jersey cubs fan

They aren't a bottom 5 organization, because they have the resources that most teams do not have, and more potential than just about every other team to dominate their division. But their assets are almost entirely in the upside potential for future dominance, and certainly not the talent level that was on the team the day they took the job.

DFAd relievers aren't going to be longterm pieces. When you "hit" on one of them it's for the short-term.

Drew Henson and Ramiro Mendoza were involved. Jake Westbrook's name also came up.

Maybe they go somewhere other than the Dominican. I really don't see a huge issue. The new CBA is going to have more ramifications for how these markets work than this guy's arrest.

I thought we were naming random sports and penalties they have.

Really, it's horrible? Maybe I missed something there but he's been charged with bringing Cuban baseball players to the DR. Hasn't it always been assumed that there had to be shady ways of doing that? What is horrible about bringing players who want to get compensated for their talents into countries that will allow that to happen? I mean, if he's doing some sex trafficking on the side then yes, it's horrible, but I don't see that referred in the article. To me, it's the term. The implication of human trafficking sounds horrible obviously, no matter the reasons involved. We all know things are shady when it comes to geting guys out of Cuba. We obviously have no idea what else this may or may not encompass. But either way, one of the more powerful guys in baseball has been implicated, so this is horrible, because now MLB has to look at this much more seriously than they have in the past. Whether he's doing good by this, in the fact he's getting these guys the chance to make money and give them freedom or not, it's still illegal, so getting caught could open Pandora's box, on many levels here. I don't get why you keep saying the word horrible. The implication of the word human trafficking is rough, but unless it goes beyond bringing ballplayers from one country to another, I don't see what is actually horrible.

that's exactly what it was.

What's wrong with the stadium? Metlife is a god awful stadium. Dolphin Stadium is no good. Being in Soldier Field is much better.

concussions?

I don't see what the gamble is personally. There are plenty of places where crappy weather can and has played a major role. Snow in Chicago would be better than a rain storm in Miami. The Super Bowl is, first and foremost, a television event. And snowy football games make for fantastic television. The media members who want their paid vacation at the beach will be upset, but anybody should love the opportunity to be involved with such an event. Well, they wouldn't be if it's a hideous Chicago Feb., and you know it. You'd have tons of complaints from around the league to such an idea, and from outside, too. They're not going to potentially dent their cash cow, so they're going to continue to take the path of least resistance more often than not and stick to domes or warm-weather locations, the NY game aside. People attending the Super Bowl is not a cash cow.

Field condition is easily solved and stadium size is an artificial barrier for the NFL. They have no need to sell that many tickets, they just like to.

I don't see what the gamble is personally. There are plenty of places where crappy weather can and has played a major role. Snow in Chicago would be better than a rain storm in Miami. The Super Bowl is, first and foremost, a television event. And snowy football games make for fantastic television. The media members who want their paid vacation at the beach will be upset, but anybody should love the opportunity to be involved with such an event.

A Super Bowl would undoubtedly be the thing that finally forces them to put down a real field surface.

Horrible idea. no it isn't

Really, it's horrible? Maybe I missed something there but he's been charged with bringing Cuban baseball players to the DR. Hasn't it always been assumed that there had to be shady ways of doing that? What is horrible about bringing players who want to get compensated for their talents into countries that will allow that to happen? I mean, if he's doing some sex trafficking on the side then yes, it's horrible, but I don't see that referred in the article.

Couldn't find a video but here's a photo (spoilered for size). He slid way late and his left leg never got close to touching the bag. If it was soccer, Pierzynski would have been given a straight red. If it was football he would have been called offsides.

QBs with bad contracts are generally early first round picks who completely bust out. Or, one hit wonder backups who hit the jackpot in free agency from a desperate team. QBs that are actually good and paid for it generally live up to their contracts in terms of value and duration.

It was miserably humid, and hot the last few days but it's perfect weather here today and I believe it's going to be nice the next couple days, which should help. But yes, Radiohead is there.

Strawman. No one said "can't enjoy." The argument is "enjoy slightly less." No it isn't. You've said "ruined" all along. It is a lie. The other guy said, "instead of being excited." It's all a bunch of nonsense.

I love how people invent a universe where you can't be excited about a touchdown because your first thought is it might be overturned. I'm sure you just sit there on your hands saying, "ho-hum, yeah the guy on my team ran into the end zone with the ball and then spiked it and all his teammates mobbed him and the stadium went nuts and the bar erupted but I'm not getting caught up in that nonsense until after the ref decides what actually happened." I mean, you are either an idiot or a liar. Or maybe you don't like football because nobody sits there after scores and doesn't get excited because there's a shot it might get overturned. That's absurd. It does not happen in the real world.

Why? That's perfectly legit. The whole [expletive] point about overpaying RBs is that teams inevitably regret it and it causes problems with the salary cap, because the salary cap forces you to make smart decisions with players. And the last decade or so has shown it's not smart to tie up a heck of a lot of money in RBs. It's much more important to solidify your passing game. I guess this is where I'm getting confused. You acknowledge the trouble with committing too much to a RB but the immediately turnaround and try to negate the primary reason why it is troublesome to commit too much to a RB.

I read that he said something about hoping to use Clevenger "a lot", which I assume is an indication of his hope to not use Koyie, at all. So he's got my vote.

But $7m isn't a lot. That's the point raw. $7m for 3 guys is not a lot, so it doesn't defend your stance at all.

HE'S 22 YEARS OLD AND IS NOT 24 YEARS OLD AT THE END OF A FULL MAJOR LEAGUE SEASON IN WHICH HE BROKE HIS HEAD AND THEN LOOKED LIKE CRAP. Not to mention Choi played in a more hitter friendly era and ballpark. Hee Seop Choi's pre-2003 ranking is meaningless. He wasn't a prospect when he was traded. He was a major league player who was pretty okay and then broke his head.

Seems is the key word. Because that's what you decided you think i'm saying. No, I'm saying I don't know. Your argument is all over the place. I have no idea what you are trying to argue for or against. You've picked on this New Orleans paying 3 guys $7m thing that I don't think supports anything else you've tried to argue, but I really have no idea.