CubColtPacer

oh brother. I apolgize for that question. I understand heat of the game comments, and I should have seen how that question would be interpreted.

Anybody know how many free throws MSU has shot tonight?

I definitely want the guy that will hit 1 homerun a game for 2 big reasons. 1) Your team will never get shutout. Walking every at-bat is then contingent on your teammates. When your teammates are hitting well, that team may score 10. When they aren't, you might score 0 or 1. A guy who hits a homerun every single game will make it more likely that your team can get to 4-5 runs in each game, which is typically the magic number to win. Anyway you can get your team to be more consistent in their run production, even if the number of runs for the two different teams is the exact same at the end of the year, the consistent team will result in more wins. 2) The OPS for the guy who hits a homerun every game will be higher unless he averages more than 5 at-bats a game. Nobody averages anywhere close to that many at-bats, so his OPS will be a couple hundred points higher than the guy who walks every time.

You hadn't heard of this before? No :oops: That's been the plan all along that has generated some controversy. Zell wants to sell the stadium separately from the team specifically to the state. Then the new owners would have to sign a lease with the state in order to continue to use the stadium. Several of the potential owners have balked at buying the team without the stadium because the potential profit is much less without the potential revenues that owning the stadium brings.

Not a bad compromise -- depending of course how the "significant signage" looks. If they take down the ivy and cover the bricks with ads, I will publicly tar and feather their CEO in a public square. Don't worry too much about that. Taking down the ivy would be a lot harder to do than changing the name. The name isn't protected (although the marquee is) but the ivy is, and there's no way it's coming down.

This is awesome. I can't wait until he starts Hatteberg over Votto for this reason. And then after Dunn looks at too many third strikes, he'll replace him with Patterson, because while Patterson might strike out, he won't go down looking. Theriot and Fuld for Dunn. Sounds fair right? I dont care who plays short. Put EPatt there. Will it matter? It will considering you have no place to put Dunn! Let's just kill 2 birds with one stone: Dunn for SS :D

This is typical Marquis when his sinker is working. A lot of baserunners (5 in 3 innings) but since everything is on the ground, they are only going for singles and he also makes chances to get saved by a DP. Let's just hope he doesn't fall in love with that sinker and try to throw fastballs constantly like he did at times last year. He really needs to throw his breaking stuff to be somewhat consistent.

sacrifice flies are the reason. They don't count as an at-bat when calculating batting average, but they do count as a plate appearance when calculating OBP.

From the notes on Cubs.com from yesterday:

Thanks Bruce for the lineups. Good to see Ward getting a little more healthy. I'm assuming Cedeno is the backup plan for backup CF if the Cubs don't make a trade.

I can 100% guarantee you that's true.

His person is also saying that he has received no indication that the deal is close, and bb actually went on to say that it was his opinion that Roberts wouldn't be traded. Plus, today is the Orioles longest road trip, so most of the regulars didn't make the trip.

The note on Cubs.com said that Aramis is expected to play on Friday, so likely no Ramirez again for today's game.

It is highly likely he'll make this team I think I want to pass on all of your inside information from now on. Please just lie to us to make us feel better about things. Thanks! :D :D you realize that if cedeno goes for BRob...then cintron will be severely needed right? Right now, that's a big if. True, but even if he doesn't, it's down to Cintron/Fontenot/Fuld for the last spot on the team. They already said that only one of Pie/Fuld will likely make the roster, so it's down to Cintron or Fontenot. Cintron probably takes it because of his flexibility.

I would agree with that. Then again, that only means that Henne is better than Navarre or Henson. I would say Henne and Henson would have been comparable if Henson hadn't went and played baseball. I think Henne could become a pretty good backup or a fringe starter, but that's about it. Maybe he'll prove me wrong, we'll see. As for being a poor decision maker, I can't really quantify it without going through the tape. Henne became rather infamous for it throughout his 4 years at Michigan though. He never had much of a sense for game situation when he went back to pass, and he threw some horrible passes that let teams back in ballgames. And yes, every college QB did that, but Henne did it consistently and got quite the reputation for it. I'm not saying Henne is a poor decision maker all game (in fact I think he's pretty good for most of the game), but I believe those unnecessary turnovers will kill him at the next level.

Otah. Or maybe Brohm? No. I much rather consider either Chad Henne or Joe Flacco in the 2nd rd then take Brian Brohm in the 1st. I am a Michigan fan, and I say: Dear G-d not Henne. Please not Henne. Huh? I think Henne's got a chance to be the best QB from Michigan in a long time. Sure as hell better than Navarre. I think he's going to have to be pretty good to be the best QB from Michigan in the last 10 years. There's 1 guy in the league who you know they say is all right :D I personally wouldn't want Henne. Questionable decision maker, and has good but not great tools to back that up. Michigan fans know quite well about his 1 or 2 just horrific decisions per game that really cost the Wolverines the last couple of years.

wow. I'm willing to give Theriot the benefit of the doubt on this one that Kosuke has already told him that's one of his interests. That's the impression I get from the story anyway.

There are no assigned seats in the bleachers. You buy bleacher tickets and then it is first come, first serve as far as what actual seat you get.

I haven't heard anything about him so far. He has had shoulder problems in ST each of the last 2-3 years, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if that was back again.

Thanks for the info. I didn't see his contract and his playing time demands. That makes me want to pass no matter what.

If he plays CF decently, he's a pretty good platoon option. .828 OPS against LHP the last 3 years (including a .924 last year). He's not a good option for a starter ever, but he'd fit in pretty well with this squad. And I'm much rather deal from the Cubs strength (relief pitching) to get that right-handed platoon partner than deal any of the other trade chips.

