Exile on Waveland

I guarantee you both Billy Beane and Theo Epstein are directly involved in who plays and who doesn't. It isn't enough that Hendry fires Baker at the end of the year -- which I'm still doubtful will even happen -- he has to force Baker to take advantage of these built-in chances to give youngsters a shot.

Ugh, please no sleeveless. I think those are extremely ugly. I agree. Plus, sleeveless jerseys seem stupid from a marketing standpoint. Few people, other than a very select population, would wear sleeveless jerseys to games and such as they require you to wear another shirt underneath. That sounds pretty freaking uncomfortable to me sitting in the stands on a 95 degree day with two shirts on. Sleeveless jerseys are a bad idea. Most people wear a t shirt under their jersey anyway. (I do not support sleeveless jerseys.) Ahem... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v511/freejju/klu.jpg Man, great find. That's hilarious. And wrong. So, so wrong.

1) That is a great logo. I dunno, that waving cub looks kinda wussie to me - unless you're making a statement about the team intentionally. :P I think that fate was decided when the team was named "Cubs" instead of "Bears." Embrace.

1) That is a great logo. I own the hat, too -- and I don't really wear hats. 2) The blue alternate jersey should be worn very, very rarely and never at home. Straight white with pinstripes at home and grey on the road. It's classic. Its' the way it's meant to be. 3) Sleeveless jerseys are for softball. Let's keep it that way.

You should be. But, despite its suckage, you are safe admitting it on a Cub message board because, if memory serves, it was one of Harry's favorites as well. Although, I always suspected he just had a thing for Sarah Michelle Geller. While I certainly wouldn't have wanted to kick Sarah Michelle Gellar off the show, Buffy was one of the most creative, unique and innovative shows in TV history. Seriously. This isn't the first time I've had to use this -- basically no one ever believes that I even like the show -- but here's TV Guide's list of the top-50 shows of all time (not that TV Guide is the be-all, end-all; but they might know something about TV): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TV_Guide%27s_Top_50_Greatest_Shows_of_All_Time Look down at No. 41. What show's that? Oh, it's vindication and the show with the campy name.

There are no stupid questions. Only stupid Cardinal fans. :wink:

He doesn't get paid enough?

Of the shows listed, The Sopranos is the best. Best show ever? Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And I'm not afraid to admit it.

Lou-Do's.

I think it'll be the Cardinals from the NL. They're simply the best team in the NL, if not baseball. The AL is murkier to me, though I think it'll be either the Red Sox or Angels. I love the A's, but I'm concerned they won't even make the playoffs, much less the World Series. Call me biased, but I think the White Sox will have a similar postseason to their 2000 affair (not to say they'll get swept, just that it'll be disappointing). Yankees, if they make it, lack the pitching just like last year -- though they'll be a threat. The Red Sox dominated the Angels last year, but that was with Pedro, Lowe and Schilling starting, none of which may happen this time around. I'll go Cardinals over Angels.

They need to get going again -- don't want the Yankees sneaking into the wild card spot. Exactly. The Yanks are starting to heat it up. While I've not allowed my hopes to rise, I have been looking forward to a sans-Yankee postseason. For that, we need the A's to continue hot. But, just our luck as Cub fans, the one postseason that might lack the Yankees will, however, include both the White Sox and Cardinals and no Cubbies.

They need to get going again -- don't want the Yankees sneaking into the wild card spot.

Neifi and no Walker, jeez.

Thanks for saying nice things about me. I didn't mean to be condescending. If I was, sorry. But I'm pretty sure that I usually am the opposite of how people describe. I'm often harsher towards established posters that I'm familiar with, as I know that they'll be able to tell I'm not just looking to pick a fight. I'm glad you replied. In fact, I've been waiting around just for that reason. I hate that I came here and within a week I've basically initiated some idiotic argument. If you didn't mean to be condescending, then you weren't. I took it wrong, sorry. As to the argument: I just felt it was dismissed a little too quickly. If I continue posting here, you'll find me on the "progressive baseball thinking" side nearly all the time. That's the reason I don't want something dismissed quickly -- the old guard of baseball has been quick to dismiss all things "sabermetric." It worries me that as sabermetricions we'd dismiss something just as quick. And, as I posted before, I realize this was a touchy subject in the first place (which was my reluctance as a newbie stemmed from).

Unfortunate as it may be, I've got a feeling nearly everyone that wrote to Mr. Jackson pointed out that they were black (regardless of if it was true).

I agree, I don't think this happens. Also, I was not trying to be derogatory by saying "long-time, respected posters." That was meant to be a compliment -- I've lurked here for a long time, and enjoy/respect certain posters quite a bit (problem being, no one could know that but me). I never meant to brand posters by any other title but "quality." Anyway, I shouldn't have said anything of the kind. I feel bad that I may have offended anyone, while I myself am certainly not offended in any way -- I've earned no respect at this board nor a right to be offended. I wish I hadn't said anything, because in no way did I want to come to this board and get in some irrelevant argument. Too late now, I guess -- especially as I perpetuate it with this post.

Seconded. If it has Coach Knight in it, it has to be the best. No contest.

Don't worry about it EOW, I'm starting to get used to it (and admittedly a fair share of it has been deserved) but I am thinking about changing by screen name to "Lightening Rod." :? FWIW, Exile, i didn't look at his post count before responding. I never look at post counts before responding. The accusations of older tenured posters ripping newer posters simply for being new are getting old, are completely unfounded, and don't have a place on this forum. The fact is is that I made it very obvious that I wasn't trying to be too hard on the thread's author in my responses. Tree didn't say anything very harsh either, so I don't get the point of putting that in here. Actually, I did a poor job stating what I meant. I was not my intention to insinuate you thought less of anyone because of post count. I probably owe you an apology on that. I'm sorry. I don't believe there is any kind of hazing at this site. Everyone I've talked to here has been very welcoming, and I've enjoyed posting (and reading here the two previous years). I've always enjoyed Tree's posts here. In fact, Tree's style of posting -- baseball acumen with humor -- is part of the reason I decided to post here. In this case, though, I did find Tree to be a little distrusting towards a new poster. I think Tree assumed I'd be a certain way, his "And please explain how you can be sure." seemed pointedly condescending to me -- that as a new poster, I was just spouting off opinions that I had no intention of supporting. This is partially why I was reluctant to post here -- the whole "Aramis is lazy" thing is strikingly similar to things you'd see on the old ESPN/cubs.com message boards like "Wood isn't tough," "Sosa's a prima-donna," "Dunn stinks in the clutch," etc, etc. It's dangerous territory, especially for a newcomer -- and that's basically what I meant to say.

This is extremely unfair. Ramirez is hurt now, so he can't run well. Wood's had arm problems, so he hasn't always been able to pitch. Those things are true. However, when healthy, Wood goes all-out all the time. Ramirez? Maybe it's just me, but I seem to remember plenty of times where he didn't bother running to first after a ground-out or when he was slow getting out of the box because he was admiring his hit (On that, didn't he get thrown out at second this year in St. Louis on what should have been a sure double because he was watching his shot?). Ramirez is one of my favorite Cubs. He's been a god-send at third. I hesitated to post in this thread because a) I didn't start posting here to bash players and b) I didn't want the reputation of some drunken, off-the-cuff talk radio fan. Thinking Wood should pitch through pain is pretty ridiculous, IMO. But expecting a player (when healthy, mind you) to run hard all the time is not -- and Ramirez doesn't always do so. When's the last time Ramirez was fully healthy? And please explain how you can be sure. Obviously, I can't be sure. Maybe he has been playing injured every single time he's failed to run hard. I don't know, I couldn't. I have seen him run hard, quite a few times, actually. But I've also seen him not run hard -- and here I don't mean just in the last few weeks/months. If we've seen him run hard, we know he has been capable of it at some point in his career, so is it logical to assume every single time he hasn't run hard that he was injured? Again, I can't answer that with certainty, but it would seem unlikely. Surely you would agree that he's failed to go all-out even before this most recent injury (which you seem to imply by your question). Regardless, this is why I hesitated to post in this thread. I have so little desire for an argument in which I'm on the side of complaining about a Cub. I don't want that -- heck, I just stood up for Ramirez when he was called not "outstanding." In this situation, however, it seemed like respected, long-time posters were picking on a relative new-comer for saying something that has some merit.

Ramirez is something outstanding. He's 10th in the NL in OPS (.932), seventh in slugging (.571), 11th in batting average (.304), sixth in RBI (86), sixth in home runs (29), 15th in doubles (28 ) and 20th in runs (67). Not sure what those numbers are, if not outstanding.

But he dove into the stands for a foul ball!! That should give him a Gold Glove for life!!!! :roll: :roll: Just the Gold Glove? I was thinking they should make a new award for him, the Gold Human Award. It shall be given every year to Derek Jeter, until he retires. At which point, it shall be given every year to Derek Jeter.

This is extremely unfair. Ramirez is hurt now, so he can't run well. Wood's had arm problems, so he hasn't always been able to pitch. Those things are true. However, when healthy, Wood goes all-out all the time. Ramirez? Maybe it's just me, but I seem to remember plenty of times where he didn't bother running to first after a ground-out or when he was slow getting out of the box because he was admiring his hit (On that, didn't he get thrown out at second this year in St. Louis on what should have been a sure double because he was watching his shot?). Ramirez is one of my favorite Cubs. He's been a god-send at third. I hesitated to post in this thread because a) I didn't start posting here to bash players and b) I didn't want the reputation of some drunken, off-the-cuff talk radio fan. Thinking Wood should pitch through pain is pretty ridiculous, IMO. But expecting a player (when healthy, mind you) to run hard all the time is not -- and Ramirez doesn't always do so.

Hershiser is an interesting possibility. I hadn't given him any thought, but he's an intelligent, well-spoken person who has done a great job and paid his dues as a pitching coach.

Larry Walker??? I think this may have been Stone's first Cubs game as an ESPN guy, and man, was he on the money. It was Walker. It was also, I believe, the second Cub-Cardinal game of the season, Thurs. April 21 at Busch.

Yesss!! Way to go Dempster! I still don't expect the Cubs to go anywhere, but taking three of four in this series is sweet.