jersey cubs fan

I think your premise is way off, unless you're talking about sports that people don't follow at all rather than sports they only follow superficially. Just look at how much complaining there is about the BCS and tell me that hypercritical eye is reserved for soccer. You really don't see people tying their frustration with the BCS as some sort of inherent flaw in football that implies it's less worthy of your time and fandom. Same with inconsistencies/frustrations in other sports like balks/leaning into pitches/instant replay in baseball, late game fouls in basketball, holding/pass interference(takedowns) in football, etc. Are you freaking serious? That is absurd. There are all kinds of people who like pro football but not college football or vice versa and they cite things like the BCS. Same with basketball. People are more than happy to list the reasons why they don't like hockey or baseball or track or golf. People bitch about the sports they like and the sports they don't like. Soccer isn't some unfairly singled out sport that gets an undue level of criticism. It's just not that popular and more than most second tier sports has been struggling to get a stronger foothold, so the topic of why it hasn't yet is going to come up. I know plenty of brits who talk about the things they find odd and/or annoying about baseball and football. It's what you do when you talk about a sport you don't understand as much. It would be stupid of me to accuse them of being overly critical of those sports just because they have some sort of disgust for it. Sports are games and games are made up competitions with silly rules and practices. There's never a perfect way to run any event and therefore they are all subject to critique. To act as though soccer should not be judged with a critical eye because of it's global popularity is incredibly arrogant.

How on earth so? People look at soccer with an critical eye they don't look at other sports with, and American don't understand that the sport has evolved and is popular elsewhere? It's a stupid claim on both parts. People are constantly bitching about the ways all sports are played/run. The status of soccer in the American sporting landscape is a constant topic for several decades, and therefore the concept of why it's not as popular here, or what makes it less popular is going to come up. You can't try and make a sport more popular without addressing why it isn't yet.

I think it probably has a lot more to do with the fact that they emphasized developing pitchers in the minors at the expense of hitters. The explicitly said they would put most of their efforts into pitching and then sign/trade for hitters later when Andy MacPhail came aboard, and that's what happened.

Same here. The same evolutionary refinement that applies to other sports that have been played for decade upon decade with significant fan interest and giant revenues applies to soccer and sometimes Americans don't understand that concept. I think both of you sound ridiculous trying to make this claim.

Sorry about the word nobody. I'm sure one out of every 500 kids may have looked at it once. The number may have grown for kids of the 2000s, with all the information about stats readily available to everybody. But the vast, vast, vast majority of kids never looked at a baseball card and subtracted AVG from SLG to determine which players were power hitters.

Okay, now that's weird. We were talking about batting average long before high school. We had end of the season parties where coaches would give out $2 trophies for the stat leaders. I can't imagine a 12 year old playing organized baseball and not knowing about batting average.

You're not, you're just the one being honest. This is extremely offensive. Just because you didn't understand basic math at a young age doesn't mean nobody did. Except nobody was looking at baseball cards and subtracting AVG from SLG to determine which players were powerful hitters.

I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say there's no difference in the exertion of hockey players and soccer players? Completely different kinds of conditioning. I'm commenting on what looked to me like you scoffing at the wear and tear OT hockey takes on players, as well as stating there is no reason why they can't add a sub in OT.

Says the hockey fan? Regular season PKs are a new thing that most hockey fans hate. But the important games are decided by sudden death until somebody dies OT. Soccer used to do the "golden goal" (sudden death) format, but it doesn't work. There are 3 subs a game as opposed to 3 minute shifts. People can't just run in perpetuity. The longer you play, the less likely a goal is. PK's are fine. There's no reason why you can't add a sub in OT. And hockey players' legs are usually jello by the 2nd OT. It's not like short shifts means these guys aren't killing themselves out there.

Low risk signing? Isn't that just a Hawks draft pick?

Kind of disappointing. Given how long it's been since he's had Tommy John, I wonder if that velocity will ever come back. If he has a 74 mph changeup, the 89 mph fastball will work for him. No kidding. How is this even possible? The speed differential between the two has to typically be less than 10 mph, right? I think the ideal difference between a FB and change is 10-15 mph Less than 10 seems pretty weak..

