USSoccer

Redick is a lot better than Langdon, although he's going through a Jay Williams slump atthe end of the season. Langdon had better players around him otherwise he likely would've shot as much as Redick does. Bigger shooting guards in the NBA will eat him alive, and he's not quick enough to defend NBA PGs. Like I said, then he ends up playing for a team like Phoenix or some other Western Conference team and has a Steve Kerr career. He's going to be in a 9 man rotation somewhere.

You do know that Duke basically gets whatever calls they want, right? There have been many worse than that. My favorite is when J.J. Redick, The Biggest Prick Known to Man, can't find a good shot to take, so he just dribbles it into the fray in the paint and haphazardly lobs the ball in the air. Since he's such a good shooters, the refs go, "well, he must have been fouled," and they call it on somebody. Drives me nuts. That and Shelden Williams' elbows. Of course, I am a little biased. And not just a little upset about losing to Boston College. UNC has had trouble putting it together in the ACC tournament recently. You'd take Redick in the 'Heels backcourt in a heartbeat :P Call me crazy, but no I wouldn't. Yeah, he's a great player, but I credit the team and the coach for his success more than his own natural ability. That team is constructed to give J.J. the ball as often as possible. When he has a bad night, he still scores 20 points because he takes so many shots - plus the free throws. I don't like a team structured that way. And I fully expect him to be a flop in the NBA, because the only thing he does really, really well is shoot. Plus, he's a prick. I love to see him go into a school like Temple, who is barely a division I team, and still taunt the fans. Yes, he'd make the Heels better, but I still hate him, and I don't want him. Plus, his poetry (yes, he writes poetry) sucks. No, his poetry is baaaad. But I will say that Redick will have a nice NBA career. There's always a place in a 9 man rotation for a guy who shoots like that. He's not going to be a star, but to think he couldn't have a Paxson/Hornacek type career is underrating him. As far as the Duke offense goes, they've relied on the 3 for a lot of years now, and always had good shooters, but Redick is so much better than the Collins/Langdon/Williams type players as far as shooting goes, it's not a fair comparison. Redick is Trajan Langdon incarnate. Redick is a lot better than Langdon, although he's going through a Jay Williams slump atthe end of the season.

You do know that Duke basically gets whatever calls they want, right? There have been many worse than that. My favorite is when J.J. Redick, The Biggest Prick Known to Man, can't find a good shot to take, so he just dribbles it into the fray in the paint and haphazardly lobs the ball in the air. Since he's such a good shooters, the refs go, "well, he must have been fouled," and they call it on somebody. Drives me nuts. That and Shelden Williams' elbows. Of course, I am a little biased. And not just a little upset about losing to Boston College. UNC has had trouble putting it together in the ACC tournament recently. You'd take Redick in the 'Heels backcourt in a heartbeat :P Call me crazy, but no I wouldn't. Yeah, he's a great player, but I credit the team and the coach for his success more than his own natural ability. That team is constructed to give J.J. the ball as often as possible. When he has a bad night, he still scores 20 points because he takes so many shots - plus the free throws. I don't like a team structured that way. And I fully expect him to be a flop in the NBA, because the only thing he does really, really well is shoot. Plus, he's a prick. I love to see him go into a school like Temple, who is barely a division I team, and still taunt the fans. Yes, he'd make the Heels better, but I still hate him, and I don't want him. Plus, his poetry (yes, he writes poetry) sucks. No, his poetry is baaaad. But I will say that Redick will have a nice NBA career. There's always a place in a 9 man rotation for a guy who shoots like that. He's not going to be a star, but to think he couldn't have a Paxson/Hornacek type career is underrating him. As far as the Duke offense goes, they've relied on the 3 for a lot of years now, and always had good shooters, but Redick is so much better than the Collins/Langdon/Williams type players as far as shooting goes, it's not a fair comparison.

