srbin84

I don't agree with the critics. I don't understand the glorification of records like Sgt. Peppers, which were more likely inspired by band members taking lsd hits in front a tape recorder than artistic genious and superior metaphorical thinking.

True, but if you are at the game anyway, there is not use in sitting back like a drone when you see consistent mediocrity.

Well then that's my whole point. They diluted their good material by continuing to put out crap in the 80's and beyond. I don't look at it as diluting the good stuff. IMO, they had two decades of excellent music. I can see how you are partial their 60's work as you are a beatles fan. The Stones sill had more great work than the Beatles IMO, but the Beatles did more in a shorter amount of time. It's like aguing Kofax vs. Maddux. And btw, I didn't think much of the Lennon and Yoko stuff, Wings or Harrison's and Ringo's solo works. They were ok, but not much better than anything the Stones did in the 80's.

I don't really recognize the work they did in the 80's and beyond.

I dunno...with the exception of "Start Me Up" (which I can't stand), "Angie" and "Brown Sugar", i really can't think of any "GREAT" Rolling Stones songs since 1970. Look at the songs that are pre-1970: Sympathy for the devil, paint it black, gimme shelter, honky tonk woman, satisfaction, as tears go by, get off of my cloud, you can't always get what you want, jumping jack flash, street fightin man, heart of stone, time is on my side, let's spend the night together. I really think they lost alot of their "mojo" when Jones died. No way, their stuff with Mick Taylor was the best of their work, followed closely by Brian Jones, the Mick era was their peak.

Stones. I've always thought your answer to this question says a lot about your personality. The Stones are the best rock band ever, not even looking at their longevity. The Beatles did a lot of different things. I like some of their songs but not everything they did. The Stones never really changed from when they started, personality wise or musically. They experimented later in their career though with success with Wild Horses, Honkey Tonk Woman and Miss You. I never liked those songs a whole lot. Give me Exhile on Main St. or Sticky Fingers over the White Album or Abbey Road anyday.

I prefer to keep our lights out bullpen.

I'm sure he'd go to the Cards before us.

All I was saying was that the leaders would need that amount of wins to win the division. I agree they will have more wins than that, but I looked at it as how many wins will it take to win the division. I don't think each winner will win by only 1 game. Here is how many wins I think the leaders will get: West: 85 East: 93 Central: 92 WC: 89

That scenario seems barely possible. Last year no team in the NL lost more than 95 games and 5 teams finished within 8 games of the WC (and none outside of 25). Still the 4 playoff teams won a combined 12 more games than what you are predicting. In 2004, one team lost more than 95 games and 5 teams finished within 9 games of the WC. A more common distributed year, 2004's playoff teams won a combined 27 more games than what you are predicting. In 2003, 31. In 2002, 42. As you can see, and you may remember, last year was full of extremely close races, which is unusual, proven by this brief lookback. I would expect a return to more stratification, probably not to the 2002 level (thank Milwaukee), but probably somewhere around the 2003/2004 levels. My prediction West: 89 East: 97 Central: 100 WC: 96 How many games will it take to win means one more win than the second place, hence, I think mine are the only ones that make sense. It looks like you are saying how many wins you think the winners will have.

are you psychic? Just call me Nostracubus.

I always liked Downs for whatever reason. Me too, actually. Those were the days of Randy Johnson and a young lefty starter doing anything decent with the ability to strike people out was interesting. I did like the trade though, I though Rondell could have been a really good player, like Carl Everett in his prime. Oh well.

how? His dominating stuff. It's always just been a question of health with him. Watch, he'll be at least better than Marshall if he gets some starts.

I like Marshall and think he is doing a great job, but let's not get too caught up in his early success. Scott Downs had a very similar start to his career.

I thought all he did was get lucky hits? I'll be damned.

NL West: 84 NL East: 86 NL Central: 90 Wild Card: 89

That's great that you aren't worried, but it's an outright lie to claim he's not doing that bad. Why are expectations so high? Those who are against Pierre, what are your expectations from the leadoff/CF spot? From every position in the lineup, I look for at least a .350 OBP, an .800 OPS, and solid defense. That's a well balanced player. I'll be surprised if Pierre provides any of the 3. Meanwhile, we traded 3 young arms for him, we're paying him millions, and we have a CF in triple A who I believe would indeed provide all 3. Well, I think you expect too much. There wasn't a team in the major leagues that met your expectations last year just from an offensive standpoint.

That's great that you aren't worried, but it's an outright lie to claim he's not doing that bad. Why are expectations so high? Those who are against Pierre, what are your expectations from the leadoff/CF spot?

