bmkhawk

There would have to be some crazy happenings over the next few weeks for six losses to win the league. MAYBE five. But four should definitely still get it done if anyone can pull it off.

Who in this thread said that the cubs had no chance of getting Giles? If Jack says A=B. And Bill says "Jack, you don't know that for certain." Said statement by Bill does not mean that Bill is saying that A can never equal B. I freely admit that I don't know for certain that the Cubs could have gotten Giles or not. Like I said before, no one knows that.

Maybe I am just a bit hazy here, but can I see this quote please? I don't remember it. Based on the fact that he pursued Furcal and Pierre out of the gates, or is there something else I am missing? Again, is there some sort of quote where he said this? I don't remember seeing it.

Well, if nothing else, I agree with you that such a package is one that the Cubs should offer the Reds to get Dunn if that's what it takes. However...I don't think that Dunn will ever be a Cub via trade. It all depends on, like you said earlier, if their new GM wants to forgoe the next couple of years in order to collect young talent that will allow the Reds to make a big push in the near future (kind of like what the Marlins did) AND if he would deal him intra-division. While I hope it happens, I doubt it. Even if it did happen, that would leave the Cubs with an extra outfielder, and a whole other situation to deal with. It would be great if Jones were part of the deal, but I don't see why the Reds would do that unless the Cubs overwhelmed them with young talent.

I think that there is quite obviously more to the discussion than what you just set forward Goony. The way that Vince said his statement implies that Giles likely would have been a Cub had Hendry simply tried to get him...that is the obvious implication to his statement. But, no one knows if Giles was ever going to leave San Diego. Everything else he did on the market could have just been posturing to get the deal (which he did) from SD that he wanted all along. It's not ridiculous scrutinization. It's asking for less hyperbole. Something you also asked for just a week ago.

edit

It doesn't matter what I do or don't know. That isn't at issue. I said Vance didn't know that the Cubs could have had Giles. And he doesn't. And neither do you. Nobody on this board does. So, it's pointless to make such an accusation against Hendry when one doesn't know it to be true. Why on earth would my comment pointing out that Vance didn't know for certain what he was proclaiming to be fact leave you scratching your head?

It's comments like this that always leave me scratching my head. You don't know that.

I thought Luis Salazar was the 3B in 1989.

They've lacked depth for several years now, I doubt they make it past the round of 16 once they lose the officiating edge they seem to enjoy in the regular season. And UNC ties it up. Part of the reason they lack depth is because they've lost a bunch of players to early entry, but you can't tell me thee's not some junior that can run that offense better that the kid who looks scared to death running it now. I dislike Duke as much as anyone, but I think you are being pretty hard on a kid who had seven assists tonight and is averaging over 5 per game this year (plus a steal and a half a game).

Ahh. Over my head. That's what I get for trying to watch 24 (DVR'd) while I post.

No. FSU would not have shot free throws if the intentional foul was on the FSU player and a double technical was called subsequent to the intentional foul. There would have been free throws for the intentional foul and then alternating possession to determine who got the ball.

Do both teams shoot free throws when a double technical foul is called? For some reason, I thought it was an alternating possession situation with no free throws.

Why was he given a T?

Indy, I believe.

Do you have any documentation that this is the case? If not, your statement is just as baseless as the notion that a season can be a success before a single pitch has been thrown.

Yes.

I'm so glad that we can have civil basketball discussions without your repeatedly playing this "disrespect" card. It's tiresome. I've been very respectful of the Illinois team...yet, because I don't gravel at their feet the way that you think I should, I am disrespecting them. Deal with it...because I am most certainly being respectful of them. Stop looking for the slightest possibility of "disrespect" in everything a fan of another team has to say. THAT is what can be considered as "paranoia". Big deal if I think that Henderson is the best defender in the big 10. That's what fans do...they are a little partial toward their own players. It's not like it is some sort of outlandish statement or something...he clearly is one of the best in the big 10. Who else have I said on Iowa's team is the best at something in the big 10? Why all the whining?

well, for one, he's probably the big ten's best defensive player. Yes, but that doesn't make him any harder for the hawkeyes to match up defensively. That is the point of this discussion. Iowa can match up with him defensively with either Haluska or probably Brunner for that matter. It's not like he is some offensive juggernaut that is super-difficult to stop on offense. no, but you ask what he's done, and i've said that he's a defensive specialist and probably the best defender in the BT, fair enough? I'll grant you that he is one of the top defenders in the big 10, but of course I am going to be a little partial toward Mike Henderson. Regardless, that was hawkeyecub who had asked what Randle had done, not me.

