Tracer Bullet

I somewhat agree with JR here. Could the Cubs really not tell from his press conferences earlier this year that he'd lost it. He just didn't care that much - he'd given up. The fire was gone. He's been like a dead man walking for months. If his mother wasn't dying, he might sit through the last several weeks, but it is sorry that the Cubs didn't see that Lou had cashed in earlier or weren't strong enough to fire him/force him to retire then. I mean, his mother in 90-something. Does it really surprise anyone that she's dying? I can understand wanting to spend her last few days with her, but you don't retire 6-weeks early b/c your very old mother is going to die in the next few days. But why is it so important to fire Lou in a meaningless season that the Cubs' management now looks like it lacks "organizational control" because they didn't? Or that it was "hallmarks of a poorly-run organization?" I don't believe it's all that odd for a team to give a long-time, veteran manager a sendoff around the league before he retires. You may disagree with them keeping him on, but firing him really would not have made the Cubs a better team (at least significantly so). What good would the Cubs have derived from firing Lou this year instead of letting him make his "farewell tour?" I said "somewhat agree with JR" - I don't want his quotes attributed to me. but this season wasn't meaningless when it started. It was certainly an uphill battle, but keeping on a manger who doesn't care before his last season isn't the sign of a well-run organization. I'm not positive that Hendry couldn't have gone to Lou in February and said "it's obvious to both of us that you don't give a crap anymore. how about we buy out this last year for $1 and you can go spend time with your family?"

I somewhat agree with JR here. Could the Cubs really not tell from his press conferences earlier this year that he'd lost it. He just didn't care that much - he'd given up. The fire was gone. He's been like a dead man walking for months. If his mother wasn't dying, he might sit through the last several weeks, but it is sorry that the Cubs didn't see that Lou had cashed in earlier or weren't strong enough to fire him/force him to retire then. I mean, his mother in 90-something. Does it really surprise anyone that she's dying? I can understand wanting to spend her last few days with her, but you don't retire 6-weeks early b/c your very old mother is going to die in the next few days. Wait, what? How does anyone know when she's going to die? Isn't that kind of the point of this; that he wants to spend what time he last left with his family? no one knows when she's going to die. but that's not what I said. does it surprise you that a 90-year-old is dying? Lou completely didn't see that coming when he signed a 4-year-contract?

When a competitive zealot like Piniella decides to step away from the team on multiple occasions, yeah, I think you can easily deduce that his heart is at home and that's where he needs to be. So they fire him under the context of missing games due to family issues in a year that's clearly a bust to begin with? Why? How is that less "embarrassing" than how things have played out? And honestly, I am baffled whenever people bring up how Lou seemed "different" this season. To me this is how he's seemed the entire time he's been with the Cubs, the only difference is that in 2007 they turned it around and in 2008 the team was actually good. What "fire" was there the first three years that wasn't there this year? none. Lou may have been the best manager the Cubs have had in decades and might be better than Ryno will be, but he hasn't been great for this team. Who was it here that said the last two hires have been "big names" and both have been flops? sounds about right.

I somewhat agree with JR here. Could the Cubs really not tell from his press conferences earlier this year that he'd lost it. He just didn't care that much - he'd given up. The fire was gone. He's been like a dead man walking for months. If his mother wasn't dying, he might sit through the last several weeks, but it is sorry that the Cubs didn't see that Lou had cashed in earlier or weren't strong enough to fire him/force him to retire then. I mean, his mother in 90-something. Does it really surprise anyone that she's dying? I can understand wanting to spend her last few days with her, but you don't retire 6-weeks early b/c your very old mother is going to die in the next few days. So then your opinion is they should have fired him earlier in the year because he sounded disinterested in press conferences? Jim Hendry put together another god awful baseball team. The problem with the organization is that Jim Hendry is GM. It has nothing to do with the way Lou went out. it's no secret that I have wanted Hendry fired for a long time. But it seemed apparent that Lou just didn't give a crap about this team and I'm not sure this is the first year that's the case. You think Lou had great insight in his private meetings with Hendry and then just pulled the complete lack of interest during PCs? You really think I want him fired solely b/c he sounded disinterested in press conferences, goony? have you not read any posts in the thread dedicated to firing him? give me a break.

I somewhat agree with JR here. Could the Cubs really not tell from his press conferences earlier this year that he'd lost it. He just didn't care that much - he'd given up. The fire was gone. He's been like a dead man walking for months. If his mother wasn't dying, he might sit through the last several weeks, but it is sorry that the Cubs didn't see that Lou had cashed in earlier or weren't strong enough to fire him/force him to retire then. I mean, his mother in 90-something. Does it really surprise anyone that she's dying? I can understand wanting to spend her last few days with her, but you don't retire 6-weeks early b/c your very old mother is going to die in the next few days.

