USSoccer

Because Remlinger is awful. Dusty couldn't have picked a worse guy to put into a tie game, 9th inning, on the road. Remmy needs to be DFA'd.

I can't recall the Cubs ever having success against Wagner. He's really good.

But he could be asked, in an elimination situation, to come in and throw 3 or 4 innings like Beckett did in Game 7 2003. Plus, if Williams or Maddux get knocked around (a real possibility given Maddux's postseason record), Wood might come in and basicaly be the starter in that game. I think we'd get more of a boost using Wood this way rather than using him like we use Wuertz or Novoa.

You're not doing it for next year; you're doing it to keep Wood healthy, limit his use, keep him on a consistent, stable usage pattern, and keep his arm reasonably stretched out in case we need him to play a Josh Beckett type role in the playoffs or down the stretch (spot start, multiple innings of relief in big games, etc.), keep Maddux starts from becoming blowouts, and all for the remainder of this year only. Next year, Wood's shoulder will be coming off arthroscopic surgery, and hopefully he'll be in a position to be starting games for us.

Here's the problems I see with it. Since Wood requires several days between these appearances(as would most if not all pitchers), you are essentially playing with a 24 man roster on the days he doesn't pitch. You don't have the flexibility of a 7 man pen or of a 6 man bench. Secondly, if Wood is ineffective and needs to be replaced in any of the outings, it further taxes the pen that Wood is basically acting as a 5th and a half starter for. That said, I'm not against the idea per se, I'm just not convinced either way. Exactly. If he's only pitching on the days that Maddux starts, that means on the other 4 days, we're playing with a 24 man roster. In addition to that, Williamson won't be available every day. So let's say Wood pitches a game that Maddux starts. If Williamson pitches the next game, we may be automatically down to a 23 man roster for the next game or two. Then if our starter in the next game gets knocked out early, our bullpen is in shambles. In theory it sounds pretty good, but in reality we would have to count on Wood being very good on the days he does pitch, and our other starters being able to consistenly work fairly deep into games. I pointed this out in an earlier response, but the easy answer to this is that Mitre doesn't pitch all that often right now, so using Wood for 3 innings when Maddux starts and then having him unavailable for 3 games isn't much different than Mitre riding the bench. Your long guy typically doesn't ge used much. Besides, Maddux is followed in the rotation by Zambrano and Williams, who eat innings, so the chances of the pen getting overused in the 2 starts following the Maddux/Kerry game is low. Plus, it's only a 3 week problem, since the rosters expand September 1st, and then you have extra arms in case of a blowup start somewhere.

Here's the problems I see with it. Since Wood requires several days between these appearances(as would most if not all pitchers), you are essentially playing with a 24 man roster on the days he doesn't pitch. You don't have the flexibility of a 7 man pen or of a 6 man bench. Secondly, if Wood is ineffective and needs to be replaced in any of the outings, it further taxes the pen that Wood is basically acting as a 5th and a half starter for. That said, I'm not against the idea per se, I'm just not convinced either way. but how often does your long reliever work anyway. Mitre doesn't really throw that often as it is, so I'm not sure if it's a real difference. You'd still have: Williamson Ohman Wuertz Novoa Dempster Rusch to choose from. And in the end, it's only a 3 week problem, since in September you can have an army of bats/arms to call up and use if need be.

Good post. I was going to post this same idea this morning, as I think it's the best scenario to use Wood in. It would allow the pen to rest, while Wood works a long save. It would be better for Kerry's arm than irregular work here and there, and finally, it could help depress Maddux's IP. Yeah, I like the idea.

Can public figures sue for slander? Not quite sure, that's a slipper slope. We need an attorney, "JC!!!!" Yes, they can. But, the standard is higher. The public figure or official must prove actual malice, that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Do you think players named in the book have a case against Jose? (Assuming they didn't take steiroids as alleged.) I don't mean to speak for JC, but I think that libel is extremely difficult to prove, since the standard is so high. There's enough suspiscion out there to probably serve as a successful defense for Jose.

Ouch. Don't say that... :pukel: All the injuries? All the power? I certainly hope not, but he fits the category. The only year he didn't show power he was hurt all year (2002). I'll happily wear my "favorite player" blinders until I know otherwise. What about Kerry? Constant arm issues?

Ouch. Don't say that... :pukel:

he's pretty stout. Maybe he took some roids to help his knee heal better and got caught. Neifi? He's hit a few HR's this year....

Libel is written word and Slander is spoken. If the supposed juicers had a beef with meathead, they would sue him for Libel. Ah, that's right. Thanks, OMC.

Can public figures sue for slander? Not quite sure, that's a slipper slope. We need an attorney, "JC!!!!" I think that the standard for slander is "reckless disregard for the truth". Or that might be libel. I'm not sure. But one is the above, and the other you have to prove that the allegations damaged the ability of the plantiff to perform his/her job, or that it caused severe damage to their reputation.

