fromthestretch

My guess is zero. I haven't seen one person who has said cheating is ok. I just find it odd that people cheer for the Cubs now but wouldn't if they signed Bonds because he cheated. As if no one on the Cubs has ever cheated.

Once I stopped working in athletics, it was great to be able to watch sports and be a fan again. When you're working long hours before and after events, it loses it's appeal. It's a lot more enjoyable when you actually get back to just being a fan. And for the record (not responding to you CCP, just in general), I don't think I've ever seen anyone on here second-guess her opinion on the basis of her gender. Not saying it didn't happen, but I'm on here a lot (even though I may not post that much), and I've never seen anyone say that she doesn't know what she's talking about because she's a woman. In fact, the only person I've seen bring her gender into it is her. I can understand and respect her reasons for not wanting to reveal too many details about her connections to the organization though.

As I stated in a later post, Sampson was in a position to do a lot more damage to IU than Bonds could ever possibly do to the Cubs. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the comparison in the first place, but I was trying to figure out where CubbieBum drew the line. So they aren't good people, but they're good enough to still watch occasionally? What makes them poor human beings? Cheating on their wives? If so, is that better or worse than using steroids in the context of being a good person? I'm just a little puzzled that you don't care enough about the team to watch their games more than once in a blue moon, but yet you care enough to post every now and then on a message board dedicated to the team. I'm not criticizing here, just a bit confused. Maybe I'm one of the few who doesn't expect every athlete to be a good person. When you have 25 people in a room, athletes or otherwise, I can bet that at least a few of them are jerks. Why should we expect sports teams be any different? I don't cheer for a player because he donates money to charities or visits sick kids in hospitals once a week (although those are great things for someone to do, regardless of what they do for a living). I cheer for a player because he has athletic skill that could help the Cubs win. If they're a good person on top of that, that's just icing on the cake.

Interesting combination...a play-by-play guy who is practically silent and an analyst that loves to hear himself talk.

Maybe he just needs a dose of Consistenyl.

Jay Jackson seems to be missing a lot of bats so far.

Steroids aid muscle recovery. It's not all just about adding bulk. To say they wouldn't benefit an NBA player is false. Actually, I'm all for punishing those that are caught. I'd much prefer the sport to be clean, but I'm not going to pin the blame on one person when many were doing it. I don't believe any records are tainted nor should they be marked with an asterisk. It's called the steroid era because several people used them, not just Bonds. If you believe the wide-spread theory that he didn't start taking them until after the '98 season, then you can safely assume he hit quite a few homes before then off of pitchers that were on something. There is a reason MLB hasn't officially punished Bonds. Read into that what you will. Try rereading what I said. I said steroids wouldn't help NBA players as much. That is pretty easy to see. Yes they could be aided in getting back healthy sooner but after tat they are on their own natural ability meanwhile steroids can help baseball, and football guys add bulk and improve bat speed. Bonds has admitted to having taken them just claims he didn't know he was. He has been caught and he should be punished. The only way left is to blacklist him. Any other player who admits or is caught of purposefully using steroids to get ahead (I'm not talking every positive test because many of them are a result of a drug that didn't list an ingrediant that was banned). I have a lot of respect for Jason Giambi because he admitted to it and that takes guts especially in New York but I'm rather surprised he has just been allowed to keep playing. To me its a bit of a double standard by Selig (no surprise there). Rose has admitted his wrong doing why is he still being punished, that's the best example I can come up with. Giambi cheated, and admitted to it, I don't see why no one tried to get him banned which is how MLB has typically treated such situations before. I did read what you said. You said steroids wouldn't do a whole lot and implied that steroids only add strength, which isn't the case. My apologies if I misunderstood what you were trying to say, but reading it again, that's the only interpretation I can come up with. As for why Giambi didn't get banned, the punishment for steroids is a suspension, the length of which increases with each offense. And for the record, when he first admitted it, he didn't really come out and say what he was owning up to...just that he was "sorry." As for why Rose is still being punished, the consequences for betting on baseball were posted in every freaking locker room. He knew it would result in a lifetime ban, and that's exactly what happened. Obviously, I'm not going to change your mind here, so be it. I'm just trying to understand why someone would seriously consider withdrawing their support for their favorite team because of one player. No big deal.

Maybe it's just me, but "testicular fracture" sounds more painful than the "intrascrotal hematoma" that Barrett had. Neither sounds pleasant, but the thought of fracturing a testicle makes me want to wear a protective cup 24/7. I thought he had "testicular torsion"...none of these sound fun. I believe Pie had the "testicular torsion." I'm pretty sure Barrett had the "instrascrotal hematoma." You're right though...none of these sound fun.

Do you really want to know? Because I sure as hell don't.

Maybe it's just me, but "testicular fracture" sounds more painful than the "intrascrotal hematoma" that Barrett had. Neither sounds pleasant, but the thought of fracturing a testicle makes me want to wear a protective cup 24/7.

