K-Town

Pujols isn't the reason that the Cardinals' pitching staff has the best ERA in the NL right now, nor was he the reason that the Cardinals' pitching staff had the best ERA in the NL last year. Nor was he the reason that the Cardinals had the 2nd best ERA in 2004. Pujols helps. Every team has a "superstar"........ Pujols is definitely the best of the bunch, and helps the Cardinals win some games (many games). But when you have the best pitching staff in the league, you're going to win alot of games with or without Albert Pujols.

Seems like Murton would be a good candiate to platoon with Jones, wouldn't he? I can't recall seeing splits that outrageous. Wow!

I don't think anyone should get their half-shirt in a wad over tongue-in-cheek comments about Edmonds. But they should be uptight over something that Steinbrenner says about his employee? Of course not. I hold the employer-employee relationship to be sacrosanct. He signs their checks. If Steinbrenner tells them that Yankees can't have beards, then they should have to shave their beards. If Steinbrenner wants Giambi to lay down more sac bunts, then Giambi should start giving himself up for the team. If Steinbrenner calls a player's mother names, I think that's OK, too. If Steinbrenner punishes his players by allowing only cold showers in the clubhouse, that's fine with me. If Steinbrenner wants to go into the clubhouse and spank the players with a big wooden paddle, then so be it (although Edmonds might ask to be traded to the Yankees if that were to happen). No one should get upset over what Steinbrenner says about an employee. NOBODY! I agree with everything except for the Edmonds part. Otherwise, good post.

I don't think anyone should get their half-shirt in a wad over tongue-in-cheek comments about Edmonds. But they should be uptight over something that Steinbrenner says about his employee?

It's hard to feel sorry for A-rod, though. Heck, if your boss is paying you that kind of money, and you screw up, I don't see a problem with him telling people "he screwed up". It's OK for random people to post gay comments about Jim Edmonds on a public message board, but Steinbrenner can't say that he's angry at one of his employees? Weird.

I'm not sure what you mean.

How in the world did you get that from my post? The whole sequence doesn't even make any sense. Well......... My interpretation: There are too many gay jokes. My interpretation: There are also too many asking gay jokes to stop. How doesn't it make sense?

There are probably just as many people asking for gay jokes to stop. Obsessing over someone's sexuality is hyperbole. And of course fewer jokes would happen if Edmonds was a Cub. What kind of logic is this? So if group of bullies is making fun of a crippled kid, and another group of kids is telling them to stop, then you're going to lump the "good kids" in with the "bad kids", because they're just as vocal? What? In simple terms: Comment by mjohnson: "There are too many gay jokes" Rebuttal by Tiger: "Oh yeah, well there are too many people telling them to stop making jokes about him, too". Comment by me: If one group of people are acting like jerks, and asecond group of people tells them to stop acting like jerks, I don't think it 's fair to say that the second group is just as guilty as the first group. That isn't what just occurred. You have grossly misinterpreted TT's position. Tell me what he said, and what his position is, then.

There are probably just as many people asking for gay jokes to stop. Obsessing over someone's sexuality is hyperbole. And of course fewer jokes would happen if Edmonds was a Cub. What kind of logic is this? So if group of bullies is making fun of a crippled kid, and another group of kids is telling them to stop, then you're going to lump the "good kids" in with the "bad kids", because they're just as vocal? What? In simple terms: Comment by mjohnson: "There are too many gay jokes" Rebuttal by Tiger: "Oh yeah, well there are too many people telling them to stop making jokes about him, too". Comment by me: If one group of people are acting like jerks, and asecond group of people tells them to stop acting like jerks, I don't think it 's fair to say that the second group is just as guilty as the first group.

There are probably just as many people asking for gay jokes to stop. Obsessing over someone's sexuality is hyperbole. And of course fewer jokes would happen if Edmonds was a Cub. What kind of logic is this? So if group of bullies is making fun of a crippled kid, and another group of kids is telling them to stop, then you're going to lump the "good kids" in with the "bad kids", because they're just as vocal?

Right. But the Lakers might have been a lottery team without Jackson. So it's wrong to assume that he didn't make a difference, just because they lost in the first round. My understanding is that Baker was brought to the Cubs because he's a "players' manager" (great motivator?). So when is he going to motivate Juan Pierre to hit the cut-off man? When is he going to motivate his players to take a few more pitches? He's a manager who makes alot of money. The Cubs should expect him to do more than simply fill out a lineup card every day.