Lou's heart hasn't been in it for a long, long time. I tend to agree with those (sulley, others) that think he saw this as a good excuse for stepping away early. I don't think Lou could bring himself to quit in June, even though he seemed to have pretty much informally quit by then.

Evidence that Sammy is universally considered a jerk? Cause I like and respect him, and I think Hendry's a jerk. Yeah, I get it. You're a contrarian. That's your thing. Congrats. you make pretty sweeping statements that are based solely on your perceptions of these people and take offense when others disagree?

Evidence that Sammy is universally considered a jerk? Cause I like and respect him, and I think Hendry's a jerk. I don't get the Sammy love around here. Even when he was crushing, he was a self-centered, egotistical ass when he wasn't blowing kisses to the camera. Are folks just too young to remember Dawson? And I wouldn't call Hendry a jerk. Grossly incompetent, but I've never read any reports that he mistreats players or anyone else or has anything but the best interests of the team in mind. Hawk may have been a great guy off the field, but he strikes me the same as every other baseball player. He's one of my favorite Cubs growing up (as was Sandberg, who was the biggest jerk of any athlete I've ever met). Sosa isn't much different than Dawson, imo. Almost all of them have huge egos. But who are all these people in the universe that think Sosa is a jerk?

I think 2 of my tee-ball players this year were better defenders than Manny Ramirez.

Yep. Exactly. Which will be a shock to the people who posted in the "FIRE LOU" thread every time there was one issue with the lineup. the high likelihood that Hendry is going to replace Lou with small-ball Ryno doesn't mean people should be content with the increasing number of bad decisions Lou made. if we have to accept stupid decisions because the GM is so bad he's going to replace an old, maybe senile manager with a younger, psycho manager, maybe those of us that want the team to be competitive should just give up and find a different team.

rookie QB or mediocre QB in the preseason against 2 of the best defenses in the league without your best WR isn't going to lead to good results.

He will if he's told to; otherwise he'd be in breach of contract and the Cubs would probably have the right to void the remainder of his contract. He might do a half-ass job of it, but he doesn't have the right to refuse to play the position. yeah, that's not going to happen.

I prefer suspending people for voting for the wrong people to the CFB coaches poll.

"what the hell is wrong with your family?" http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/350651/august-18-2010/brett-favre-returns-to-football

He's the kind of writer that should avoid the camera whenever possible. b/c I usually like his writing, but boy does he come off as a douche on camera

Certain people believe things and are never going to change their minds because he saw Derrek Lee strike out with the bases loaded one time. It's not worth the time to prove them wrong over and over and over again, because they're not going to listen. One only needed to look at the absurd floating goal posts in the poster's original argument to know he wasn't going to change his mind. all very true.

I'm not sure what you mean, but they had received several complaints and even settled other claims based on the temperature of the coffee. But that happens with tons of products that remain unchanged after the claims.

I read it in law school, so I actually do remember some of the facts. And I just looked it up again. I never suggested she wasn't burned badly, but the suit was ridiculous. Lots of companies served coffee at high temperatures and it's sort of ridiculous to think that spilling coffee isn't going to burn you. As I recall, this wasn't her first McD's coffee, so she sort of knew what she was getting but put the really hot coffee between her old and presumably not terribly stable knees anyway. The people at McDs who refused her initial request probably got fired b/c even though I think it was the right legal decision, it was a bad business decision (even if they would have "won" the suit, the cost would be more than $20k and the bad publicity only adds to the cost). I don't know, maybe I'm just naive but it seems like there's a difference between serving coffee that's satisfyingly hot for most customers and so hot that if spilled on someone it requires skin grafts. I just think it's ridiculous that it's become the poster child for frivolous lawsuits where people are suing for millions of dollars when she sued a company for $20k to cover around $11k in medical costs. Saying she sued for $20,000 is a little misleading, given that she sought punitive damages and the jury insanely awarded over $2.5m. As for the temp of the coffee - the fact that McDs coffee at the time was, I think, the highest selling coffee and that several other leaders served coffee at or near those temperatures suggests it's not an unreasonable temp for customers. But again, my point was that the result is putting "hot" on the outside of the cup.

If only Pujols batted left handed. Damnit.

As much of a mouthbreather as Kaplan is, he's pretty well connected. This wouldn't be the first deal, or even the third, that he's been the first to report. Damn, really? That's depressing. Not that Lee might be traded, but that Kaplan has any legitimacy. Is it his first exclusive? what an ass.