Says the hockey fan? Regular season PKs are a new thing that most hockey fans hate. But the important games are decided by sudden death until somebody dies OT.

But he had one week of low A ball at the time, and the closer he got to AA the further his MLB ETA became. So that still doesn't make any sense. Because a year later he hadn't progressed as quickly as they thought. They were probably thinking late season callup to Daytona in '09, midseason to Tennesee in '10, September to majors That's still strangely aggressive for an ETA for a guy that had plenty of questions about his game.

It's not really hindsight. Plenty of people thought Vitters had a hell of a lot to work on back then, and the smart ones realized he shouldn't be promoted too quickly.

Flamboyant approach eh?

This pretty much sums up the Home Run Derby. Sure, there are some monster shots, but Berman acted as if every time the ball barely cleared the fence that it was a feat unseen by humans before. It got really annoying after about the 1st HR 15 years ago.

Who had him arriving in 2010? That was incredibly dumb. BA did after the 2008 season. Why would they do that? He had about a week in low A ball by then. Did they just know the Cubs would promote him at the first sign of success? He should have been almost all of 2009 in Peoria, and then almost all of 2010 in Daytona. The earliest he should have seen AA is late this year, and the majors never should have been on the radar. Once you're in AA majors is on the radar But he had one week of low A ball at the time, and the closer he got to AA the further his MLB ETA became. So that still doesn't make any sense.

Who had him arriving in 2010? That was incredibly dumb. BA did after the 2008 season. Why would they do that? He had about a week in low A ball by then. Did they just know the Cubs would promote him at the first sign of success? He should have been almost all of 2009 in Peoria, and then almost all of 2010 in Daytona. The earliest he should have seen AA is late this year, and the majors never should have been on the radar.

Yeah, I like him and the other backup ESPN guy.

I'd still chance it. While 2010 is a bust, 2011 actually doesn't have to be, and I think moving Byrd would mean they'd hang on to Fukudome. I think moving Fukudome (in the right deal) would be more beneficial to the team both right now and in the long run. Like I said, if someone is calling up the Cubs with an amazing offer for Byrd there's no reason for them to not take it. If you can get something of value for Fukudome without paying all his contract, sure. But that might be difficult, and if you can deal Byrd for something, you do it now.

Who had him arriving in 2010? That was incredibly dumb.

Because they don't have anyone to fill the position? If someone is offering a great offer now, fine, but the Cubs could easily sell high with him later. Soriano-Fukudome-Colvin? Brett Jackson might be called up by September 1st as the thread on NSBB speculates. Calling Jackson up to get a look-see when rosters expand is one thing; calling him up with the intention of keeping him up as a starter or 4th OF next year isn't very wise, and dear Lord, Colvin is still nowhere near showing he should be a starting OF. Focusing on trading Fukudome right now makes a lot more sense than moving Byrd just because he made a nice defensive play at the ASG. Again, the Cubs could easily sell high on Byrd by the deadline next year, or even in the off season between 2011 and 2012. I don't see why they shouldn't trade Byrd today if it was possible. The lack of a viable replacement isn't a legit reason. This team is going nowhere, yet they still have people who can do it. If his value is high enough to net a return this year, there's no reason to risk waiting until next year when his value could easily slip. He doesn't have a long track record of sustained success and he is almost 33 already.

What uniform did he wear? http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3514/3706621043_431c37a8a0_o.png He's wearing a NYY uniform here.

Nah. He's really young for AA and has had stretches of dominance at Peoria and Daytona. His status as a prospect took a hit this year, but to call him a bust would be quite premature. Didn't that status take a hit last year? I thought he was considered a top 40-50 guy early in his career but then after stupidly being promoted to Daytona too early and then not hitting at all for a couple months most people bumped him down lists.

When he was younger plenty of people suggested he was going to be prone to earlier declines than normal due to his size, long arms and swing. He's had plenty of nagging injuries, to the back and neck, two things that do not get better with age. It would not be the least bit unusual if Lee was nearing the end of his productive career.