Tracer Bullet

Is Barrett hurt? Why is Blanco starting for the 2nd day in a row?

When we're paying his contract for a .600 OPS next year, I don't think I'll agree.

They're going for quantity over quality.

I guess you must have missed The Sex Pistols getting beat by Genesis. Yes, that Genesis. The people that voted chose a mountain of formulaic pop crap over a band that produced one of the best albums ever. Or Radiohead being beaten by CCR. Yes, I'm still bitter Nope. Still going with Queen. You Floyd fanatics are angry, bitter people! :lol: 8) I agree w/ Derwood here. Radiohead losing in the 1st round was a tragedy. I lost my faith in the members of this board that day.

No - according to Bruce. link

Everyone is over-reacting. 120 pitches for Zambrano is not a big deal. 120 pitches for Wood is a big deal. This idea of a fixed pitch count ceiling for all pitchers without regard for the specific pitcher is silly. The problem with this analysis is its complete hindsight. No one knew how Prior would handle his work load in '03 (though we had a pretty good idea). No one knew the first time through (in '98 or whenever) how Wood would handle his high pitch counts, but by 2003 Dusty should have known better than to let him throw that many pitches that many times. Is Z different? Is he one of the few that can throw 120 pitches routinely w/o doing harm to his body? Maybe, but the fact that he is (or says he is) ok right now doesn't mean much. If he starts 30+ times next year and the year after, then we'll know a little more. At this point, it just looks like a huge risk with absolutely no benefit for the team. And I'm not calling for fixed pitch counts (and I haven't seen anyone write this in this particular thread). But 120+ pitches for a team as far out of the race as we are, in August, is indefensible. You could at least make something of a legit defense if we were in a race for the playoffs, but this team has nothing to play for but pride. Pride isn't worth risking long term harm to one of the best pitchers in the league.

I wouldn't mind seeing LZ v. The Who. I think LZ should win, but that might actually be closer than either of the current matchups.

I saw this in Bruce's article today. I liked his following line:

If he's a day of 14, I'm Knute Rockne.

So Zeppelin can destroy Queen?

Berkman, Beltran, Rivera. Juan Rivera? Having his best year in the majors this year. .305 BA 20HR 64RBI .353OBP. He has had only 292AB this year. He would be putting up better numbers than Vlad, if he had atleast 450AB at this time. Berkman, Sizemore, Juan Rivera. Yup. He's had a great year. Picked up him up as a FA about 2 months ago. Allowed me to trade CLee for pitching.

Berkman, Beltran, Rivera. Dunn, Lee, Sizemore Dye, Miggy Cabrera, and Corey Patterson #-o As Meatloaf would say, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Berkman, Beltran, Rivera.

On topic: if Bruce is right about Dusty coming back next year, I can only hope that when the Cubs suck in '07, both Hendry and Dusty get the axe.

This is interesting.

You really should qualify that better - he's 10th in the NL in OBP among qualified CF's. If he were 10th in the NL, we'd be very happy with his .398 OBP. Unfortunatley for us, ol 43 is 74th in the NL in OBP. That's simply horrific for a lead-off hitter.

both suck

It's very similar to Duke-UConn in the Nat'l Semifinal in 2004, or Maryland-Kansas in 2002... everyone knew the winner of those games was the champion. The final was just a formality. I hate to rag on Derwood (esp since he's not here to defend himself until Friday), but his Pink Floyd bias is showing up pretty big here. I'm ok w/ Pink Floyd being a 1-seed, but they're clearly behind Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin to me. I would have had the Beatles and Pink Floyd on one side (with The Who - the best #2 seed - in the PF bracket) and Stones and Zeppelin on the other. I thought from the beginning that this would be the finals matchup and hate to see it in the semi's.

Why in the world are the 1 and 3 best bands matched up here instead of what would be 1 & 4 (Beatles and Pink Floyd)? Couldn't be that you wanted Floyd to have an easier trip to the finals, could it?

Well, they probably should be a #1 seed anyone, what with being the 2nd greatest band of all time and all. I'm not really surprised the Stones lost. A lot of people don't seem to know the early stuff and the crap they've put out in the last 20+ years has certainly hurt them. But I can't believe the Stones are getting crap for continuing to tour - it's not like Townshend and Daltrey are sitting at home doing nothing. They lost their drummer (one of the best of all time) and kept going. They lost their bassist and kept a tour going. They haven't put out a great album in over 20 years either. But there's certainly an anti-Stones bias at work here. And that's ok - it's all about voting for your favorite, not the greatest. A lot of other great bands didn't make it very far (Radiohead losing to CCR?), so I didn't have much hope for the Stones and the Beatles. We'll see how long John and the boys can hang around...

I dont think he will. He would have to stay that hot all the way though August for him to overtake Sanchez (assuming Sanchez continues to hit well). I would LOVE to see him do it, tho. I don't think Sanchez can keep up his pace, so I think Barrett has a great shot. I just hope Dusty plays him enough in the next 2 months to qualify.

I could list about 50 Beatles songs that don't really "rock," but "Yesterday" is the most commonly known one. Sure, but there are a handful (or more) that do and you were careful to steer clear of them. That's my point.

You haven't heard Battery, but are just assuming the Beatles are hands-down the better band without having heard Metallica's best work? Just because the Beatles were great musicians, songwriters, and trendsetters, does not mean that another band could actually come along and be better musicians, songwriters, and equally original. I've heard a lot of Metallica, I may have even heard Battery (had a roommate that played a fair amount of their stuff, but I don't know all the albums/songs he was playing). I liked And Justice For All for a while in HS. I liked some of their self-titled album for a little while, too. But it's not my style. But where did I say that no band could ever be better than the Beatles. I'm just saying a band I have listened to a fair amount isn't. I don't see why that's a problem. In my opinion the Beatles are better. And frankly, just b/c you think Battery is their best work doesn't mean it is. I think I can make a reasonable comparison of two bands w/o having heard every song that either ever played.

How old are you? Why should that matter? I like Metallica more than the Beatles. It's my opinion. How old are you? No offense intended. I'm not questioning which band you like more. I just wondered which generation you were referring to. I figure if there is any generation that would call Metallica "the great band" of its time, it would be mine (I'm 28). But I figure most people in my generation would consider U2 *THE* great band of my generation, even though they've sucked pretty bad for a while, imo.

I hate the Red Sox and all those stupid teenagers wearing pre-faded "B" hats. I want to kill them all. :shock: