goonys evil twin

Gary Hughes would burn the data, banish Fred, and destroy every computer in the office rather than open his mind up to something other than subjective observation. Gary Hughes doesn't allow computers in the office. I don't think Mr. Hughes knows what a computer is. He knows something about computers though, that damn Moneyball was written on one of those daggum machines.

Those guys are gossip mongers, but the stuff about NY looking for that type of CF is exactly what I've heard for a while now.

Oh, I agree that he is the best available CF, if he's available. But I have my doubts about the 3-some, at that price. I'm also not so sure the Mets will deal him. They might be more interested in moving Beltran, especially if they are interested in Manny. Then I gladly take Victor Diaz. Ditto. Victor might go in a deal for Manny, or another highly productive bat, but he wouldn't be available to the Cubs with what they have to offer the Mets.

Oh, I agree that he is the best available CF, if he's available. But I have my doubts about the 3-some, at that price. I'm also not so sure the Mets will deal him. They might be more interested in moving Beltran, especially if they are interested in Manny.

Actually I'm not that interested in Damon or Burnett. There's 30 MLB teams, most of which are very willing to trade in the offseason. The list of "backup plans" has been discussed a lot, and I know you've been involved, so I don't think there's any reason to go through them again. I don't think option 2 is Glavine, Floyd and Cameron.

I really don't see Giles getting this much money.

You're not sure you want Glavine, Floyd, and Cameron. Well, we could go with Rusch, Burnitz, and Patterson. I'm not sure I want to pay $22m for those three and give up talent in return (I'm guessing Walker to start, plus a solid bat and at least 1 arm). Glavine has been a disappointment in NY. Shea helps him quite a bit, in Wrigley I'm not sure how well he'd do. Cameron has a shaky history, with OBPs as low as .285 as a 25 year old (sound familiar?), while Floyd has as bad an injury history as anybody that got hurt for the Cubs in 2005. I'd be more than happy to have either one of those OF on the team next year. Cameron is fine for CF. Floyd can be a major improvement over Burnitz. But all 3 for $22m? I'm not sure you solve enough of the team's problems after spending all that, and I'd guess you'd open up other holes after making the trade.

I don't think there are more Braves games on TBS. I used to look forward to the Cubs/Braves games at home, thinking that even if it was a day game, I could turn my office TV to TBS and catch the game. But I'd be lucky to get 1 out of 3 games on the network. Don't they have some sort of local TBS network that isn't the same as the national?

Beltran. Hey, just like Boras got his A+++ client out of Texas, he'll get his A+ client out of Shea. So they trade Cameron, Floyd and Beltran, and get back Manny? There OF is barren. Their big problem is they have 2 CF right now. They won't deal both. Victor Diaz could play RF. They would just need a CF. Diaz last year: .257 .329 .468 I'm not sure I'd want that in RF if I'm running the Mets. Regardless, they aren't trading all 3 of their OF this year. They might trade 2 (I doubt it), but they won't trade all 3. Either they trade Beltran for Manny and keep Cameron in center, or they trade Cameron and/or Floyd.

Wow, you're really mature. That decree doesn't mean a thing. They start opening it when Houston makes the final out of an inning (or shortly thereafter), it takes a pretty long time to open, meaning for the next half inning (when the away team is batting) it slowly moves. It's not open until Houston is up again next, giving them an extra half inning of open room batting.

Beltran. Hey, just like Boras got his A+++ client out of Texas, he'll get his A+ client out of Shea. So they trade Cameron, Floyd and Beltran, and get back Manny? There OF is barren. Their big problem is they have 2 CF right now. They won't deal both.

Just curious, which Dye season was breakout? He was pretty much the same hitter in 2004 and 2005, with some more HR outside of Oakland. But neither year held up against his peak seasons. Cameron started 2005 hot (once he got off the DL again), but slowed considerably, although his overall numbers ended up a little better than average and right around his peak years. What kind of year are you expecting from Cameron? At 33 next year I wouldn't expect him to have a career year. I'd think he's capable of repeating his career bests, if he can stay healthy. .260/.360/.470 is probably on the higher end of possibilities.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: What a crock. I attend at least 40 home games a year. You are so full of it. Full of what? I've watched it happen as the announcers narrate. They always talk about it. I forget which one is more hitter friendly, but they always time the open/close to their advantage. I'm not calling you a liar, but it takes almost 20 minutes to open or close it, so it's hard to believe that they're doing it during half-innings. They show it start while the other team is at bat. By the time it's done the Astros are up again. I can't believe others haven't seen this happen. I've seen it during a couple Cubs games, as well as other Houston games. The announcers always make note of the timing, it's done so the Astros get an extra half inning of ideal conditions. Kind of like bringing in the fresh softball a little early to optimize your team's chances of hitting it hard. In any given game it probably doesn't make a difference. But over time you should have a slight advantage. Frankly it's absurd that they would ever open or close a roof mid game. If it's nice out, keep it open. If there's a chance for bad weather, close it. And keep it that way all game. As for this game, I don't care how they do it as long as they keep it the same all game.

