Sammy Sofa

I also don't understand how one can be implying that steroids make someone aggressive but speed does not.

He has been anything but quiet. The guy talks all the time, and half the time he's talking he's wearing one of those god awful affliction t-shirts, so you know he is a horrible human being right of the bat. He whines about happy clubhouse issues and tried to sell the excuse that Milton's attitude made the team worse last year and that they should sign Ben Sheets because he makes jokes that will make everybody happy and play better. He's also on the wrong side of 30 and likely to get worse as time goes on, and hasn't been that good to begin with. A guy who isn't good and whose only value is not costing too much shouldn't be telling the GM what personel decisions to make. He can ask for whatever he wants, and I'd love it if the tighter budget makes them think about dealing him sooner than later. But the little SOB won nearly $6m in arbitration on my MLB2k9 season, so he's persona non grata in my clubhouse. His repeated attamepts at the douchiest possible facial hair variations don't help, either.

Yeah, nobody was using PED's before the 80's. I find it hard to believe that some people put steroids, that build you UP in the same catagory with coke and speed that tear you down. The only benifit of using uppers is to get a short term mental alertness, not long term power and speed. And I sure don't recall Fergie ever throwing a broken bat back at a hitter. Let's not forget that a huge chunk of this society was coking up in the '70s and '80s. In many circles it was concidered chic to do so. I believe that there are plenty of over 40 posters around here that snorted the stuff. As a matter of fact me and a softball teamate decided to drop some speed before a game believing it would help, and be fun. Let me tell you...it wasn't. I was fine 'till I had to run out a double and my head just about split open. Same for my friend who acually threw up and had to sit out the game. Speed may be good for driving a race car, or bowling, or pool shooting, but it DAM sure hurts in real athletics. If there is anyone around here that had a different experience with the stuff I would sure like to hear it! I realize that Doc Ellis once pitched an 8 walk no hitter on LSD, but that's another subject. I'm not only talking about speed. PED's to build strength and get over injuries have potentially been in the game in some shape or form as we're most familiar with them since the 1960's. They can be used to get stronger without getting all jacked up or turning into the stereotypical "'roids monster."

Which makes Theriot's demands even more frustrating since he is, at his very best, a league average SS.

Not when the team is hurting for cash and he plays the one position where the Cubs actually have a line forming of young prospects who are ideally much, much, much better than him. Screw Theriot. The sooner he gets traded the better, and I hope he's out of baseball ASAP after it happens. Let the twerp go rock the bitchin' Ed Hardy gear while selling cars, bra.

Skills competitions would never work with football because it's a game were injury slurking around every corner moreso than the other points. Nobody is going to risk a player hurting something through a meaningless display. Look how little they try for the Pro Bowl itself; you really think they'd get anyone trying to push things to the limit in a skills competition? Besides, look at what you're reduced to suggesting. Baskteball has the dunk and baseball has the home run as their sideshow. Football gets kickers doing ANYTHING? Fastest man? Please. Everyone's barely jogging in the Pro Bowl itself. No chance this ever happens. Of course they're all exhibition games. The difference is that football has to basically play a lazy version in regards to all the critical parts that make the game popular. Crappy tackles, crappy blocking, crappy running, crappy kicking, mundane passes, etc., etc.. I can't think of one thing that these players do during the Pro Bowl that's up to snuff. At least with basketball you still get guys trying to outdo each other will ridiculous shots and moves in the lane and dunks during the ASG and that requires some skill. Baseball you still have guys having to make the pitchers and defensive plays because they can't just roll over without it being glaringly obvious. You still have guys who have to hit off of the best pitchers in the game actually trying to get them out. With the Pro Bowl the most excitement you get are from pumped up scores due to guys trotting across a wide open goal line because nobody is trying. At all.

Yeah, follow up one stupid MI contract with another one. That'll be swell.

Sorry, was trying to type that on the phone and didn't have the ability to multitask and check splits. Brain farted on Fox. Still, the beauty of AAAA guys is that they're freely available pretty much anywhere. They don't have to come from the Cubs system. A platoon with Fuld is putting Dye behind Fuld versus about 75% of the league's pitchers. Now for the meat and bones... If by some magic Dye managed to play a full season (let's say 650 PA or so) and every single pitcher was a left-hander, he'd be about a 2 or 2.5 win player. (For reference, he was a 1.8 win player in 2008 posting 645 PA with an offensive contribution approaching his 3 year splits versus lefties). Last I checked, about 27% of pitchers are left handed. Let's call it 30% to adjust for the idea that we're putting him in that role with the idea we're gonna pull him for a defensive replacement every once in a while. That puts him around .6 to .75 WAR... which makes even a 3.3 mil contract a bit expensive for the production he provides. Not hugely so, but again, that's assuming he's only put in that perfect role... a role so strict that he likely wouldn't have been willing to sign with the team if he knew what he was getting into. Well, I never wanted him for $3.3 million. My support of signing him hinges on him being able to be had for cheaper and as a part time player, so in that scenario I don't give a dman who he is "behind." And come on, you're vastly overstating things here by acting like if he did anything besides see LH pitchers he'd be a disaster. Obviously, regularly starting him isn't something to be done, but you keep coming at this like he's constantly one bad play away from ruining a game if he's not facing lefties.

