crazycooter

Reds PR guy defends Dusty on Twitter, gets burned by a very large man who owns an Eric Davis 1990 World Series jersey, goes nanners. http://deadspin.com/5933159/this-reds-media-guy-really--wanted-to-kick-someones-ass-after-todays-loss

Seems like way too much for a guy who has had one standout season and is at the same contract situation as Garza. Also, it doesn't look like the plan is to go all-in for 2013. So why give up assets to get a guy for what figures to be a non-competitive season -- especially when that same guy can likely be had after 2013 for just money? I can understand making some FA acquisitions in this offseason (and I hope that's the route they take), but I don't see much of a point in trading an asset for one year of any player as things stand right now.

Same here. I have a really irrational hatred towards basestealers mostly based out of the slobbering meatballery they inspire. I'm already dreading Hamilton's arrival. If he has any amount of success in Cincinnati there will a be collective meatballing the likes of which haven't been seen since Ryan Freel "dirty" t-shirt giveaway night. Give me Mesoraco.

The responses to the Cubs post about the trade (which I assume is where you got that screen cap) are embarrassingly awful.

I went up to the game in Cincinnati tonight with my wife and her family. On our way back I tuned into the Reds postgame show. The host of the show claimed that "there are credible rumblings among those with knowledge of the situation" that Sean Casey(!) is coming out of retirement to play 1st in Votto's absence. I really thought the guy was joking at first but he stuck to it. Then he took a parade of calls talking about how great that would be. He even berated some guy who called to make fun of the whole idea (the guy led with a Tony Perez joke which amused me greatly). So, I guess according to WLW's postgame host "those with knowledge of the situation" would say the Reds aren't interested in LaHair. Obviously I think that guy is completely insane, but holy [expletive] it would be awesome if he were actually right.

For example, in the 2nd or 3rd Castro ranged pretty far to his right to come up with a ball and made a good throw to Barney at 2nd for a force out. Sutcliffe praised Barney for "playing the game the right way" and "being in a position to catch the throw."

The only people that would really know anything about the strength of a potential criminal case at this point would be the prosecutor's office/police and Castro's attorney. Unless the friend of a friend works in a firm with Castro's attorney, she is probably talking about a potential civil case. All in all, that seems more plausible and it seems to fit better with the way that you framed the information. It wouldn't be surprising if Castro's accuser had consulted with a few firms/attorneys about a civil suit by now. The point is that a civil case shouldn't really have an impact on Castro's status with the Cubs. So, if that is what she was talking about then it is more or less irrelevant to us as fans.

I guess his book worked. :lol: He must have put some kind of voodoo magic in that book.

FWIW, they just had Olney on Sports Center talking about this. He insinuated that Boras made this deal with the Tigers ownership, not Dombrowski.

I didn't expect that they would. I was surprised, though, that they bothered to take an e-mail that made legitimate points and blatantly misrepresent what it said. I'm sure they had an inbox full of e-mails that would have served his purposes without any need for misrepresentation.

I stopped listening to Cowherd after Ricketts bought the Cubs. I knew he trolled his audience a lot, but there's not much else on the radio in my area in that time slot. So, I listened anyway. The day the Cubs sale was announced he was trolling Cubs fans hard. He said Ricketts had overpaid and would run the team into the ground to make his money back. Of course, he was using an 8 year old valuation of the franchise to make his "argument." I decided to fire off an e-mail pointing that out just to see what would happen. I even included a link to the most recent Forbes valuation of the team. To my surprise he read my e-mail on-air, at least in part. IIRC, he didn't read the part where I called him out for lying, made it sound as if the most recent Forbes numbers were something I made up, and then said I was a delusional Cubs fan for thinking the Cubs were worth that number. So, I guess what I'm saying is that if Cowherd and people like him think it is stupid, it is almost necessarily a good idea.

Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere. I just saw it and thought I would add it to the thread. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/12/the-latest-on-yoenis-cespedes.html

I emerge temporarily from my near-perpetual lurk to post on a topic for which my passion is deep: uniforms. First, black hats like the Mets? For serious? Not only would that look terrible, but black is the primary color of the Cubs cross-town rival. It bears pointing out that the Mets are moving toward ditching the black entirely. Rumor that it that might be gone completely for 2012. Weird side note: Anybody remember the clubhouse guy for the Mets that orchestrated all the steroids shenanigans? Turns out that guy was responsible for adding black to the Mets color scheme. So, yeah. I'll also say I'm against Navy, though not as much as I'm against black. There is a glut of navy/red teams in MLB - and really all of pro sports - right now. The Twins, Indians, Braves, Nationals, Red Sox, and Cardinals all were navy/red right now. That's a robust one fifth of the league. I don't mind it in a throwback, but it shouldn't be a part of the regular set. If I were going to change anything, I'd say: 1) Ditch the "walking cubbie" altogether. I've never been able to put my finger on it, but there is something very off-putting about that logo. It looks out of place no matter where it is. I'd replace the walking cubbie sleeve patches with either the '84 cubbie sleeve patch, or create a new patch with the face of the '60s cubbie set in the colors and pattern of the '84 cubbie. 2) I'd leave the home unis unchanged (except for the sleeve patch). It is a very nice look. It's classic, but not boring or plain. It also sets the team apart from the Rangers, who are really the only other royal/red franchise. I wouldn't look for them to drop the names on the back again. 3) I actually like the road unis right now as well. I wouldn't mind keeping them (again, minus sleeve patch), but I wouldn't mind changing them, either. I think there are a lot of design ideas for the road grays that could work, but I haven't seen any that I like as of yet. I'm generally against pinstripes on road grays, but it can work, I guess. 4) Pair those 2008 throwbacks with a "muted" royal (not navy), wishbone "C" hat, make sure all the blues in the uni actually match, and make it an alternate home uni. I'd support an exact copy of the 1938 home unis in the same role. Sorry for the long post. I just had to get it all out there.