Does Lansford offer anything offensively? His minor league numbers don't really give me any hope, so I'm curious if anyone has seen anything about his hitting that could fuel any optimism.

So you're saying Wood gets in?

Steroids aid muscle recovery. It's not all just about adding bulk. To say they wouldn't benefit an NBA player is false. Actually, I'm all for punishing those that are caught. I'd much prefer the sport to be clean, but I'm not going to pin the blame on one person when many were doing it. I don't believe any records are tainted nor should they be marked with an asterisk. It's called the steroid era because several people used them, not just Bonds. If you believe the wide-spread theory that he didn't start taking them until after the '98 season, then you can safely assume he hit quite a few homes before then off of pitchers that were on something. There is a reason MLB hasn't officially punished Bonds. Read into that what you will.

So do you think teams should release a player that's been caught, or do you fell the punishments put in place by MLB are sufficient? Do you truly believe it was only a few that cheated? The number of people that have been caught isn't close to the number of people that actually did it. For the record, I didn't accuse the Spurs of cheating, but to just assume they're squeaky clean is naive. If my statement pisses you off, then you're taking this WAY too seriously. If the Cubs won it all with OR without Bonds and someone accused them of cheating, I wouldn't get pissed off. I'd be too busy enjoying the fact that the Cubs won a World Series. And as others have mentioned, your analogy of rapists is ridiculously off base and not even anything remotely like what we're discussing here. I mean, seriously...you're comparing players who have cheated at a sport to someone who essentially destroys the life of a child? The fact of the matter is that people have been looking for an "illegal" edge in competition throughout the history of sports. Just in baseball alone, pitchers threw spitballs/scuffed balls, hitters doctored their bats, took greenies, injected themselves with steroids and the like. I guess I shouldn't type in past tense since that stuff still goes on, and it will continue to go on. Players will continue to find better ways to cheat. In my opinion, it's hypocritical to admonish Bonds for what he's done when you've certainly (possibly unknowingly) rooted for several athletes who have done the same thing, regardless of whether the team knew about it or not (and in many cases, I would bet money that they knew).

As you said, the league has addressed this, so if Bonds does something, he gets suspended.

See: Indiana and Kelvin Sampson. One big difference there is that Sampson was in a position to severly handicap what has historically been a great program. And he did, at least for the next couple of years. If the Cubs sign Bonds and he cheats, Bonds get suspended, and the Cubs are in the same position they are now, minus a couple hundred thousand dollars. Unless, of course, you assume he goes on some 'roid rampage and kneecaps Lee, Ramirez, and Zambrano. That's what we call a worst-case scenario though. :lol:

Can you honestly tell me with no doubt whatsoever that no one on the Spurs has ever taken anything illegal to enhance their performance? There's no way you can say that with absolute certainty. I'm not advocating that athletes break the rules to win, and I honestly wish baseball was steroid-free. However, Bonds is not on any official "suspended" list. MLB has taken no official action against him, and there are rules in place on how they deal with these things when they catch someone. He'd be subject to the same testing as anyone else. If you can't support the Cubs if they sign Bonds, then I don't see how you can support them now when there are a few minor leaguers in the organization that have been suspended in the past few years for taking performance-enhancing drugs and most likely at least a couple players on the current 25-man roster who have done something along those lines without getting caught. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're a Purdue fan, right? Did you stop supporting the Boilers when they were found guilty of some recruiting violations about a decade ago? I know I wasn't happy about it when it happened, but I didn't stop being a Purdue fan. It's great to have morals, but to honestly think that there is a team out there - at least at the professional level - that hasn't looked the other way once in awhile when someone was doing something they shouldn't have been doing is being a bit naive.

You do realize there is a difference between cheaters, and guys who seem washed up? I'm sure I have supported users and cheaters before the difference between them and Bonds is I didn't know it at the time they were playing otherwise I would have said give them the boot. With Bonds we know before even signing him has cheated and therefore we shouldn't sign him. I will never ever support one of my teams selling their integrity, credibility and/or soul just win. That's how this whole steroid era got going anyways. Owners wanted to win more than do what is right. Every team has had players that have been on performance enhancing drugs. Hell, it's not really a secret that the coffee pots in many team clubhouses had more than just java in them. Every team knew what was going on and looked the other way. I'm not sure how you can possibly think signing Bonds is any worse than that. And if you truly aren't going to support any of your teams "selling their integrity, credibility and/or soul just win," let me know what a life without competitive sports is like.

when you face tougher teams, its harder to put up better stats. a fairly easy assumption i thought could be made about the point it was making As Derwood mentioned, OPS+ takes that into account, clearly showing that Ramirez has been much better. That's why I wondered why you brought division strength into it. As for your Pujols : Jacobs comparison, it's not quite that drastic. More like comparing Derrek Lee (outside of his insane 2005) to Jacobs.