Yes, but the critical difference is that you have far more of the "best" players opting out with the Pro Bowl than with the ASG. It's simply not the same thing. There's basically no point to the Pro Bowl because more often than not most of the truly best players in the NFL have nothing to do with it. That's where, I think, having the game before the Super Bowl is even worse. With the Pro Bowl before the Super Bowl, guys like Brees, Peyton, Clark, etc. who would play can't because they are in the Super Bowl. It's not like it was significantly different when played afterwards. Plus with basketball and baseball you at least have things like the home run derby or the slam dunk contest if the games aren't good. Football has nothing of the sort.

Yes, but the critical difference is that you have far more of the "best" players opting out with the Pro Bowl than with the ASG. It's simply not the same thing. There's basically no point to the Pro Bowl because more often than not most of the truly best players in the NFL have nothing to do with it.

It's like a billion times worse. Roughly. At least. There's really no point to it existing. And the point to the MLB ASG is . . . ? Right now, unfortunately, it's to win home field advantage for your league in the WS. If we get ride of that it goes back to having no point except as an exhibtion. If they got rid of it altogether I wouldn't even blink with how bad it's gotten. The difference is in the nature of the games. Given the inherrent trauma of playing football there's simply no way to put it on where it isn't a joke.

God, I want Castro to do well just to give this little turd the boot more than anything else. Yeah, I know I have an irrational hatred towards Theriot.

Just for shits and giggles, how does his defensive and offensive productivity work out if he only faces lefties? And Jake Fox was terrible against lefties (.250 .290 .375 .665). The problem with Cubs' prospects seems to be their consistent lack of ability to hit anyone who has the magical power to hurl a baseball with their left hand, so they most certainly do not have a derth of "AAAA guys" who could just be called up to mash lefties. And where am I putting him behind Fuld? I said to platoon him with Fuld if a starting OFer goes down for a significant period of time.

It's like a billion times worse. Roughly. At least. There's really no point to it existing.

Arguing that Fuld would ultimately be the better option if your only choices for a fulltime OFer were either him or Dye and the season started tomorrow is likely a sound conclusion. Dye really is THAT bad in the outfield when he's out there as much as possible. What that doesn't necessarily translate to, however, is that Fuld would be better than Dye if both are used in the relatively limited support roles they should be in, even if someone goes down with an injury that requires them to be out there longer than is ideal. It's questionable at which point Fuld becomes a better option than Dye since Rob's argument has hinged on looking at them projected over a full season. Besides, the answer seems simple if an OFer went down for a significant period of time: platoon Fuld and Dye. Dye primarily faces lefties, who he can still hit, and it helps offset his defensive liabilites. If 2 starting OFer's go down, well, sorry, but you're likely fucked no matter who you have on the bench.

Your a spaz because you'd threaten to burn anything down over something that some how has less than zero chance of happening and you seem to think any team, even the Cubs, would just throw money at him without seeing him pitch and evaluating what he might be able to do.

If we wasted any more money on a guy who has spent the past 4 years rehabbing who would then still need more rehabbing I would burn wrigley down. Spaz.

All good points, but it's still ridiculous for you to act like you had some kind of enlightenment to realize that Dye is no longer good as a fulltime player: the majority of people here were well aware of that without you. Use correctly, Dye still potentially could have been a useful option for the Cubs at the right price, though he clearly isn't accepting the "right price" right now. He wouldn't have been the only option as an OF backup on the team. Dye was never my first choice, but to act like you were some kind of voice of reason in regards to him sounds like something The Voice of Reason would say.

He's Jim Edmonds?

Is the "harm" caused by the "distraction" of a Prior ML offer more or less real than a clubhouse cancer? What about playing the game the right way? I need to update my charts.

If he was a fulltime player, yes. Kind of a big caveat.

I would have liked A Beautiful Mind a lot more if it hadn't just been yet another "cutesy" take by Hollywood towards mental illness. Yes, I still say "cutesy" despite the film's relatively dark tone because of it's overly simplistic way of turning Nash's illness into actual characters that serve no purpose but you hit us with a cheap twist. Plus it's appropriate since, of course, one of the "voices" is an unbearably cute little girl. Crowe's a damn good actor, and the movie as a whole has an excellent cast, and it seems they could have all easily handled a movie that skillfully examined the life of a brilliant man with a serious mental illness without making it so ridiculous and simply and melodramatic. It also drastically cleans up Nash's life so the movie can be structured as simplistically (and unrealistically) as possible. It's not a bad movie, but it could have been a LOT better. It's a really average, typically mundane Hollywood drama saved only by the talent of the cast.

You're definitely one of something.

Lou's bullpen management.

Incorrect. Please resubmit.