I read it in law school, so I actually do remember some of the facts. And I just looked it up again. I never suggested she wasn't burned badly, but the suit was ridiculous. Lots of companies served coffee at high temperatures and it's sort of ridiculous to think that spilling coffee isn't going to burn you. As I recall, this wasn't her first McD's coffee, so she sort of knew what she was getting but put the really hot coffee between her old and presumably not terribly stable knees anyway. The people at McDs who refused her initial request probably got fired b/c even though I think it was the right legal decision, it was a bad business decision (even if they would have "won" the suit, the cost would be more than $20k and the bad publicity only adds to the cost). But really the point I was making was the labels issue. Does putting "Warning: Hot" on the outside of a cup of coffee really tell you anything that a reasonable person wouldn't already know? Except for the freaks that order hot coffee served at a particular temperature at Starbucks, when you order coffee (other than iced), you know you're getting a hot beverage. Yet, the printed warning helps insulate the company from lawsuits. That putting a warning about such an obvious risk on a package or product is not only helpful to a company, but often required means our society is ridiculous bordering on stupid.

aren't they typically more specific to "dangerous activities" like doing a wheelie on your motorcycle? I'd be shocked if you could really fit punching someone into any of the out clauses in a MLB contract. Getting into a fight is absolutely a "dangerous activity". Even if he hadn't hurt his hand punching the other guy, if he gets into a fight injuries could be inflicted upon him by the other person. I'm sorry, erik, but that's just not the way it works. You can't just say "this is how I think the world should be" and expect it to be that way. Fighting is almost assuredly not one of the triggers for the out clauses under the CBA. It doesn't matter if fighting is dangerous. I was just responding in the way I interpreted your post. I thought you were not including fighting as a dangerous activity. It may not be specifically outlined in his contract, like you said. I get that. It's just a shame, is all I'm saying. This may be arguing semantics, but you said out clauses were limited to "dangerous activities" and then you said it didn't matter if fighting was dangerous. If it was dangerous it would matter, because then it would fall under the "dangerous activities" clause or whatever. But, that's really neither here nor there. Like I said, semantics. I just hate legal stuff where something "isn't specifically outlined" and therefore someone can get away with it. That's why you have "WARNING: DO NOT USE IN SHOWER" labels on hairdryers. No, this isn't that. It's absolutely nothing like that. Stupid warnings are there to try to protect companies from being sued by people who do stupid things (the old lady who burned her cootchie on hot McD's coffee situations). We need those things in part b/c people truly are stupid, but in large part b/c we live in a very litigious society with overly zealous attorneys and high costs to litigate, even if you "win." This a contract b/t two parties which is probably damn near identical to the CBA negotiated by the owners and the player's union. I put "dangerous activities" in quotes b/c I think the language used in the triggers for the out clause in contracts is that or something very close to that. And I think the actions that are agreed between the parties to be sufficiently dangerous to trigger the team's right to void or revise the contract in some way are pretty clearly spelled out and don't include all things that might be considered dangerous by you, me, or even "reasonable" people. It's not semantics.

aren't they typically more specific to "dangerous activities" like doing a wheelie on your motorcycle? I'd be shocked if you could really fit punching someone into any of the out clauses in a MLB contract. Getting into a fight is absolutely a "dangerous activity". Even if he hadn't hurt his hand punching the other guy, if he gets into a fight injuries could be inflicted upon him by the other person. I'm sorry, erik, but that's just not the way it works. You can't just say "this is how I think the world should be" and expect it to be that way. Fighting is almost assuredly not one of the triggers for the out clauses under the CBA. It doesn't matter if fighting is dangerous.

-100 tOPS+ in "Unk Lvrge" situations? I can just imagine Lee walking up to the plate and saying to himself "is this a high pressure situation or medium pressure situation, where my OPS is just slight above my average OPS? or a low pressure situation, where my OPS is just slightly lower than my normal OPS? Oh #$&*, I don't know what situation this is...omg, omg, omg, omg" and then going 0 for 3.

no the difference here is micro vs macro. If you choose to look at cumulative stats to tell you how clutch a player is then you are fooling yourself. A "clutch" situation vs. cardinals and the same situation vs the nationals is, inevitably not the same. Arguably there is nothing clutch about even a grandslam vs the nationals of the past 5 years. Nor is a clutch situation in the playoffs the same as in the regular season. if a player is a decent hitter than over a season or tenure with a team the law of averages weighs out in his favor but it hides the fact that there are possibly smaller trends that have occurred or are recurring. maybe against a team or a particular type of pitcher or key situation. I'm not trying to look at the bigger picture of what he has been as a player. for the most part he has been pretty good. I'm looking at the high pressure situations he has had as a cub. when the pressure was greatest for the team and for him as a run producer. The 07,08 playoffs are obvious, the 04 collapse too, this year he is no where to be found early now he starts hitting after the pressure is off, etc. I could drag this out for a long time but I'll just focus on the bolded. So there is nothing clutch about playing well against a team like the Nationals? Do those wins not count towards the playoff race? Beating the Cardinals is fantastic especially when they're fighting the Cubs for a playoff spot, but the games against the other teams are just as significant. Also, I have never in my life seen someone ever get mad at a player for batting .545 in a series. That's like being given a Lamborghini and crying that it's yellow and not red. If someone gave me a yellow Lamborghini, I would cry like nobody's business.