that would spend more than $3 million on Glendon Rusch is suddenly willing to cut Mark Prior a year before his FA year after paying him to sit on the DL for a year.

They still have him under control for 2008. They definitely can't trade him since he has no value, and they aren't going to pay him to recover for a year and then cut him without letting him throw a pitch. Even this organization isn't that inept. I suspect that if he can't pitch in 2008, they may not ask him to come back at any price, though.

He's already under contract for this year and the next, isn't he?

Nah. It's such a weak division. The team that plays just slightly north of mediocrity will be playing in October. I think that team will be our boys. What are you drinking and can I have some? To be fair, he did say this before they completely fell apart.

I would have let them file the grievance! He didn't earn a ML spot, didn't pitch at all this year, and will be on track for free agency! That's counterproductive for the team... Does this mean that he starts accruing ML service days from the beginning of the season, and that he will be on track to be a FA after 2008? The only positive I can see in this is that he probably won't be very good the year after his surgery, so it shouldn't be hard for the Cubs to resign him to a short deal, should they choose to do so. There are a couple of explanations for why the team might do this: 1) They are really afraid of the MLBPA. 2) They don't care about Prior at all anymore, so they'll just let him go. 3) They think they'll be able to resign him easily, for the reasons I stated earlier.

How about a HBP?

At this point, a ground ball to second could win the game.

And have Blanco up there flailing daily? That is a terrible idea. Barrett makes mistakes, but he is undoubtably more valuable than Blanco.

Yep. Glad he's not starting. :roll: In the past week, I've watched the game threads. The couple times Guzman has done well, people complained that he was doing well in the bullpen and therefore he should be starting. When he did poorly Friday night, people complained that he did poorly therefore he should be starting. I guess it's a no win :D Yeah, but he should still be starting.

We had a chance until Lou decided to pull Hill after 69 pitches in the 6th. I didn't see the first part of the game. Why was Hill pulled so soon? Cause our manager is a jackass Pretty much. Tie game, Ward came in to pinch hit with runners in scoring position. Basically a desperation move to break the shut out.

I'm now officially on the Fire Lou bandwagon. He has zero pattern recognition.