At one point, when it looked like he couldn't reach an agreement with the Pads, it looked like Greene might be available. Link? That seemed more to be a nsbb pipe dream more than anything else. You don't need a link. Greene said he didn't want a long term contract with the Pads. The speculation is that the Cub might want him. Greene said he didn't want to sign a long term contract with the Padres because he wanted to be on the East Coast near his family. Chicago is closer, but it doesn't really qualify. Also, even if Greene wasn't planning to sign a deal with San Diego, that still doesn't mean the Padres would want to trade him. They want to win this year, and trading Greene is counterproductive to that.

Didn't you JUST say in the above quotes that every team's goal should be to make the Super Bowl? And even if you meant to win it, while that may be true, you're wrong about the 2006 season being as insignificant as the Packers 2007. The 2006 Bears were NFC Champions and played in the big game. That's not insignificant. And it's more significant than losing in the conference championship game. I meant to say win. Does making it mean something? Possibly. It was fun to experience the SB as a fan yeah, but really it is nothing to me anymore I have the opposite viewpoint. To me, the 2006 Colts was only marginally better than the 03, 04, 05, or 07 seasons. Winning the big prize was nice, but I'm more interested in seeing a good team that has a legitimate shot to win the title every year. The journey is a lot more important than the destination to me. Then again, it could be perspective. You came from a title one of your first years you can remember. I grew up with terrible team after terrible team. To me, just being able to go into each week and knowing that my team has a good chance to win that day is a lot more important than just enjoying 1 year out of 10. Some of the endings have been disappointing, but I haven't experienced a disappointing season for the team in 5 years, and I'm very thankful for that.

Wow, this post makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't make sense that he'd let a friend know about taking steroids, but lie to the public about how often he used them? Seriously? You don't think that makes sense? Wow. Andy Pettite did the exact same thing by the way. History is littered with people who have been forced to admit a wrong doing but who also downplay the frequency/extent of their wrongdoing. It makes perfect sense why he would try and downplay how often he took them. I don't care what he said publicly. I care what he said to Bigbie. Bigbie said that Roberts told him that he had used it "once or twice" the season before. That makes it completely different from the Pettite situation where there were implications from other people that said that he had been using more than that. Of course Roberts would try to downplay the crime to the public. Why would he try to downplay it to Bigbie?

In the baseball world. Using 3-year splits, do you know how many 2B have put an OPS over .800 besides Roberts? Utley, Kent, Cano, and Polanco (Hudson doesn't have the 2005 to qualify, I think from injury, but he should be there). There are other young guys without 3 years that project over .800 in 2008 such as Johnson, Uggla, and Pedroia. Utley and his .900+ OPS is in a tier by himself. Then you have a 6-10 guys who might give you .800+, which should be considered plus production for that position. In the baseball world a guy that gives you plus production at a position and still close enough to age 30 to be relevant has value. Whether your personal baseball beliefs include steals or not, many in the baseball world tack a 50+ steals rider onto an .800+ OPS as additional value. Honestly, I don't get the problem, unless you've been playing too much PS3. 4 players is a lot only if you consider 'proven' MLB numbers in the package. 4 players is not a lot if all would qualify as unproven talent and none qualify as can't miss prospects, and in this case Murton, Cedeno, Gallagher, and one B prospect constitutes a package of unproven every day talent and it does not include a can't miss prospect. Take out Roberts "roid" year of 2005 which his OPS was .902 and he's not in that .800 OPS club either. In fact, if you look at the last 2 years of production and we are focusing on OPS, DeRosa's avg OPS was .802, whereas Roberts' was .783. I'm not going to argue how valuable Roberts is to ANY team, but I will argue just how much of an upgrade he is to THIS team. I realize that he's an incredible leadoff man, and can steal bases, which the Cubs do need, but not in a 2B. If he played SS, do what it takes to get him. First, welcome to the board. Second, the smack-down. Unfortunately for you, you cannot simply choose to remove a year of player's career to suit your argument and get anywhere, especially around here. And it's a clear overstatement to say 'roid year' when Roberts name has been linked to one usage of hgh publicly. So both sides of your argument really have little relevance and don't contradict anything I previously posted. Not that I disagree with your premise, but if you think Roberts only used HGH one time because that's all the Mitchell report could uncover, I've got a bridge to sell you. I'll disagree with you on that (maybe again?). Why would Roberts admit in casual conversation that he used steroids, then lie about how much he used it? He either would lie about it completely, or he would tell the truth. It simply doesn't make sense that in 2004 he was willing to tell his friend, who he knew to be another steroid user, that he used steroids but then lie about the frequency. Because he's been caught w/ his hand in the cookie jar, and pleading minimal (one-time) use would somehow be better than admitting to continual use? It's more plausible to claim "I made a mistake" if only done once (or a few times); much harder to pass scrutiny when admitting continual use... Obviously I have no clue how many times Roberts used, but I disagree w/ the statement that it's all or nothing in terms of his mea culpa... But he wasn't caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Here is the only evidence against Roberts: So we have two friends talking privately. Roberts wasn't suspected of anything at the time. He had no reason to admit to steroids. If he wanted to cover it up, he easily could have. All he had to do was not tell his friend about his steroid use. Instead, he did. So why would he then lie that he only used it once or twice? His public apology means nothing to me. He easily could have been lying. I just don't see why he would tell so much of the truth to Bigbie, but then lie about a small part of the issue.