You do know that Duke basically gets whatever calls they want, right? There have been many worse than that. My favorite is when J.J. Redick, The Biggest Prick Known to Man, can't find a good shot to take, so he just dribbles it into the fray in the paint and haphazardly lobs the ball in the air. Since he's such a good shooters, the refs go, "well, he must have been fouled," and they call it on somebody. Drives me nuts. That and Shelden Williams' elbows. Of course, I am a little biased. And not just a little upset about losing to Boston College. UNC has had trouble putting it together in the ACC tournament recently. You'd take Redick in the 'Heels backcourt in a heartbeat :P

They should have just gone all the way and completely copied the World Cup setup.

Is anybody arguing that his injuries are not a huge concern? No. The argument is that wins is the most worthless pitching stat, ever. If you want to knock him, use Starts. Not wins. Wins have been the #1 measurement of a successful starting pitcher since baseball began and will continue to be so. As much as everyone wants to wish it away and makeup their own stat du jour, wins are what counts. Anything else is just excuse making. Hello, CubbieRich :D Using your logic, last year Roger Clemens was a bad starting pitcher. In 2004 Randy Johnson was bad. In 2003, Kerry would put up great numbers, but only won 14. Was he also bad? Just because people have ben judging a player a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it's flawed. History is filled with examples of conventional wisdom being disproven and replaced with a new way of thinking. Also, from 2001-2003, Wood made 93 starts. Is it a coincidence that he's been injury plagued since his league leading pitch count of 2003? If you were Dusty Baker, would you let a guy with an iffy health history throw 143 pitches in a May game in 2003? Or throw close to 4000 pitches in a single season? Wood is absolutely fragile, but he's not a bad pitcher. He is overpaid based on what he's given us the past 2 seasons, but he's still not a bad pitcher.

Why Dempsey in the middle? Also, good article on Italy's national team: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=360907&root=worldcup&campaign=fp&src=360907&cc=5901 he distributes very well, and Donovan and Beasley are quicker/slashier in my opinion. Also, he's shown that he can hold the ball in the face of the defense fairly well, and draws free kicks well also. Note: I'm currently enamored with the Roma system employed by Luciano Spalletti, which looks very similar to this. Less traditional target men up front and more runs from attacking midfielders results in more difficult marking jobs for the opposing defense. Another note: If Christian Vieri makes the Azzurri, its a total waste of a roster space. it's a much better idea to put Inzaghi or Cassano on the team. Don't despair that Arena wouldn't try a goofy alignment if he thought it would give his team an advantage. IIRC in the Round of 16 game vs Mexico in Korea he so confused Mexico by starting Reyna on a wing and playing a 3-6-1 that they subbed a player off in the 8th minute to try and counter the formation.

I think that if FIFA wants to look into match fixing, or referee irregularities they need look no further than Serie A. If your team isn't Juventes or AC Milan, you aren't getting the calls.

Why Dempsey in the middle? Also, good article on Italy's national team: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=360907&root=worldcup&campaign=fp&src=360907&cc=5901

Cover our respective butts, or ignore the obvious cloud around Bonds incredible stretching program? While it may be human nature to cover for ourselves, I think it is a difficult premise to suggest that all of us would approach the issue as Baker wants us to believe he did. I think the way Baker has talked about the issue hurts his credibility more than what he actually did (or didn't) do.

Let me also say that Baker would be much better served saying something along the lines of "looking back, I should have suspected something" instead of seeming to admit to how terrible it is, and then retreating to the "old news, blah blah blah" stuff. Yesterday he seemed to waffle between being candid and stonewalling. All he had to do was say that he should have known, it's a terrible thing for the game, and he hopes the new policy prevents this in the future.