I assume that he didn't just say it in the paper. I assume that what he said "to the paper" was a paraphrase of what he told his team. If you think that there's zero chance of players taking something like that seriously, then why even have a manager? If your players respect you, I do believe they'll listen, and maybe even (gasp!) "try harder".

Leyland: We Stunk. Next question. Reporter: What bothered you the most? Leyland: It was lackluster, the whole ball of wax was lackluster. We had a chance to take the series, take 3 out of 4, and we came out like we brought our luggage to the park like we had to play a game before we went on the road. That’s not good enough. Reporter: It seems like this was your worst loss… Leyland: Yeah we stunk period. We stunk and that’s not good enough. This stuff has been going on here before and it’s not going to happen here. We had a chance to take a series. I’m not talking about anyone in particular. I’m talking about the team, myself, the coaches, and everybody else included. It’s my responsiblity to have the team ready to play today, and they weren’t ready to play. They were ready to get on the plane and go to Oakland. If they won it was okay and if they lost it was okay. That’s not good enough The Tigers went 12-3 right after that. Coincidence? Maybe, or maybe not. But I think that Leyland was brutally honest, and it certainly didn't hurt his team.

So now players who used drugs in the early 80's are punks, and the Cardinals have more because of 4 players who may have used drugs, never mind that the best of the 4 was traded awy because of his alleged drug problems. Cubs players are angels, and Cards players are punk druggies...nice logic. No mirrors in your house, I see. The facts are there or shall I bring up Kile's usage and what a hero he was to leave a widow and three kids. Hernandez was involved in the famous Pittsburgh drug trial and admitted he was a doper. Whitey Herzog knew it and rather than destroy his career, kept quiet and traded him. Dave Parker was at the same trial, admitted he was a doper. Porter did drugs in KC and St. Louis and they found him dead under some tree in a park. Etc...etc..etc.. Sure the Cubs have had some bums in recent years-Todd Hundley was disrespectful to the fans just like Garry Templeton. You have Big Yak, we have Sammy. But there has not been the blatant substance abuse on the Cubs like there has been with the Cards. We've had our share of drinkers though. The Cubs have had their own issues of immorality, haven't they? Weren't there problems with Sandberg's wife sleeping with his teammates? Didn't Kerry Wood get busted urinating in public, or something? Come on........ this stuff is just stupid. Every franchise has it's share of unfortunate incidents. Why bring it up?

I agree with this, and also with the earlier poster who said that unless someone can back up this kid's story, it's pretty hard to swallow.

It was said precisely because management is NOT pushing pitchers back. Which sort of contradicts what Clanton is saying now doesn't it? Isn't there a chance that a player like Clanton might be handled entirely differently than a player like Prior?

That is pretty effcient for a strike out pitcher. He'll never be a Greg Maddux where he just needs 80 pitches for 7 innings. Right. He probably would have been more efficent if he were pitching at a higher level, also. The kids at Class A probably can't touch him........ so he's not going to get many "easy outs". Hopefully his stuff will be good enough at the higher levels so that he'll get alot of weak contact early in counts, and won't have to rely so heavily on strikeouts. Wood has been my favorite Cub for quite awhile. I really hope he can make it back to where he was........ and stay there.

I've always enjoyed watching him pitch. He seems like a good guy, too. I'd be a little worried aobut the 70 pitches in 5 innings, though. I'd want him to be a little more efficient than that. But.....if the kids he's pitching against can't make contact, then there's not much he can do, really.

Are you kidding me? There was a day when less than 10 HR's was good enough to lead the league. Compare how many more home runs are hit today as there were back then. Do you think they all could hit them just fine, but would rather hit a single instead? Considering the fact that some of the smallest guys in baseball (Eckstein) can hit a ball out of the park today, it really isn't that big of a deal when someone hits one. What is the AVG for HR's hit in the major leagues per day? What is the AVG per week? The size of major league baseball parks have become silly. When a fence is moved in, more home runs will take place. Less balls will fall for hits since the outfielders have less ground to cover. It's becoming a 1 dimensional game. A 340 foot HR is nothing special at all. Hit that same ball to centerfield, and it's a routine fly out. You're welcome to disagree with me. I'm not attempting to change your opinion. But, I happen to find it repulsive, whether a Cub player does it, a Cardinal player does it, or anyone else. Anyone who does it, is a selfish player who thinks they are bigger than the game itself, IMO. You don't have to like it, but to be "repulsed" by it is a little extreme. It IS a game........ always has been. I'm "repulsed" by someone who burns a flag, or abuses children. I don't recall ever witnessing an incident in a baseball game that I would call "repulsive". As for the increase in home runs, that's probably true. Is there any evidence that today's parks are smaller? Yankee Stadium, Wrigley Field, and Fenway Park are all old stadiums, and I don't think it's harder to hit the ball out of those parks than it is most of the new ones, is it? You see more home runs because the players today are much better than they used to be. That's the biggest thing.