Why wouldn't the league release all the names at once? And I hope to god there are 2 cub infielders that never show up on a steriod list.

For what it's worth Stone this morning on the score said he was to come up soon. I doubt it's worth much. Stone talks more in rhetoric and conjecture than in actual fact. I'd be shocked if Corey were back before September.

WSCR also reports it as well.... ...wow. how dumb can you possibly be?

That wouldn't matter, because as the rules state, the claiming team is responsible for the remainder of the player's contract (if not pulled back). Griffey's contract as is, is way too much for any team at this point in the season - including the Yankees (imho). That's why he'd likely clear waivers, paving the way for the Reds to negotiate to a team interested, and likewise a team Griffey would play for. Just my :twocents: The problem isn't getting Griffey to pass through waivers, it's the players it will take to get him getting passed through waivers. You could put one of them as a PTBNL I suppose, but I think that Cincy would still have to choose the PTBNL before the end of the year, which would still subject that player to waivers. But given how bad Cincinatti is, wouldn't the have one of the first cracks at the waiver claim? Thus, if we tried to slip a couple players through to them in exchange for Griffey, wouldn't they not have to go through all 30 teams but just through the DRays and Rockies before getting to the Reds? I'm pretty sure in order for a trade to happen, the players have to clear all 30 teams, and not just the players in front of that team on the waiver priority list. So there's not way to manipulate it? As other have stated you could have Griffey clear waivers, we could claim him, and then we could try and force a couple guys through, independently of a trade, just through the waiver process, so that all they'd have to do was get past the 2 or 3 teams behind the Reds, and then they could claim them? Does that make any sense? I see what you're saying, but I don't know if it would work out. Yeah, it probably wouldn't. I'm sure there are all sorts of rules that I'm not considering.

That wouldn't matter, because as the rules state, the claiming team is responsible for the remainder of the player's contract (if not pulled back). Griffey's contract as is, is way too much for any team at this point in the season - including the Yankees (imho). That's why he'd likely clear waivers, paving the way for the Reds to negotiate to a team interested, and likewise a team Griffey would play for. Just my :twocents: The problem isn't getting Griffey to pass through waivers, it's the players it will take to get him getting passed through waivers. You could put one of them as a PTBNL I suppose, but I think that Cincy would still have to choose the PTBNL before the end of the year, which would still subject that player to waivers. But given how bad Cincinatti is, wouldn't the have one of the first cracks at the waiver claim? Thus, if we tried to slip a couple players through to them in exchange for Griffey, wouldn't they not have to go through all 30 teams but just through the DRays and Rockies before getting to the Reds? I'm pretty sure in order for a trade to happen, the players have to clear all 30 teams, and not just the players in front of that team on the waiver priority list. So there's not way to manipulate it? As other have stated you could have Griffey clear waivers, we could claim him, and then we could try and force a couple guys through, independently of a trade, just through the waiver process, so that all they'd have to do was get past the 2 or 3 teams behind the Reds, and then they could claim them? Does that make any sense?

That wouldn't matter, because as the rules state, the claiming team is responsible for the remainder of the player's contract (if not pulled back). Griffey's contract as is, is way too much for any team at this point in the season - including the Yankees (imho). That's why he'd likely clear waivers, paving the way for the Reds to negotiate to a team interested, and likewise a team Griffey would play for. Just my :twocents: The problem isn't getting Griffey to pass through waivers, it's the players it will take to get him getting passed through waivers. You could put one of them as a PTBNL I suppose, but I think that Cincy would still have to choose the PTBNL before the end of the year, which would still subject that player to waivers. But given how bad Cincinatti is, wouldn't the have one of the first cracks at the waiver claim? Thus, if we tried to slip a couple players through to them in exchange for Griffey, wouldn't they not have to go through all 30 teams but just through the DRays and Rockies before getting to the Reds?

I see Hendry taking more control of the roster now that it is crunch time. I haven't figured out, though, if Macias is Dusty's boy or Hendry's boy. At any rate, here are the moves I'd make by next weekend: Subtractions: Mitre optioned, Wuertz optioned, Remlinger DFAd, Cedeno optioned, Macias DFAd. Additions: Wood activated, Williamson activated, Garciaparra activated, Fontenot called up, McClain called up. What about Hollandsworth?

hahaha what? we clearly upgraded in left, and gave up virtually nothing at all. how can you say you are happier staying put? Because after today, we'll be lucky not to be 5 games back of the WC, and it's not like this acqusition makes us an incredibly better team. Lawton is a nice player, but he won't really put us over the top.

The game was pretty much over when it started.

Boy, this one's over.... We're going to be 5 games out, behind 4 different teams...

Oh man, this game is so important, we cannot afford to drop 3 of 4...

nice piece of hitting there Aramis. At least he got the one run in...