Sammy Sofa

That's fantastic. If that's what he really wants and he's truly that concerned about any "real" restrictions (and I use that VERY loosely since this is America we're talking about) about owning a [expletive] of guns then he's probably just going to stay in Texas because the only other major market that would be anywhere comparable would be DC (since he'd almost certainly be living in Virginia and not DC itself). If guns are that important to him that they so severely limit his options as to where he'll sign when he has the opportunity to make a huge market splash, well, that's his call. I just don't understand it. It's not like he'd be moving to some gun-free police state. It's all just along a relatively short scale of being able to own a [expletive] huge pile of guns. And I don't understand what it is you don't understand. Sounds like the guy has some different priorities than you. Why is that confusing? I don't understand why you don't understand that "I don't understand" in this case means "it's a mentality that he and I do not share, therefore I do not have a frame of reference for understanding." Understand?

Now that I get. There's a very key difference between acknowledging something you yourself would not want to do and looking at it like it's "wrong." because you wouldn't want to do it. And he shouldn't. I'm only about halfway through it, but both what I've read so far isn't hinged around anything negative; it's just exploring the life of Payton from beginning to end. The positive parts of his life aren't ignored or shoved aside. It reads like an effort to to tell the full story of an interesting life as opposed to tearing it down.

And now we're back to the line of thinking that makes no damn sense to me. You're trying to phrase it so it sounds like he's potentially doing something wrong...for getting money from writing a biography. It's not a slam job or an attempt to slander Payton. It's a documentation of his life and some of the things that happened in his life are "negative." The caveat of it being about a "a guy who can no longer defend himself" is clearly an effort to paint the writing and publishing of this book in a negative light and is a completely redundant and ridiculous thing to say. Again, most biographies are about dead people. Pointing out that this one is also about someone who is dead isn't a negative mark against Pearlman or the publishers, and if you think it is, well, quite frankly, you're wrong, and it's a wholly unrealistic expectation. Yes, I get that you don't want to read the book, and that's great. But stop trying to make it sound like the author did something wrong. Your line of thinking appears to be that because others do it, it's OK for Pearlman to as well. I disagree. There are levels of "wrong." I'm not saying Pearlman should be brought up on charges or anything. I am saying that I personally would never do something like this, and it definitely feels wrong/bad/not good -- whatever -- to me. This is absurd. I'm not saying the bold part at all, because that's a wholly unrealistic expectation. You can keep playing this off by saying "it's just my opinion," but it's an unreasonable opinion. When you say "you wouldn't do this" what you're saying is "I WOULDN'T WRITE A BIOGRAPHY." He didn't do anything exceptional or bad or unusual or however you want to spin this within the realm of an accepted and respected genre writing. He did exactly what is expected and hoped for when someone writes a biography. If you don't want to know these things about Payton and you don't want to read the book, fine, that's a realistic opinion. But trying in any way, shape or form to paint it like the author did something wrong is ridiculous. One of the main selling points of a new biography is convincing potential readers that the biography has something new to reveal that we didn't already know about the person it's written about (or, if it's a person most people are not familiar with, why we'd be interested in reading about them in the first place). The revelations about Payton would be unavoidable to mention in that context. The underlying mentality here that's really pet peeving me are the ideas that from a biographical or a journalistic standpoint that something "wrong" was done here, either within the context of writing a biography about a public figure or writing an article about a public figure. Compound that with the inexplicable expectation that such things should only be done when the subject is alive so they can "defend" themselves and it's clearly just people pissed that something negative is being said about someone they're a fan of, but it's being dressed up to make it sound like something wrong was done instead of just saying "I don't want to know these things."

"More with less" isn't a necessary ability when coming to the Cubs since the Cubs have "more" than almost any other team in baseball.

That's fantastic. If that's what he really wants and he's truly that concerned about any "real" restrictions (and I use that VERY loosely since this is America we're talking about) about owning a [expletive]-ton of guns then he's probably just going to stay in Texas because the only other major market that would be anywhere comparable would be DC (since he'd almost certainly be living in Virginia and not DC itself). If guns are that important to him that they so severely limit his options as to where he'll sign when he has the opportunity to make a huge market splash, well, that's his call. I just don't understand it. It's not like he'd be moving to some gun-free police state. It's all just along a relatively short scale of being able to own a [expletive] huge pile of guns.

Man, this site is running like [expletive] these days.

And I don't know what mbc was talking about before, but this... ...is a dumb thing to say to me.

But again, he's a millionaire; he doesn't even have to live here year round, and he's certainly not going to be here for the rest of his life. It's not like it's impossible for him to have guns here for self-protection if that's what he wants them for. It's not like his collection would be lost by him playing here for a few years. Look, I'm not saying he has to deal with this, but if the Cubs have the best offer and he actually turns it down because of the gun laws here, well, I guess I just don't understand that at all. "Pain in the ass" they may be, let's not start pretending like Illinois is some kind of gun-free police state. If he wants to have guns here he'd be able to do so.

My beef is with the idea of a millionaire athlete turning down becoming even more of a millionaire primarily because of a state or city's gun laws (if he's actually serious). If the guy wants to own guns, hey, great, go right ahead.

And now we're back to the line of thinking that makes no damn sense to me. You're trying to phrase it so it sounds like he's potentially doing something wrong...for getting money from writing a biography. It's not a slam job or an attempt to slander Payton. It's a documentation of his life and some of the things that happened in his life are "negative." The caveat of it being about a "a guy who can no longer defend himself" is clearly an effort to paint the writing and publishing of this book in a negative light and is a completely redundant and ridiculous thing to say. Again, most biographies are about dead people. Pointing out that this one is also about someone who is dead isn't a negative mark against Pearlman or the publishers, and if you think it is, well, quite frankly, you're wrong, and it's a wholly unrealistic expectation. Yes, I get that you don't want to read the book, and that's great. But stop trying to make it sound like the author did something wrong.

are you saying that liberals dont own guns? i own several and am quite liberal. i also would never move to chicago permanently, partly because of the strict gun control lawsBeertownCubbie and Nuts&Gum think you are a moron. Guh? Where did I say that?

http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1158120691l/1301.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball This is another thing that is not a thing that exists. You're sometimes a little crazy. Just a pinch.

This is what happens when a team isn't going to spend more money and gets desperate to appeal to the fans.

Stop saying "MoneyBall."

YOU BROKE SO MANY HEARTS, DAVID.

Frank Thomas being a hitting coach would be [expletive] badass, though.

This is gonna be [expletive] funny.

ROBIN VENTU- Oh, wait...nevermind.

Damn, you are hardcore meatballin'. Nice dedication.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS The 'Friends of Tom' faction will be showing up soon. What dimension are you currently residing in?

This is not a thing that is happening.

[expletive] word filter.

The insider could have also said that Epstein COULD hire a cyborg chimpanzee to manage the Cubs, too.

You might just want to avoid hearing the opinions of like 99% of athletes. That goes without saying. The Glenn Beck thing is a bit much, though. That's an extra special level of dumb.

Between this and Pujols' man-love for Glenn Beck, a Cubs team with guys like this would really be testing my "anyone can play for the Cubs so long as they win" theory.