I don't think anyone is saying they don't care who cheats, or that the don't care the game is tainted. I certainly do. It pisses me off that at this point MLB doesn't step in and do something with regards to Bonds, before he turns the HR record into a farce. I think what's being said in here is that people are ticked that this is the focus right now, and not the game itself. It's a fine point, but I can see it. No one should be bigger than the game. Also, in regards to Baker, I just don't see how him asking Barry in 2001 changes a thing. Barry would probably have said no, or told him to go scratch. Then what's he supposed to do? Go to Sabean, who already hated him, or McGowan, who would probably have sided with the ticket draw over the manager trying to "do the right thing"? Either way, nothing Baker could have said results in Bonds stopping. There's also the possibility Baker did say something, but won't reveal it because he has a desire to maintain his "players guy" rep Regardless, Baker saying something to Bonds changes nothing in this scenario. Nothing. Bonds wasn't going to stop, the Giants weren't going to discipline him or risk ticking an already touchy star off. Baker protected himself. It's unfortunate, because it really isn't the "right" thing to do, but I cannot sit here in my chair and criticise Baker.

I'm not sure that Baker can be "blamed" for any of this. It's a tough spot for him to be in: He can either turn a blind eye, and get bashed when it comes out, or he can call his megastar LF out, without actual proof, and lose his team, and probably get fired when Bonds goes to Macgowan and complains. Dusty did what 99% of the people in baseball would have done. God, I feel dirty defending Baker...

-We don't need another starter in the rotatoin at the start of the season. Without Wood and Miller, we still have Z, Prior, Williams, Maddux, Rusch, Hill and Guzman. That's 7 starters. Even if you throw out Guzman it's still 6. -If you consider what we have now to be questionable, I don't see how adding Arroyo-who's only better than Rusch, and even then it's not that big of an improvement-makes us any better. Arroyo isn't that good. He's just young. If you put his numbers on Kansas City, you wouldn't want him. He put up a 4.3k/9, and a 4.52 ERA last season. In 2004, he was 7.15 k/9 and a 4.02 ERA. He's just average.

No it couldn't. The Newark Bears, the Atlantic City Surf, the St. Paul Saints, the Sioux City Explorers, the Camden Something or others. Does anybody really think MLB would be better off if the Lancaster Barnstormers replaced the Pittsburgh Pirates next year? The stadiums are far too small. The media markets are miniscule. The talent is almost non-existent. Yep. And if/when a struggling team is cast down the food chain and cut off from MLB revenues how is it supposed to get better? BK, like I said, I was mostly kidding around and being snarky, but i suppose the threat of being relegated would be enough to get certain owners/GM's to behave differently. also, it would be less about preserving current teams, than making the league more competitive overall. so you'd lose tradition for the sake of competition. As others have pointed out, it would require overhauling everything. so it's never going to happen.

No it couldn't. The Newark Bears, the Atlantic City Surf, the St. Paul Saints, the Sioux City Explorers, the Camden Something or others. Does anybody really think MLB would be better off if the Lancaster Barnstormers replaced the Pittsburgh Pirates next year? The stadiums are far too small. The media markets are miniscule. The talent is almost non-existent. well, keep in mind that i'm mostly kidding, but I'd still enjoy seeing certain MLB owners being demoted for being cheap/incompetent

Kind of like the first division/second division system. I like it! Newark Bears up, Kansas City Royals Down! Exactly. Have a salary floor and cap, and the bottom 2 teams in each leage get demoted every season. If you're demoted, you don't get any revenue sharing money, TV money, or other MLB money, and have to finish in the top 4 of the indy/AAA league to be promoted. That would give owners more incentive to field a winning team, and to hold incompetent GM's accountable. You'd have to get rid of all AAA affiliations, which would leave all those AAA teams with no players, which would make AAA as crappy as the Indy leagues and probably kill off several teams. How many Indy league teams are there? Maybe forget the AAA issue (affiliations and option clocks would make that really hard to manage), but if there are 15-20 Indy league teams, it coudl work...