That's no more tangible than the rest of the discussion. OPS+ 2000-2005 55 89 65 98 107 84 He's averaged a 87 for his career. He peaked at 26, as expected. If he repeats his disappointing 2005, he'll be right in-line with his career. I don't think he'll stay as terrible as he's been this year. But if he does improve, he'll have to hit much better than he did last year to be anything close to valuable. He could be less of a liability than Patterson was last year, but that's not enough to earn recognition as a valuable member of the team. Better than crap can still be bad. I'm not worried about him. He isn't doing that bad. He's a one week hot streak from being on pace to match his career high numbers.

Don't forget that the leadoff man typically only leads off once in a game. Once! I think you're severely overrating that one at bat in a ballgame. Inevitably, the person who bats first in the lineup will come to bat with men on base too. It'd be nice if he could drive him in. So I like all the players to be balanced offensive weapons. If Pierre had some slugging in him, he could have tried it hit a home run in the 9th today when we were down by two and one man was on base. But this would be asking him the impossible. He has no power whatsoever. On his OBP: his approach to the plate has generally been horrible this year. He's not walking. I see no reason that this will change. After all, it didn't change all last year. In 2 of the last 4 years, his OBP has been .332 or less. Fact is though, Pierre is doing the same thing he was when this argument was brought up before: scoring runs. He's on pace for 122. Last time the argument was made that it doesn't have much to do with him, but he's still doing it and without Lee now.

It's not a small amount of games. He was bad last year, bad this spring, and bad thru 20 games in the reg season. This is getting a little long to be a slump. It's starting to look like a decline. And his defense sucks. I thought spring numbers didn't matter. What about last year? Do you just excuse that? What about how lost he looks this year? Do you just write that off? I really hope that JP can turn it around and get his OBP up above .350. I'm skeptical he can do it though. I have a lot more confidence in Pie's abilities than Juan Pierre's. Of course, I'm also more confident in Pie than Jacques Jones as well. So no matter which guy Pie replaces, we're still stuck with a bad outfielder. Yeah, I write those off. It pales in comparison to all of his good years, and he too young to be washed up or declining. Actually no. His whole game falls to pieces if he loses any speed, so he is the type of player who may experience a rapid decline. His speed looks fine to me. Nobody has given an explanation why we should expect him to keep having a low average and low obp other than the fact he is in a prolonged stretch of it. Explain to me why he isn't going to play like he did for years before. And to RyCubsfan, I'm not looking for SLG from the leadoff man. I'll give you a quick one. Grass. The grass at Pro-Player is lightning fast. Not so much at Wrigley. Alright, well, at least that is something tangible. Maybe they should try cutting it shorter at Wrigley.

It's not a small amount of games. He was bad last year, bad this spring, and bad thru 20 games in the reg season. This is getting a little long to be a slump. It's starting to look like a decline. And his defense sucks. I thought spring numbers didn't matter. What about last year? Do you just excuse that? What about how lost he looks this year? Do you just write that off? I really hope that JP can turn it around and get his OBP up above .350. I'm skeptical he can do it though. I have a lot more confidence in Pie's abilities than Juan Pierre's. Of course, I'm also more confident in Pie than Jacques Jones as well. So no matter which guy Pie replaces, we're still stuck with a bad outfielder. Yeah, I write those off. It pales in comparison to all of his good years, and he too young to be washed up or declining. Actually no. His whole game falls to pieces if he loses any speed, so he is the type of player who may experience a rapid decline. His speed looks fine to me. Nobody has given an explanation why we should expect him to keep having a low average and low obp other than the fact he is in a prolonged stretch of it. Explain to me why he isn't going to play like he did for years before. And to RyCubsfan, I'm not looking for SLG from the leadoff man.

It's not a small amount of games. He was bad last year, bad this spring, and bad thru 20 games in the reg season. This is getting a little long to be a slump. It's starting to look like a decline. And his defense sucks. I thought spring numbers didn't matter. What about last year? Do you just excuse that? What about how lost he looks this year? Do you just write that off? I really hope that JP can turn it around and get his OBP up above .350. I'm skeptical he can do it though. I have a lot more confidence in Pie's abilities than Juan Pierre's. Of course, I'm also more confident in Pie than Jacques Jones as well. So no matter which guy Pie replaces, we're still stuck with a bad outfielder. Yeah, I write those off. It pales in comparison to all of his good years, and he too young to be washed up or declining.

It's not a small amount of games. He was bad last year, bad this spring, and bad thru 20 games in the reg season. This is getting a little long to be a slump. It's starting to look like a decline. And his defense sucks. I thought spring numbers didn't matter. Put those numbers in the larger context and you have a long uninterrupted string of crappiness. Those numbers are an exception, even though it is over the course of a year plus. He has way too much stock built up to just write him off as washed up at this point in his career. If this was Kenny Lofton, I would agree with you.

It's not a small amount of games. He was bad last year, bad this spring, and bad thru 20 games in the reg season. This is getting a little long to be a slump. It's starting to look like a decline. And his defense sucks. I thought spring numbers didn't matter.