Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Sammy Sofa

Old-Timey Member
  • Posts

    98,033
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    206

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by Sammy Sofa

  1. why the [expletive] are people booing crane kenney? if i ever go to a cubs convention in 20 years and crane kenney is still working for the cubs, i'm going to give him a standing ovation while everyone else is booing. For a long while I was leading the charge against misinformed idiots hating on Crane Kenny. But at a certain point I'm inclined to believe that where there's smoke, there's fire... and there's been a hell of a lot of smoke from even the respected beat writers. So why can't all of these journalistic stalwarts find any fire besides "HE HAS HIS OWN UNIFORM" or "HE HIRED THE GREEK PRIEST" or "CLOWN KENNEY IS A NICKNAME I JUST USED" OR "I DON'T LIKE HIM"? The Kenney meme took off so they're placating the meatheads that eat that [expletive] up. There always has to be a scapegoat.
  2. Then the man is a [expletive] hero.
  3. Or at least all of the boners.
  4. http://www.avclub.com/articles/here-is-john-parrs-rerecorded-version-of-st-elmos,67457/
  5. He's sucked this year, but Noah was hurt during the game tonight.
  6. This is hilarious.
  7. Let our distaste for WSR unite us and not divide us, gentlemen.
  8. I think he just outed Demaryius Thomas as the Antichrist.
  9. I guess; but if there's nothing to it then why would the story going public effectively force them to say they want to question him? Why couldn't they say something like "we've investigated the matter and it's closed" or something along those lines? It could be (and I'm stressing could be here) a matter of trying to make it look like they take all accusations of sexual assault seriously and after it finally did leak they felt they could just say "it's closed" even if they don't see it going anywhere. Yeah, that's true. Good point.
  10. No J-Date? I see how it is.
  11. I guess; but if there's nothing to it then why would the story going public effectively force them to say they want to question him? Why couldn't they say something like "we've investigated the matter and it's closed" or something along those lines?
  12. I'm pretty sure it was reported that he and Theo finally met around the time of the GM meetings in Milwaukee. Thanks, but that doesn't really help answer any of my questions. Just confirming that he was in town. Relax. Man, you say "thanks" and be polite and people still inexplicably think you're just pounding at the keyboard in a fury.
  13. I'm pretty sure it was reported that he and Theo finally met around the time of the GM meetings in Milwaukee. Thanks, but that doesn't really help answer any of my questions.
  14. And then he complains about people responding negatively. Seems like a blog would be a swell thing for him to look into.
  15. It's right up there with saying that a woman was "asking for it" based on how she was dressed/acting.
  16. Well, no, I specifically chose to say that he "skipped town and the country" to make it sound less like "the suspect has fled the country." Obviously that didn't work. To me "skipping town" sounds less serious. I didn't know he had come back; everything I had heard initially made it sound like he's been gone from the U.S. since shortly after this went down. I haven't really been following this since the news broke so that's my mistake. How long was he back for in November? Did the police know he was back? Did the Cubs advise him to speak to the police then? Seems odd that they wouldn't have tried to squash this then. Surely they didn't assume that they could keep this under wraps.
  17. That seems obvious, I'm not sure what there is for him to prove. Fine, if you want to start yet another semantics argument, it's what he has to disprove. He has to tell his side of the story and so far he's chosen not to to the proper authorities and has skipped both town and the country. Skipped town and the country? Was he aware of the allegations when he left in September? Has he been charged with something? He came back and people knew he was back but the police didn't question him then. I agree with what I think is your point: Castro needs to respond to any police questioning and, if truthful, provide his side of the story to exonerate himself. But your post suggests he's a fugitive or something. I never said he was a fugitive; I specifically said that he's a person of interest in an ongoing investigation. That's obviously very different than being charged as a suspect and making him a fugitive. My point should be obvious; Soul decided to declare this woman a gold-digger (and then use the Mel Gibson cop-out) seemingly based on nothing except for the fact this situation even exists when you can call Castro plenty of things based on his actions/inaction as well.
  18. That seems obvious, I'm not sure what there is for him to prove. Fine, if you want to start yet another semantics argument, it's what he has to disprove. He has to tell his side of the story and so far he's chosen not to to the proper authorities and has skipped both town and the country. He flew home after the season, he's not Roman Polanski. This isn't a semantics argument. He doesn't have to prove anything. He hasn't even bee charged with anything. If he does get charged it may be in his best interests to attempt to "prove" his innocence but as of now I can't imagine what he could possibly prove. So you ARE running with the whole "he doesn't have to do anything" thing?
  19. That seems obvious, I'm not sure what there is for him to prove. Fine, if you want to start yet another semantics argument, it's what he has to disprove. He has to tell his side of the story and so far he's chosen not to to the proper authorities and has skipped both town and the country.
  20. Hahah, you're a funny guy! Wait, there's nothing for Castro to prove. Oh, joke fail. Well, it's an ongoing investigation and he's a person of interest, so, yeah, there is. Wait a minute. There's nothing for him to prove. How is there nothing for him to prove? If there was nothing he had to explain then he could just ignore this and nothing would come of it and we wouldn't even be at this point. Until he explains his side of the story and the police decide whether or not there's something there he most certainly has something to "prove."
×
×
  • Create New...