Kind of like the first division/second division system. I like it! Newark Bears up, Kansas City Royals Down! Exactly. Have a salary floor and cap, and the bottom 2 teams in each leage get demoted every season. If you're demoted, you don't get any revenue sharing money, TV money, or other MLB money, and have to finish in the top 4 of the indy/AAA league to be promoted. That would give owners more incentive to field a winning team, and to hold incompetent GM's accountable.

They should just relegate teams to the minors and promote minor league/indy league teams to the majors a la soccer. Then you'd see an improvement in some of the more terrible organizations.

That's what I think. The other thing is that this is a situation where it would really help if the team had an actual leader in the clubhouse. If I were Cedeno I'd be right pissed at the fact that someone who should probably be rooting for whatever's best for the team is waiting for me to fail. Since Baker won't ever put a player in his place, it falls on someone on the roster to do so, and I don't think we have that guy.

When was this? Bruce Miles article “I see Ronny pressing a little more, I think, than Matt,” Baker said. “Matt didn’t play winter ball, and Ronny did play winter ball. He had a great winter ball. Forget it and go on and be yourself. Every kid’s different. He’s got a lot of people around him who can help him. It’s all part of the learning process. He’ll be fine.” http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=163627 That one seems much more benign that the Neifi quotes, which to me smack of a player trying to say the right things, but really letting how he feels slip out. And there's enough blame to go around, between Hendry overpaying someone who should, at best, be a backup, and Dusty, who enables this kind of crap by placating veterans. Neifi probably feels perfectly justified.

When was this?

What did your ML numbers end up looking like?

In regards to the logjam comment I made earlier, it's not a matter of the talent level, but the fact that i don't think the Cubs would be well served to have a 25 man roster with 5 starting pitchers, 7 pen guys, and 5 middle infielders. It's not a logjam of talent, but it's still 20% of your 25 man roster. Regarding the budget, it's difficult to say where the team's budget stands. As has been discussed ad nauseum, the Tribune Co. has not had the best fiscal year. It could very well be that the parent company has decided to use the Cubs to help stem the cash flow problem they've been having. Also, the team underachieved during the 2 years of expanded payroll, and maybe MacPhail and Fitzsimmons have decided to pull back a little bit. But no one here knows for sure. What I can guess is that at best, the Cubs have about $12m in payroll left. Is it worth eating up 3/4 of that for a player who's not 4 times better than Walker? Your analysis of mideason trades and the impact on the budget is dead on, and it's also likely that during the season the Cubs will shed some of their current payroll. However, I think I'd rather take a wait and see approach before trading for a guy like Vidro. For instance, what if Soriano comes back from the WBC and decides he's not going to play LF? Then, maybe you try and swing that deal, but you have more leverage than you would right now. Maybe you can get them to eat $5-6m of his salary. If Soriano does want to play LF, then why not wait and see how Vidro starts the season? If he gets plays well, then when Guillen comes back, maybe then you can trade for him. Now, the price would be higher, but it's also less of a risk at that point. Finally, replacing Walker with Vidro after his injuries might not be that much of an upgrade offensively, and certainly not worth 4x Walker's salary. If he's cheap, fine. If we wait, and he's healthy, and we pay more in salary later, or more in prospects, fine. It's all about the level of risk, and if I were Hendry, I wouldn't be looking to increase the risk on my team. Right now, as of March 6th, I don't see much point in dealing for him. It's just too big of a risk with too many variables. I'd want to wait and see how it plays out.

Reguardless of what you thought of the man, that may be the tackiest thing that's ever been posted on this board. Yes, I agree, that is pretty classless. Insensitive, yes. Classless, yes. I just don't see the point in waxing poetic and fawning over the death of someone who if he wasn't a millionaire would be in jail. Why honor a man who cheats on and assaulted his wife and openly got away with both. Maybe not wax and fawn, but with very few exceptions the death of anyone should be a time for mourning and reflection. In Kirby's case, he was a terrific baseball player with a troubled personal life. Both sides of him should be remembered for what they were.