jersey cubs fan

We're on a conference call, and we heard people scream through the other end, although the people doing all the talking haven't flinched. I ran up to the guy who wants to keep it secret, but he's not there.

usa guys are dumb

I'm not sure the initial argument about Ricketts needing to be in town is a great one, but this is a worse rebuttal. Who cares about the Nets? We aren't fans of the Nets, so naturally we couldn't care less about where their owner spends his time. Again, who cares? I'm not a Sabres fan. It's freaking stupid to worry about the whereabouts of any owner, that is the point, nobody should care.

Dude in my office again requests no talk of game since he's recording. That is selfish BS right there, not to mention stupid.

I've made it through to the semis on my iphone app from ea sports.

Definitely would understand the NFL forbidding it. Not just the NFL, but any sport. It goes hand in hand with the idea of tampering. I don't understand how this is a story, or how the tribune picked it up as a breaking news story and sort of agree he was being mistreated. He's got no reason to be there.

It's even douchier once you see the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDrq1SM9f_o&feature=player_embedded That's what that video was? I thought it was somebody else he was crying to.

The "could have gotten so much more" is how I interpreted your posts. I took your terming of Juan Pierre being "useless" as thinking they could get somebody of use – i.e. a better player – for those three or some combination of them. If you just mean a different, yet not better, player then that's a different subject. Of course I'm saying better. Not necessarily "so much better', but better, more useful, less Pierre-ish.

I don't have a problem talking about trades, but you're speaking in certainties when none of us know the certainty. Saying we shouldn't have traded for Juan Pierre because he sucks or because he doesn't have the right approach at the plate is quantifiable and we know that's the case. However, arguing that trading those three players for Juan Pierre was stupid because we could have gotten so much more for some combination of those players may or may not be accurate. I'm not a fan of the Pierre trade at all, but not because of the perceived value of those three players. It's simply because I don't value Pierre all that highly as a player. "could have gotten so much more" is how you choose to characterize it. I feel they could have used their assets in a more constructive manner. I didn't say they could get Arod.

My question again, though, is how useful were they? If the three of them combined legitimately could only net Juan Pierre, then I can't imagine any of them individually were all that valuable. There's just no point in asking that question. Jim Hendry wasn't shopping around those three players and seeing what he could get. Jim Hendry was going after Juan Pierre. I think there is a point in asking the question, though, if someone is stating that he certainly could have gotten more value than he did for those three players. I'm wondering how you know for sure he could have. For Hendry's struggles as a GM, he's been pretty close to excellent at getting good value for players he trades away. I'll agree that he does value "leadoff type" hitters more than he should, but did he value Pierre so much that he would give away very valuable trade chips to acquire him and, thus, vastly overpay – something he very rarely does in trades? Or were those players really just not that valuable, he knew that, and got the max value he could (even if the player wasn't the best to target)? If you're going to unequivocally state that those players were more valuable than Juan Pierre, then I think you have to know the answer to those questions. Well then nobody should ever talk about trades because you never unequivocally know what else could have happened.

My question again, though, is how useful were they? If the three of them combined legitimately could only net Juan Pierre, then I can't imagine any of them individually were all that valuable. There's just no point in asking that question. Jim Hendry wasn't shopping around those three players and seeing what he could get. Jim Hendry was going after Juan Pierre.

Right, except for the fact that he wasn't a consistent 3 win player.

Okay, you were a little sneaky before, now I know you're kidding around.

That Greek player was reaching out to Messi mid fall.

is there any incentive for argentina not to draw?

I'm not really sure there's that many people who hold it in that much reverence. SI was touting an original six stanley cup in the preseason, with Boston/Chicago. But their writer, Michael Farber, is one of those older generation of writers who grew up on original six hockey and witnessed the first wave of expansion. I think the real drawing line for reverence are all the southern expansion teams.

Oh my goodness this is stupid. Like really really dumb stupid. He has next to no influence on what goes on during the season. He's got multiple siblings and underlings that can express ownership opinion when needed. And furthermore, his most important work is October-February. Once spring training starts, there's nothing for him to do.

Because they were the 3 droughts of epic proportions. Nobody cares about the Giants not winning in 50 some years, people knew who Willie Mays was. All the Cubs, Red Sox, and White Sox guys were dead or banned Doesn't explain why you used a 20 year window, mentioned three teams and an 8-0 record. It's two teams and it all took place within the last 6 years.

But again, it's not that he gave up future hall of famers. He gave up valuable trade pieces for a useless player. he was a consistent 3 win player, far from useless Except for the fact that he did that twice, sure, very consistent. He had a couple year window of usefulness, which makes sense given his only skill was speed.

Well Chi/GB is a division rivarly. I have no issue with Blackhawks/Red Wings hype. But nobody is circling the date for a Chicago Bears/Arizona (Chicago) Cardinals matchup, even though that history goes back just as long as Bears-Packers. And the reason, as stated in other posts, is that there are a whole bunch more olde tymey NFL matchups plus the Cardinals aren't in the same city they once were (massive turnover in fan base). There's a whole lot more to talk about on a Monday Night football matchup show when it's Bears/Giants than when it's Jaguars/Panthers.

There's also the matter of the original six being in the same cities where they were back then. MLB had the Giants/Dodgers move, they've had lots of incarnations of the Braves and Athletics, and multiple teams come and go from places like Philly and Washington. NFL had the Browns and Colts move, the Cardinals and Rams move all over.

Original Six stands out because of the six part. There were only six teams. The NFL had 12, 13 and 14 in the years before the NHL expanded. MLB was at 20. There's just a whole lot more "original" matchups in MLB and NFL, making any one of them less meaningful.

I had not heard a thing about this Africa trip before this thread. How is an owner's vacation schedule an issue?

This is confusing....the teams who had the longest pennant droughts in 1990, have gone 8-0 in world series games once they got there? The Cubs (0-0), White Sox (4-0)...and who else? The only other team to make one WS appearance between 1990 and 2010, or sweep their first WS appearance post-1990 was the 1990 Reds, who went 4-0 after a 14 year drought (1976) inbetween pennants. Were the Reds really the 3rd longest pennant drought in the league in 1990? I figured he was talking about the Red Sox and White Sox, not sure why he is using a 20 year time frame, an 8-0 record and a 3 team grouping.

Original six teams are meaningful in that they are hockey's version of talking about olde tymey stuff. The Packers are more meaningful than the Jaguars. If the Reds got good again, people would talk about the days of old when the Reds ruled, whereas if the Nationals went on a run, there wouldn't be much to talk about. Baseball's expansion was more gradual and arguably more successful. Hockey's expansion is much more recent and drastic. It's also unique to think about a major north american sport with 6 teams in the mid 60's. And how the league basically tripled in size in a few years. Anything pre-1980 is talked about in reverential terms in american sports. For hockey that is Montreal and the Original Six.