"Showy" isn't what needs to be removed from the game. Disrespecting the other team is what needs to be removed. There isn't a thing wrong with running the bases hard and showing some enthusiasm after hitting a home run. They just recently showed Kirk Gibson's home run in the World Series where he did some fist pumps as he rounded 2nd base. That was a display of excitement for his own team rather than a "hey, I'll just stand here for a minute and admire my work" disrespect of the opposing team. Aramis sort of did it last night. How exciting is it to see a guy hitting below .200 standing there at the plate admiring a towering shot that went 370 feet. Last time I checked, Neifi Perez could hit a home run 370 feet. How special. "Around the horn" is a tradition. It keeps the infielders on their toes and kills some extra time while the next batter makes his way to the plate. They don't just do it on strike outs. They do it after just about every infield out, unless there are runners on base. There is not a thing wrong with showing some emotion. I never said there was. Standing there like an idiot watching your home run isn't showing emotion. It's showing up the other team. And I have absolutely zero problem if pitchers start earholing anyone who does it. Pujols is not bigger than the game. Aramis is not bigger than the game. No one is. Do a Scott Rolen and hustle around the bases. If you want to be admired for your accomplishment, the fans will probably call you out for a curtain call. If they didn't, it probably wasn't all that special to begin with, and certainly not worth standing there and admiring yourself. It's selfish and unsportsmanlike, and these attitudes (along with many other things) are helping to tarnish this game. Actually they're not. The game is probably more popular today than it's ever been. He didn't say it was making it less popular. True. Popular is good though. I don't see what the problem is. I think that there's a misconception that all of the players from "back in the day" would put their head down and sprint around the bases following a home run. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Other than today's athletes being far and away more prepared and better conditioned that those in the past, I don't think there's alot of difference between today's game and the game that has been played in previous eras.

Actually, Rolen has played really well.

"Showy" isn't what needs to be removed from the game. Disrespecting the other team is what needs to be removed. There isn't a thing wrong with running the bases hard and showing some enthusiasm after hitting a home run. They just recently showed Kirk Gibson's home run in the World Series where he did some fist pumps as he rounded 2nd base. That was a display of excitement for his own team rather than a "hey, I'll just stand here for a minute and admire my work" disrespect of the opposing team. Aramis sort of did it last night. How exciting is it to see a guy hitting below .200 standing there at the plate admiring a towering shot that went 370 feet. Last time I checked, Neifi Perez could hit a home run 370 feet. How special. "Around the horn" is a tradition. It keeps the infielders on their toes and kills some extra time while the next batter makes his way to the plate. They don't just do it on strike outs. They do it after just about every infield out, unless there are runners on base. There is not a thing wrong with showing some emotion. I never said there was. Standing there like an idiot watching your home run isn't showing emotion. It's showing up the other team. And I have absolutely zero problem if pitchers start earholing anyone who does it. Pujols is not bigger than the game. Aramis is not bigger than the game. No one is. Do a Scott Rolen and hustle around the bases. If you want to be admired for your accomplishment, the fans will probably call you out for a curtain call. If they didn't, it probably wasn't all that special to begin with, and certainly not worth standing there and admiring yourself. It's selfish and unsportsmanlike, and these attitudes (along with many other things) are helping to tarnish this game. Actually they're not. The game is probably more popular today than it's ever been.

He said he feels about 60% right now. He messed up his back. Maybe if he quit hitting so many homeruns his back wouldn't hurt so much and Cub fans would think he's classier. Maybe if Cub pitchers would allow a few more home runs, Derrek Lee wouldn't be involved in collisions at first base that disable him for two months. :lol:

Back problems.

Cool. Hitters should put their heads down and run the bases after a home run? And I suppose that the catcher should throw the ball directly back to the pitcher after a strikeout, instead of going "around the horn". After all, that's a little "showy", right?