I need to make up 17 points in a standard (ESPN) scored league. The other guy's team is done for the week. I have the Ravens defense yet to play. I also have one RB spot yet to play and I can stick Mendenhall or McGahee in it. Which one would you guys play?

IMO, you can protect a kid with your body a lot better than you can a glove. Yeah, I could catch a screaming liner if it was just me, but if the drunk dude four rows in front of me throws a hand up and touches the ball even a little, all bets are off. There is no way to adjust to a sudden change of direction on a ball coming at you that fast. Even major leaguers aren't asked to do that. Pretty much every time I have ever seen someone get hurt by a foul ball it was after an unexpected change of direction. The ball glances off a hand or the back of a seat and no one has time to adjust. Now that doesn't always apply to the "lawn" sections that so many minor league parks have now. If it is relatively uncrowded you would probably have a clean shot at any ball hit your way. That's an isolated situation though. If you want to protect a kid you would do better by just covering them up with your body. Just make sure to get your head down.

Yeah it's got to be blacked out on EI. I distinctly remember this situation 2 times earlier this year and the 12:05 saturday game was blacked out. And what have the gods of Fox deemed to be a game that I should watch today? Oh yes, wait for it........Diamondbacks @ Phillies. FOX FREAKING SUCKS!! ...even Brewer fans would rather watch the Cubs game so they can root against the Cubs. Duh?!? Idiots. Not that you need me to, but I will vouch for you on those earlier blackouts. EI hasn't shown a game before 6 pm CDT all year. As someone else mentioned, WGN has shown one or two that started at 12:05 pm CDT, but those aren't under DirecTV's control. If Direct is manning the button (EI), we won't see it if they start before 6 pm central.

I'm gonna do my best to summarize the blackout deal using both info from this thread and what I know about blackouts. Here goes: 1. The game is not being carried by FOX http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/schedule/index.jsp?c_id=chc So the fact that you have gone to your local bar in the past and watched out of market FOX games doesn't tell you anything about whether or not you will see tomorrow's games. Because it isn't carried by FOX, those of us outside Chicago are subject to the whim of DirecTV and whether they will let us have the CSN Chicago broadcast. 2. It is not being played within the strict limits of the time window of the FOX blackout. So, there is a chance that the game will be shown on the "expanded packages" available to some businesses through DirecTV or maybe even to regular EI subscribers. No one really knows for sure though because... 3. EI usually blacks out all games prior to 7pm EDT on Saturday even though technically it would seem that they do not have to do so. I am EI subscriber so I, along with many others who have posted in this thread, can personally confirm that one. Calling DirecTV for an explanation is either enfuriating or hilarious, depending on how you look at it. 4. The EI schedule actually shows the game (which it usually doesn't do for games blacked out by FOX), but it shows up on ch. 696 (CSN Bay Area). EI channels normally run from 720 through the 740s. :scratch: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageIF.jsp?assetId=3160004 So, basically I don't think anybody can be absolutely sure whether those of us outside Chicago will get to see the game or not. There is hope, but based on my experience with EI and MLB blackouts in general I'm not holding my breath.

^^Luckily that's what I thought too. I accepted it not long before Church went on the DL.

I wouldn't do it. Kemp and Figgins steal a lot of bases so you would lose a lot there. Yeah but I still have Figgins and I can stick him in the UTIL slot any time I want. Plus, I have Hanley Ramirez, Ian Kinsler, and Alex Rios stealing bases all over the place. I am running away with the steals category right now (and have been for a long time even with Figgins spending most of the year so far on the DL). I need RBI and HR.

R, RBI, HR, AVG, SB

I just got an offer that would give me Youkilis and I would send Ryan Church and Matt Kemp over in return. Youkilis would replace Chone Figgins for me. So I think that's a pretty nice upgrade for me. The rest of my OF is Matt Holliday, Alex Rios, Vernon Wells, Milton Bradley, and Brad Hawpe. What do you think?

That's my feeling on him too. Given the offensive production around him plus the home/road splits it looks like he park is a factor for him. Since the park will be there all year he will be too if he can stay healthy.

There seems to be quite a bit of sentiment among fantasy writers that his season so far has been a fluke and he will crash back to earth soon. What say you?

Go with Woodford Reserve or Bulleit. Real bourbon is much better stuff. I'll be cracking a bottle of Bulleit myself if we lose tomorrow.