Disrespect? Where has an Illini player been disrespected? And who was disrespected? Please point them out to me.

well, for one, he's probably the big ten's best defensive player. Yes, but that doesn't make him any harder for the hawkeyes to match up defensively. That is the point of this discussion. Iowa can match up with him defensively with either Haluska or probably Brunner for that matter. It's not like he is some offensive juggernaut that is super-difficult to stop on offense.

According to who? Randle may project to be more valuable in the NBA, but that has nothing to do with being a better athlete. If you can't say Haluska is a heck of an athlete without being moronic, well I would question what is really moronic there. Randle couldn't rival what Haluksa has done in track. Haluska is two-three inches shorter but weighs the same and is much stronger. Oh by the way he's also averaging 6 points more per game than Randle. So once and for all let's break this all down. Randle is averaging 8.3, 5.7 boards and 1.4 assists per game. Haluska is averaging 15.3 points, 4.9 boards and 2.5 assists. So Haluska has been much better this year. He's also faster and a better leaper than Randle. In addition he's stronger and has a much better build. Yet it's moronic to say that he's a heck of an athlete too? Good logic. By the way Haluska will be playing in the NBA some day also. Maybe not a lottery pick, but he'll be there. I can't believe how much some of you are overrating Randle. What has he done? And if you think those numbers can dictate greater value or a better player you are a moron. Brian Randle is a defensive stopper on the 6th best team in America. Adam Haluska, is a nice player on a top 25 team. So isn't it safe to say if haluska is stronger and a better athlete than Randle than he would average more boards than him? How 'bout we lay off the name calling?

Not with the Randle I watched Tuesday night in Wisconsin, Haluska' a good player but, I don't believe he's as quick or long as Randle nor can he jump with him. Randle isn't even averaging 9 points a game...some of you act like he is Adam Morrissey offensively or something. Randle has a couple inches on him, sure...but Haluska is also a heck of an athlete. You really think he is an athlete in the same sense that Brian Randle is? I mean sure if a long jump breaks out he might win, but even then I doubt it considering Randle was in a far superior state for high school athletics. That is awful logic. Sure, while Illinois will produce better athletes than Iowa in general...that isn't a determinative factor when comparing two players. "Hmm...well, he came from Illinois, so he MUST be a better ahtlete than this guy from Iowa." That's not all that far from saying..."hmm...this kid is from Connecticut, so he must be smarter than this kid from Alabama...." It just doesn't follow in a discussion directly comparing two individuals. Anyway, back to the issue at hand...I didn't equate the two. I said that Haluska is also a heck of an athlete. Good enough to hold his own defensively against a player like Randle...sure. Just because one is a phenomenal athlete doesn't necessarily equate into that player being tough to stop defensively. Just look at Doug Thomas or Brett Pettway for as prime examples. It takes more than pure athleticism to be a great offensive threat. All that said...you guys act like I am saying Iowa will win. They most likely will not. I'm just saying...Iowa held the Illini to 48 points last game and are one of the best defensive teams in the country. They have a shot. And one better than 100-1.

Sweet then you guys should order your big ten championship shirts then. Me I think I'll get my three peat one ordered. What does me saying Haluska can match up with Randle have to do with me making some sort of guarantee that Iowa will win the Big 10?

Not with the Randle I watched Tuesday night in Wisconsin, Haluska' a good player but, I don't believe he's as quick or long as Randle nor can he jump with him. Randle isn't even averaging 9 points a game...some of you act like he is Adam Morrissey offensively or something. Randle has a couple inches on him, sure...but Haluska is also a heck of an athlete. Also, while Illinois may have improved since the game in Carver...other teams improve as well and Horner looks to be a much better player without that leg brace he was lugging around the first time the teams faced each other.