Has New England's defense held anybody under 17 this season? They actually had 4 games of giving up 17 or less. I find this surprising. I'm counting three.
If we trade Garza without getting back someone that goes on the 40 man roster, I'm going to be very upset. Soriano or Byrd, I would be much more comfortable getting lower level guys. I wouldn't necessarily be upset with a non-rostered acquisition as long as the guys are extremely highly rated. I don't see the need to insist on a MLB ready guy given the strategy they have utilized to this point.
Because no very good teams have any substandard starters. Terrible logic. That's not to say anything about Sappelt's ability (nor is it, obviously, to imply that this is a very good team). Yeah, any good team can hide a second rate player as long as you have others picking up the slack. I don't think the Cubs currently have the ability to hide somebody, but that's a different situation.
Which would get them a top 10 draft pick. This was a very peculiar post. Almost as if it were written by two people who disagreed with one another. Yeah, unless you confused the Cubs with the Astros last year I'm not sure where the motivation is for that post.
He's had 1 crappy season in the past 4, so he should be one of those guys that gives you decent performance when he does pitch. Not sure what prevented him from racking up the IP, but he has made 30+ starts in 4 of 6 seasons. He does seem like a guy who can be useful on a team that actually scores some runs.
espnny had some sort of headline stating the Giants might be the most dangerous team remaining in the playoffs. How in the hell does somebody write that nonsense? The Giants might figure out a way to win another game, but they aren't even close to the most dangerous.
The rotation isn't any deeper than it was last year at this time. Theo has talked a lot about having more than 5 starters, I wouldn't assume the acquisition of another starter means somebody else is out the door, he could really be looking for his 6th or 7th starter at this point.
I guess; but if there's nothing to it then why would the story going public effectively force them to say they want to question him? Why couldn't they say something like "we've investigated the matter and it's closed" or something along those lines? It could be (and I'm stressing could be here) a matter of trying to make it look like they take all accusations of sexual assault seriously and after it finally did leak they felt they could just say "it's closed" even if they don't see it going anywhere.
i somehow read 'might be a n-word' the first time i looked at that and it instantly became my favorite post ever. 'ONE THING WE HAVEN'T CONSIDERED YET GUYS, WHAT IF THIS WOMAN IS BLACK' would CPD even have investigated?
http://twitter.com/#!/mortreport/status/156404735778373632 Marty Schottenheimer, with 200 regular season wins - his last a 14-2 record in '07 w Chargers - will interview with #Bucs Tues. #NFL32
That seems obvious, I'm not sure what there is for him to prove. Fine, if you want to start yet another semantics argument, it's what he has to disprove. He has to tell his side of the story and so far he's chosen not to to the proper authorities and has skipped both town and the country. He flew home after the season, he's not Roman Polanski. This isn't a semantics argument. He doesn't have to prove anything. He hasn't even bee charged with anything. If he does get charged it may be in his best interests to attempt to "prove" his innocence but as of now I can't imagine what he could possibly prove.
While it's annoying to see Denver advance, it's hardly surprising given the crappy status of the AFC, and it is enjoyable to see the crybaby Steelers fans lose. I already chose to cheer for New England once this year so that won't be happening again. At least I can enjoy somebody losing next week. And maybe Ray Lewis can kill Tebow the next week, won't be as easy to get away with it this time though.
Hahah, you're a funny guy! Wait, there's nothing for Castro to prove. Oh, joke fail. Well, it's an ongoing investigation and he's a person of interest, so, yeah, there is. Wait a minute. There's nothing for him to prove.
Hahah, you're a funny guy! Wait, there's nothing for Castro to prove. Oh, joke fail. Please tell me your post was a horrible attempt at sarcasm. Gold-digger? It was not sarcasm. But at 10:40pm last night, I'm glad I wasn't rolling into a checkpoint, if you know what I mean. You drove drunk last night?
That's pathetic. And infuriating. It said something about people internally wanting status quo. That's called job security. Makes sense, it is up to Ted to see past that. DO YOU TRUST TED TO SEE THAT FAR???? I'm not sure I do. and if "people internally" means Lovie Smith, then what? I'm worried. I think it means Ruskell himself, plus scouts and staff. I don't trust Ted much, but the Angelo firing showed balls and I'm pretty sure George wants him looking outside organization