The system penalizes success. It's nearly impossible to have sustained success because of all the restrictions. I'm not saying not to have a salary cap at all, but the NFL's system takes parity to the extreme IMO. That is hysterically lame. What do you want, the Yankees and Braves winning every single year? New England has won 3 of 4 Super Bowls. SF had a nice stretch under the salary cap era. Philly has sustained success for quite a while. I can't believe how unbelievably ridiculous some of these complaints are against the NFL. Why do people want to see the same team win every year? The best of the best compete for the title for a good stretch of years. The middle of the road is constantly churning. All the while the bottom of the barrel can change quickly with competent management. And it's all due to the system they play in. There's a reason this postseason has bit the bullet. Nobody cares about the contestants because they've never seen them. The Yankees/Red Sox/Braves have been shoved down our throats for a decade, and the entire league suffers because of it.

Broken? You've got to be kidding me. The NFL is a broken system? If that's the case, MLB doesn't even have a system. There's never been a 10/200 deal in the NFL. But who cares if a big name player gets cut at the end of his deal when he's not worth the money? He signed knowing the likelihood of getting cut. He got his money up front. The team takes a big salary cap risk when doing that, which is what the system is designed for, keeping the league from becoming an us vs them league like MLB, where nearly half the teams have no chance of winning the world series the next 5 years. You make choices in the NFL, go with big name big money stars and surround them with role players, or go with lesser stars and fit in better role players. If a team wants to spend big to try and win now, they can, but they also risk having to suck it up for a year or two to clean up the mess. Philly and New England are two of the smartest run organizations in sports today, and they have been the two most successful teams in their respective conferences because of it. There is no Yankees in the NFL, paying more than 3 times what some other teams are paying for talent. When a team starts to get out of control like that, they are reigned in by the system. It's not a perfect system, but it's by far the best in US sports.

You also didn't grow up in an age of 30 MLB teams, 500 tv channels, satellite/cable saturation, the internet, ipods, blackberries, portable dvd etc. Also, kids summers are much more structured nowadays, with traveling teams and all that. When I was young we had little league a couple days a week, then the all star tournament at the end. I've got cousins who shlep their kids around to different leagues and games every day of the week, all summer long. The audience has changed, so the medium must change with it.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: What a crock. I attend at least 40 home games a year. You are so full of it. Full of what? I've watched it happen as the announcers narrate. They always talk about it. I forget which one is more hitter friendly, but they always time the open/close to their advantage.

Unfortunately for you, historical data shows otherwise. April in Chicago averages low 50s, while May averages 60. There are days that are colder, and the first week of April is commonly in the 40s. If you are from Houston, that's cold, because they enjoy 70's on average in April and May. And with a dome, Houston never worries about the rain. What do temps in the 50's and 60's have to do with playing in 42 degree weather (which ended in the 30's)? Besides, those games are in April. They play 5 months in warm weather. Suggesting a cold weather baseball team has an advantage in October when they've played at least 5 months of warm baseball is absurd.

I'm not sure rain and 40 degree weather is a home field advantage. By and large the White Sox play their games in the heat all year long. It was pretty nice in Chicago earlier in the playoffs, these last couple games were the first really bad ones. I don't see any team having an advantage in that situation. In football cold weather teams play most of their season in cold weather, and have an advantage over domed or warm weather teams because those teams may not be used to the weather, or built to play in that weather. But there is no real style for hitting a homerun in 40 degree weather. It's an advantage for sure. The club plays ball in April and May and has experience in those conditions. Houston rarely sees those conditions, unless on the road for a short series. My bottom line: Home field advantage is perceived as critical by the franchises themselves. Let them make their own decisions for their home games. MLB already let Houston make their decisions when building the park. They screwed that up so royally that it's impossible to justify giving them anymore leeway. Houston was notorious for cheating mid game, timing the opening and closing of a roof with their half inning at the plate. It's that cold in Chicago for maybe one series a year in April. Then there are 5 months of different weather. That is not an advantage. It's absurd that you'd even suggest it to be.

You prefer? No salary cap in any way. byebye Green Bay. Hello 25 championships for the Giants. Baseball's system sucks, and I'm very glad the men who started the NFL were smart enough to make the league the way they did. Just like the way the Yankees win each year right? The Yankees do win each year. They might not win the WS, but they win 90+ games and have 25 championships. The Giants and Redskins probably win a combined 10 superbowls over the past 20 years under the messed up MLB system. The Bengals probably go under, Green Bay definitely goes under. I can't name 1 team that doesn't have a shot to contend sometime in the 2 years in the NFL. I can name 10 MLB teams with litlte or no chance for the next 5 years. NFL's system blows away the MLB. Why in the world do you have a problem with it?

You prefer? No salary cap in any way. byebye Green Bay. Hello 25 championships for the Giants. Baseball's system sucks, and I'm very glad the men who started the NFL were smart enough to make the league the way they did.

I'm not sure rain and 40 degree weather is a home field advantage. By and large the White Sox play their games in the heat all year long. It was pretty nice in Chicago earlier in the playoffs, these last couple games were the first really bad ones. I don't see any team having an advantage in that situation. In football cold weather teams play most of their season in cold weather, and have an advantage over domed or warm weather teams because those teams may not be used to the weather, or built to play in that weather. But there is no real style for hitting a homerun in 40 degree weather.

Selig is embarrassed by this world series and wants it over as soon as possible. You have to applaud him.

Maybe, but it would be Wrigley, not cookie cutter. They're crying about Busch freaking Stadium, one of the plagues of the 60/70's era of crappy ballparks.

I'm assuming people are talking about Cameron as the CF. It wouldn't make sense to acquire him for RF (although he's a significantly better option than Burnitz).