While I'd definitely give Crede the edge defensively (although he's been shaky this year), Ramirez is without a doubt the better offensive player. Regardless of which direction Ramirez's OPS has headed, it's still better than anything Crede has done...by a decent margin. Ramirez has been over .900 the past four years. This is the first year Crede's even sniffed .850. The year Crede won his Silver Slugger, he finished with a OPS+ of 107. A-Rod should have won the Silver Slugger that year. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by bringing division strength into this, but Ramirez has posted an OPS+ over 126 the past four seasons, whereas Joe Crede's never been over 107 in a full season.

No, they almost definitely wouldn't. ummm yes they definately would you may be willing to support a cheater but a large portion of Cubs fans are older and they tend to not support a jerk and cheater like Bonds. Seriously people actually campaigning to get Bonds ... ugh I thought Cubs fans were better than this. I truly don't think I could make it through a game sitting next to someone who wants to win no matter what even if that means breaking every ethical and moral rule to do it. People like this supporter IU's hiring of Sampson because hey he might be a cheater but we'll win. You have rooted for jerks and steroids users and rulebreakers on the Cubs. Seriously. I wish people would stop acting like Bonds is the only person in the history of the game to do anything wrong. Just because he's a jerk that somehow makes it worse? Please. It's not like anyone here is asking for the Cubs to break any rules here. I was born and raised a Cubs fan. I will die a Cubs fan. Sometime before then, I'd like to witness this team win a World Series. If bringing on Bonds helps them do that, so be it. I've been alive for 32 years of the 100-year drought. I don't want to follow in the footsteps of my grandmother who lived 88 years and never saw them win it all.

HD on mute works. XM only offers the WS crew. Question... Do the Cubs not do much of a pregame show on the radio these days, or does XM just cut in right before first pitch? The reason I ask is because whenever I'm listening to another team's broadcast on XM, they usually carry at least 10 minutes of pregame, whereas when it's the Cubs' broadcast, they seem to jump in only a minute or two before the first pitch. Still a pregame that extends into the previous hour. A "Lou Piniella show" etc That sucks that XM won't carry it. Many times they jump in while Hughes is reading lineups.

HD on mute works. XM only offers the WS crew. Question... Do the Cubs not do much of a pregame show on the radio these days, or does XM just cut in right before first pitch? The reason I ask is because whenever I'm listening to another team's broadcast on XM, they usually carry at least 10 minutes of pregame, whereas when it's the Cubs' broadcast, they seem to jump in only a minute or two before the first pitch.

The notion that bosses/managers/gms can't yell at a player/employee in front of others is laughable. Chacon sounds like Ryan Leaf going off on that reported. It's unprofessional, bad for morale, and can create the appearance of a hostile workplace. If you want to get the most out of your employees and get them to respect management, having a profanity-laced tirade in front of them isn't the best way to go. There are more professional ways of dealing with insubordination. I understand that the manager/boss is limited in his/her options if the employee flat-out refuses to meet in private to discuss the matter. However, in many companies, you can get HR involved, or (in a worst case scenario) have security help the employee box up their stuff and escort them off the premises. Obviously, that doesn't necessarily apply to sports, but that doesn't mean the only option is to yell and scream in front of people. If Chacon wanted to talk right there in front of everyone, he could have said what needed to be said in a professional but direct manner (maybe he did and Chacon is lying...I don't know). I'm not saying you need to handle people with kid gloves, but when you are managing people, you need to act in a professional manner. You're right, he should have gone to HR to fix things. You're right, that's exactly what I said. You made it clear in your previous post that you weren't referring just to sports teams when you said "The notion that bosses/managers/gms can't yell at a player/employee in front of others is laughable," so I gave an example relating to an office environment. I also made it clear that situations that come up in an office environment aren't the same as the sports world. I'm fully aware of that, and I'd like to think you're smart enough to know the point I was getting at. That doesn't mean that Wade's only option was to cuss out one of his players. Very few people in this world would want to work in an environment where the boss publicly berates his employees. I'm not excusing the way Chacon reacted in any way, shape or form. His actions are not excusable. Neither are Wade's, if Chacon's version of the events is accurate (which it probably isn't).

The notion that bosses/managers/gms can't yell at a player/employee in front of others is laughable. Chacon sounds like Ryan Leaf going off on that reported. It's unprofessional, bad for morale, and can create the appearance of a hostile workplace. If you want to get the most out of your employees and get them to respect management, having a profanity-laced tirade in front of them isn't the best way to go. There are more professional ways of dealing with insubordination. I understand that the manager/boss is limited in his/her options if the employee flat-out refuses to meet in private to discuss the matter. However, in many companies, you can get HR involved, or (in a worst case scenario) have security help the employee box up their stuff and escort them off the premises. Obviously, that doesn't necessarily apply to sports, but that doesn't mean the only option is to yell and scream in front of people. If Chacon wanted to talk right there in front of everyone, he could have said what needed to be said in a professional but direct manner (maybe he did and Chacon is lying...I don't know). I'm not saying you need to handle people with kid gloves, but when you are managing people, you need to act in a professional manner.