Jump to content
North Side Baseball

mul21

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    11,226
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by mul21

  1. You're on a very slippery slope when you're using examples of past players who almost certainly were using greenies like they were candy. Greenies at the very least. PEDs as we know them have basically existed since WW2, and really took off in sports in the 60's. That people willfully act like PEDs outside of speed weren't around prior to the late 80's are just flat out wrong. Yeah, but that whole old school baseball mentality that extra muscle would slow your swing/pitches down makes me think that it would be a much slower adaptation to use in baseball. You don't really hear about widespread use in football until the 70s, so even if that's late, I would think the 70s is about the earliest baseball would have seen any significant use.
  2. This I have trouble with this in a general sense. You are going to have an increase, but is it completely uniform across the board or is it going to be more of an increase at the top end and then tail off significantly with the fringy talent and guys who aren't using?
  3. Is that why they've banned amphetamines as part of the drug program and why we've continued to see a precipitous drop in offensive numbers since they were banned even after steroids were pretty well gone?
  4. Hank Aaron used [expletive] PEDs. Regularly. Were they legal? Could anyone legally use them? Um, no, amphetamines have certainly been illegal for a very long time. Just like steroids have been for a very long time.
  5. You're on a very slippery slope when you're using examples of past players who almost certainly were using greenies like they were candy. And TT, you're certainly correct about you examples, I guess I was looking at it in a much more general sense (i.e. not really specific players) with a pretty heavy emphasis on HRs and not WAR numbers.
  6. Tell that to Bonds who only became once in a generation after he took them. PED's made multiple once in a generation players (Bonds, Sosa, ARod). None of those guys would have been that good without them. Bonds and ARod were going to be clean HOFers, but we'll never know for sure. Oh my. This is delicious. Bonds' line through 1998: .290 .411 .556 .966 164 OPS+ 411 HR 99.6 WAR Yeah, I think we know for sure. I think Bonds is a tough example to use because he was so good all around and would have obviously been a sure fire HOFer without the cream and the clear. But you certainly can't deny he wouldn't have ever become even a 50 HR guy without them.
  7. Tell that to Bonds who only became once in a generation after he took them. PED's made multiple once in a generation players (Bonds, Sosa, ARod). None of those guys would have been that good without them. Holy smokes are you comically wrong about this. No he's not. All of those guys would have been really good players but none of them, especially Bonds and his comically ridiculous seasons, would have put up anywhere near the numbers they did. I mean seriously, go look at the post in another thread talking about Rich Aurilia hitting 37 HRs and the top 9 guys in the MVP voting averaging 49 HRs.
  8. Your point stands for sure, but that isn't the greatest example. He was getting significantly penalized for playing in Coors and it being like a little league park at that point. He would have gotten a whole lot more votes if he played in Wrigley or Busch and put up those numbers.
  9. He's one of SCS' favorites. Other than that, no, I know nothing other than he did well in the DSL when he was way too old for it.
  10. He's already rehabbing in double A. This was a guy that was supposed to miss the whole year and probably be done with his career, and now he'll undoubtedly be pitching game 1 of the World Series. Not so fast my friend....... http://www.ksdk.com/rss/article/389513/3/Carpenter-describes-the-numbness-that-has-returned
  11. I don't think it would matter because PED suspensions are without pay. It matters. With that much money on the line it definitely matters. Not if there's a PED suspension it won't. If he doesn't get a lifetime ban, then there will be some haggling/buyout. If he's suspended he's not getting paid.
  12. A-rod's done anyway. Would a lifetime ban void his contract? I don't think it would matter because PED suspensions are without pay.
  13. Maybe the Brewers fans will forget, but I doubt the players, media and fans of other teams will. I'll honestly be mildly surprised if he comes back and puts up good numbers again without getting busted.
  14. Do you realize how that Puig was at like 2 WAR in the month that led to that campaigning? It wasn't undeserved. The point is that it was a month. Guys don't get voted to the All Star game for a great April, which is essentially what would have happened had Puig been voted in. It would have been dumb. I wouldn't have cared and didn't even watch the game, but it would have been dumb.
  15. Eh, personally, I think he had more coming to him than having to sit out the 2nd half of a lost season... Well, I have to imagine that he had to sign something agreeing that this counts as a second offense and the next one makes him permanently banned, so it is a little more severe than just missing 65 games. I'd have loved to see more, but I think it's a decent compromise to make sure you nail his ass for cheating. Plus, his name is complete mud among fans, players and media now. Total pariah.
  16. Isn't Cleveland where he came from? That would be an interesting turn of events. I'd much rather deal Barney (with value as a SS) than Valbuena if he really can play a solid 2B.
  17. What's that say in English? It says the Cubs are looking at a set up guy the Yankees have in AAA they're willing to give up because they have some other similar options for that role near ready to be in the ML pen.
  18. Why is 2015 the target now? They've acquired near ready ML pieces, which makes it look to me like they're planning on making a couple key moves for next year to field a pretty competitive team.
  19. There's just no way you could do it. The players would just go to a doctor that would say yeah, you definitely need this to get back to 100% and there's no way the union would allow an MLB appointed doctor access to player's complete medical files to make the decision.
  20. wait what words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words must say as many words as possible
  21. Wow. More like holy [expletive] [expletive]!
  22. What a freaking way to close out a major. Holy [expletive], 4 birdies in the last 6 holes. No doubt about making a statement there. Damn.
  23. They're good and the price is fair. I sat in them last weekend for Cubs/Cards.
  24. Len didn't think that was going to get out. Sori knew it right away based on the bat toss!
  25. I can agree with all of that except for #3. I think the comments by Tillman yesterday go a long way toward showing that this group of players is certainly willing to play hard for Trestman. Being that he's one of the team leaders on defense, while he may have been miffed by Lovie being canned, he seems to be on board with the change right now and has at least Tillman in his camp. Not to say it can't/won't happen, but I'd be mildly surprised if it did after hearing what Tillman had to say about the situation.
×
×
  • Create New...