Sammy Sofa

and Felix Pie and Ronnie Cedeno Pie might not need anymore fixing.

How did the umps help the Yankees put up any runs? They prolonged inning after inning which gave the Yanks there shots time and time again to just hit. That's how they helped the Yanks put up the runs. The Umpire came out and admitted to only 2 blow calls: Swisher, the Double play at 3rd. But there were still 3 other plays that he missed to: 2 plays at home and the pick off play at 2nd base and all of which you were able to see clear as day that they were missed. How does Tim McClelland look at the reply after the game and only admit to those plays. When even Fox was pointing out the miss calls and going as far as slow mo or freeze shots. East Coast Bias is starting to show signs of life. Article: http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2009/10/21/umpire-in-game-4-admits-he-blew-calls/ None of the critical blown calls in this game "gave" the Yankees any runs and in fact actually deprived them of runs. Your declaration of additional blown calls is a bit of a stretch, to say the least. What plays at home are you saying were called wrong?

This seems like a massive overreaction. You'd think the Cubs lost 100 games reading something like this. The Cubs can't trade Gregg because he's not theirs to trade. Johnson is also not theirs to "keep," nor is Grabow. Miles is not cheap.

How did the umps help the Yankees put up any runs?

Some of the worst calls by the umps I've ever seen that somehow have not resulted in any runs.

Kosuke had a nice turnaround to show he can be a productive (platoon) player for most of the season, but he's definitely being paid too much if that's essentially all he can offer.

Um, because he's one full season removed from a career year, and wrist injuries heal? Yes, he'll be 35 next year, but he's better than Fontenot, and the middle infield FA market isn't that deep. He's not the cure-all, but he falls under the category of "better than what we have now, and affordable." this is idiotic, we've all seen what happens when players come back from wrist injuries, and derosa wasn't too hot to begin with. BUT HE'S ONLY ONE YEAR AWAY FROM A CAREER YEAR. Do the Cubs still have Baker next season?

Why in God's name would anyone still want to sign DeRosa? It's maddening. I swear people would still want to sign him if his wrist just snapped completely.

Hanging your t-shirts is just going to stretch out the collars.

Yes. You've got a lot to make up for.

I'll pay erik $65 in stolen McDonald's Monopoly pieces for him to share a happy memory about the Cubs.

$65?!?!?!?!?!?!!??!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How did you "ehance the discussion of the thread" by basically dismissing it altogether?

Small dogs are stupid and weak.

Was that also the game when Neifi had the epic defensive play with Pujols up to end it? My memory is fuzzy, but didn't Pujols either hit into a DP to Neifi or just lined a [expletive] bullet that Neifi caught? I know a close game ended in St. Louis with a Cubs' win because Pujols lined out to Neifi.

Better let www.thesarcasmknowitall.com go.

Those are the only two options?

I have to admit, with Carpernter an Wainwright as the 1-2 and Pujols/Holliday/Ludwick in middle, I thought they had a great chance to do some serious damage in the postseason. I also think they will be a lesser team at the start of 2010. Holliday and DeRo will leave, and Franklin won't repeat his 2009 performance. They'd likely still be a "lesser" team even if they did resign DeRosa, given that he was not all that good for them this year, he's old and he has wrist issues. DeRosa doesn't even need to enter the equation for discussions along these lines. Hopefully the Myth of Mark DeRosa will finally begin it's long-deserved death. I would rather the Cardinals shelled a bunch of years and dollars toward him first. True.

There's a difference between conceding that something is technically possible and agreeing that it's likely to occur.

That's not what I said: I'm asking for evidence that any kind of "bad chemistry" actually cost them games. Seems like a fat, injured and sophomore slumping Soto, injured Soriano, the offensive black hole at 2nd base until Baker showed up and Aramis missing almost half the season would clearly have had much more to do with games being lost than "chemistry" issues. I don't see how anyone could argue that they would have won more games despite all of that simple because they liked each other and got along. Good feelings don't trump critical players in horrible slumps and/or playing injured or on the DL. People want an easy answer as to why the team faltered and Bardley's made himself the obvious target with his poor behavior and stupid comments. Please present your proof that team chemistry has no effect on a team's win/loss record. I'm not saying that it doesn't for sure. Personally, I don't think it does to any significant degree. Baseball is, ultimately a sport of personal ability. The team isn't involved at the moment of truth when a pitcher has to throw his pitch or the batter is taking his swing or the defender is making his play. If baseball players are so easily swayed by their feelings for another player when that player ultimately has nothing to do with what they need to do at the exact moment they're actually being a baseball player (hitting, pitching, catching) then theoretically they're also going to effected by anything negative in their lives. Obviously, some things beyond the game are going to weigh on players as we've arguably seen with players dealing with serious things like death or illness or births involving loved ones, but those are truly important things well beyond some jerk lurking out in RF. I mean, sure, something like the pitchers hating the catcher or vice versa has the real makings of being a problem, but how the hell is Milton Bradley being a jerk effecting how the other players play the game? Are they worried he's going to come out of nowhere and attack them? Are his verbal bon mots so scathing that the thought of them just makes it impossible to concentrate on the game? He's one guy. If everyone else gets along fine, how does one pissy guy shatter the "chemistry?" That's basically saying that these guys are so weak-minded that just the thought of a guy they don't like, who almost always has NOTHING to do with what they need to do as baseball players at any given moment, is going to cause them to play poorly. I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem too realistic.

That's not what I said: I'm asking for evidence that any kind of "bad chemistry" actually cost them games. Seems like a fat, injured and sophomore slumping Soto, injured Soriano, the offensive black hole at 2nd base until Baker showed up and Aramis missing almost half the season would clearly have had much more to do with games being lost than "chemistry" issues. I don't see how anyone could argue that they would have won more games despite all of that simple because they liked each other and got along. Good feelings don't trump critical players in horrible slumps and/or playing injured or on the DL. People want an easy answer as to why the team faltered and Bardley's made himself the obvious target with his poor behavior and stupid comments.

Almost as dishonest as those who, due to either an irrational hatred of the general manager, a strident and close-minded adherence to neo-sabermetric principles (without examining the evidence), or just a general contrarian attitude, refuse to admit that his behavior had any negative impact on the team. I think what we're waiting for is one shred of evidence that Bradley's mere presence made the team worse, and nobody seems to have that for us other than to say he's been on a lot of teams. 1. Step One: Create a finite and irrational set of terms on which a discussion must occur 2. Step Two: Demand Evidence 3. Step Three: Ignore evidence provided by other side by declaring any evidence that doesn't fit within a ridiculous set of terms (see Step One) to "not be evidence." 4. Step Four: Profit! What evidence has been presented that shows that Bradley's negative effect on the chemistry and the attitude of the team actually cost them games?

Oh, those wacky stats freaks.

I have to admit, with Carpernter an Wainwright as the 1-2 and Pujols/Holliday/Ludwick in middle, I thought they had a great chance to do some serious damage in the postseason. I also think they will be a lesser team at the start of 2010. Holliday and DeRo will leave, and Franklin won't repeat his 2009 performance. They'd likely still be a "lesser" team even if they did resign DeRosa, given that he was not all that good for them this year, he's old and he has wrist issues. DeRosa doesn't even need to enter the equation for discussions along these lines. Hopefully the Myth of Mark DeRosa will finally begin it's long-deserved death.

special? they've won 26 championships, which is more than double the number than any other franchise has won. their payroll is about 33% larger than that of any other team in the game, they've been leading their division and league for most of the year, they have more talent than any other roster in the game, and were probably favored to win it all going into 2009. how is this special at all? Winning another one the first year in the new stadium would be pretty cool.