kujay

That really is the bottom line here. Whatever was said, they need Lee right now and he should know better.

No effing excuses. They have to keep winning through all this crap.

Well, Barrett got 10. So let's presume it will be lower than that. I'd say 5-7, probably closer to 7.

Peavy and Gerald Perry are the other two. Of no consequence, of course.

Well, Z's response should be interesting. If he throws at someone and gets tossed, Lee should be swinging at him next.

Oh boy. Gerald Perry ejected. :cry: :cry: :cry: Otto said he thought Young said, "are you okay?" And after Lee said he was, Young said, "then take your bleeping base." Or something to that effect.

That's what Otto and Hughes thought he said.

I'm waiting for that. But here's what they need to do. Let Z keep dealing, and have Eyre come in later on and blast someone. Getting hit by Eyre wouldn't hurt though. :lol: Fair point. But nobody will shed a tear as he serves his suspension.

I'm waiting for that. But here's what they need to do. Let Z keep dealing, and have Eyre come in later on and blast someone.

Good call.

That's some speculation.

Young looks to be out.

No joke. Doubt it will happen though.

We needed this a week ago. Not now. Anyone who is watching, do you think any other Cubs are being thrown out?

Son of a bitch. Usually I'm all for this sort of thing, but not right now.

Game isn't on WGN and it's blacked out on Extra Innings. Which, oddly enough, is good for my career today. It got me to come into work and just listen to the game online. Need to keep it rolling here...at some point the Cubs are going to need an 8-10 game win streak to get right back in the middle of things. Three down already. I think the Brewers come to Wrigley for a weekend series in two weeks. Would be nice to be in striking distance by then and really put the pressure on them. The game is on WGN in a little less than an hour. It's part of the 5 games in a row on WGN campaign, which btw the Cubs are 3-0 so far, which has to make the executives at WGN happy (they were promoting this for a couple of weeks, so more people probably tuned in than normal, and Cubs wins might keep them tuning in). I would swear when I looked at chicagosports.com the other day it said this game was on CSN. Now I really, really don't want to be at work. :oops: :oops: :oops:

Game isn't on WGN and it's blacked out on Extra Innings. Which, oddly enough, is good for my career today. It got me to come into work and just listen to the game online. Need to keep it rolling here...at some point the Cubs are going to need an 8-10 game win streak to get right back in the middle of things. Three down already. I think the Brewers come to Wrigley for a weekend series in two weeks. Would be nice to be in striking distance by then and really put the pressure on them.

I wondered about that when I heard it on the radio here at work. What did Wells do?

Did it seem to anyone else like Lou had absolutely no ideawhat he was doing today? I know a lot of it is dealing with Hendry's roster full of left feet, but jesus. Perfect opportunity to pick up a game on everything today and they piss themselves.

The start last night convinced me to get on board with the Marquis t-shirt. I should have it in time for the next Cards game I go to. Not against the Cubs. No matter.

On a somewhat related note, the Cardinals website indicates that the postponed game has been rescheduled as the first of a 1:40/7:40 DH on Friday, September 14th.

Which brings it all back to saying Hancock was involuntarily intoxicated. Which is insane. Exactly. Subsection (4) kills his case against Shannon's, in my opinion. Unless he were able to get some traction on this "involuntary intoxication" argument, which I agree is a joke. I keep hearing down here that of all the defendants, Shannon's is the most likely to get hit with a judgment here. Not so. It will be much harder for the tow truck driver to prove he followed protocol, etc., than it will be for Shannon's to get summary judgment based on this statute. It's pretty clear.

they're pure comparative negligence. and they don't have a dram shop act. I haven't read this whole thread, but judging by this post I assume what I'm going to say hasn't yet been said. We here in MO are a pure comparative negligence state. That's right. But we also do have a dram shop act. Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.053. My understanding of subsection (4) of that statute is that a person over 21 years old cannot sue an establishment for his own injuries arising from them overserving him. Because the wrongful death action is derivative, if Josh wouldn't have been able to sue, neither can his father. That is why Dean Hancock's Petition alleges, rather laughably, that Hancock's intoxication was "involuntary." His lawyers should know better. In this context "involuntary" clearly means something like roofies or more literally the (I would think) rare instance where someone is being physically forced to drink. Mr. Hancock's attorneys are definitely reaching here. I doubt they would get past summary judgment against Shannon's on the basis of the above, and as to the tow truck driver and the other poor guy, their claims are outrageous. There is so much comparative fault here I can't believe any jury would give him a dime. But, you know, it might come down to settling for nuisance value. Other than getting his picture in the paper, I can't believe that was enough to convince the rather experienced St. Louis lawyer who signed on to take this case.

Done and done. Oddly enough, the rotations have fallen so that all five of my starters are going tonight. Hamels, Hill, Webb, Olsen and Suppan. Watching a lot of Extra Innings tonight. :)

I bought this jersey (from the same seller, I think) a few years ago: http://cgi.ebay.com/Chicago-Cubs-Ron-Santo-pro-bp-jersey-XL_W0QQitemZ5219228391QQihZ018QQcategoryZ24906QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem