jersey cubs fan

That's absurd. No it's not. Your move. You're implying that what happens on the field has nothing to do with who is crowned champion. That's completely false. It's far from a perfect system, but actual on-field results are still the overwhelming factor in who's crowned champ. I'm not implying that at all. What happens on the pageant stage affects how the judges vote just as much as it does in football. Just b/c two chicks aren't wrestling on stage doesn't change anything. It's nothing like that and it's actually quite stupid to suggest so.

That's absurd. No it's not. Your move. You're implying that what happens on the field has nothing to do with who is crowned champion. That's completely false. It's far from a perfect system, but actual on-field results are still the overwhelming factor in who's crowned champ. He's implying that there is no objective determination of winners, which is absurd. There is some subjectivity, but it's nowhere near the level of a beauty pagent, or figure skating or anything else determined by judges. And the national championship is not the only thing that matters inintercollegiate sports. The game is what matters most and games are determined by the difference in actual scoring by actual players.

Maybe. But they have had him playing a lot of LF and RF recently. That could certainly be due to the injuries he's had in recent years. Maybe not at the expense of taking the best player but Jackson certainly fits a need. It's not a maybe situation. Colvin playing corners can tell you more about how the Cubs view his future than who they drafted after him.

Wasn't he very close to being traded last year too? I don't know if that was the case last year, as he was really the only big body option and they didn't have a cap issue then. But contrary to what some are saying, I thought Buff was great in the early going this year, maybe a dozen or more games, and then he disappeared more recently. Although I was at the Pitt game and he was all over the ice, so maybe it's a TV perception thing.

CBS sportsline is going with 2.5, which is kind of nuts. I don't know if this means there's still a bunch of delusional Bears fans putting money on them, or if Vegas knows something about this matchup that I can't figure out. It looks to me like they are trying to get people to take the Packers, which shouldn't be a problem.

Oh please. Everybody can harp back on some report they heard to defend anything. Yeah, reports were dozens of teams were interested in Bradley this year as well. Dempster was a 31 year old with 1 good year under his belt as a starter. Are of those guys were much better free agent targets and were always going to get much more money. There is no comparison.

Dempster's deal wasn't way above market value though so I'm not sure what comparison you're trying to make there. If anything, it was maybe a little under market value. I remember it being the perception at the time, but I don't have a full list of the 2008 off season contracts to verify Here are the starting pitcher contracts of the big 4 pitchers from last year: Sabathia: 7 years, 161 million Burnett: 5 years, 82.5 million Lowe: 4 years, 60 million Dempster: 4 years, 52 million There were only 3 other starters to get multi-year deals last year (Oliver Perez 3 years 36 million, Kawakami 3 years 23 million, Uehara 2 years 10 million). The perception may have been that the market completely collapsed last year, but the top guys still all got paid. Dempster was among them and the reports were that he would have likely been signed by the Braves to a deal similar to the Lowe deal if the Cubs hadn't resigned him. Why does Dempster get to be compared to those players?

It clearly isn't, which is insane. I have the same feeling I had before Hendry signed J. Jones. I mean, Pods just fits right into Hendry's MO. Left handed, CFer, "lead-off" hitter, "fast", etc... I'm hoping the seemingly recent fascination with RBI (re: Bradley) will steer him away from Podsednik. Shoulda put CF in quotes too. The media is foolishly portraying it as a "no choice" situation, and Hendry will be more than happy to fall back on that when he eventually does get screwed over. And you're right, Pods is hardly a LF, but he'll be portrayed as a "CF" if need be. But I do believe they will be looking for an RBI guy.

I don't think that fact tells you much of anything. Baseball teams don't draft for positional need in the 1st round.

One year ago the Cubs had plenty of guys but they wasted a roster spot on a horrible pitcher because he was a rule 5 guy. Why should we assume the Cubs will do the right thing and not waste space on another non-deserving players because the scouts like him? And if this guy has a shot at the 5th spot, that is a very bad thing.

I don't get it. Is this a rip on certain people? You don't need a captain in baseball.

I'm fairly certain he'll spend more than a couple seasons in the majors, but I doubt he'll ever be a worthy starter.

Nothing wrong with talking to their agents. Sure, assuming they were talking about somebody else and they just happaned to have the same agent as the unknown worthy players.

How so? for one, the absolutely pointless 6 week or whatever gap between a team's last game and its bowl means the bowls are played in january, meaning a team that has fired its coach cannot wait until after bowl season to hire its coach, meaning teams playing in bowl games are likely to have their coach poached. secondly, it just goes to show how meaningless every bowl outside the championship is if a guy is willing to walk away from a chance at an undefeated season at the sugar bowl to take another job. he wouldn't walk away from cincy if his team was involved in a playoff with a shot to win a nat'l title. Yes, being able to get milllions of dollars somewhere else equates to meaningless. There's a handful of coaching changes where this becomes a factor every year, it's really not a big deal, and how would this change at all if there was a playoff? The last games of the year are going to be played in January regardless, and regular seasons are going to end in the beginning of December, regardless.

How so?

I've never gotten that vibe out of DLee, but Buff definitely has some invisibility issues, and I think he's a great candidate to be traded some day this season or offseason.

On top of that, Burrell is a free agent after this year. Even if he rebounds I doubt they offer arbitration, his value is low and they have next to no chance of getting anything out of him beyond this year barring a deadline deal. At least with Bradley, if they get him cheap, they have a chance of trading him later, if not just keeping him for 2 years at a greatly reduced cost.

It's a pretty stupid one. Does it always have be about race. Maybe it's just about Bradley being a petulant ass while in Chicago, just like he's been his entire career. This really just needs to be done with. Not because the team will be better or worse with or without him, but because he is too much of a mental midget to deal with the situation like an adult. It's only stupid if you don't know what is being said. I never said hating Milton Bradley makes you racist. I never said wanting him gone makes you racist. I never said anything of the sort. I've said repeatedly I think he's an ass. My point is that the mythological creature that is the Cubs fan who would abandon the team due to the presence of Milton Bradley is probably going to be a racist person. It's really not a controversial statement. It makes no accusation about anybody here because I'm fairly certain nobody here is going to abandon the Cubs (even if several people threaten to every season). I'm talking about somebody saying, "I love the Cubs. But Milton Bradley is still on the team so I'm done with the team." A) It's very unlikely to happen. B) That rare creature is probably motivated by racial tendencies. Are you saying that it's impossible for a black fan to abandon the Cubs in a similar fashion? I'm saying nobody is going to abandon the Cubs in this fashion.

Red Sox picking up 9M of the 12M owed to him. This doesn't help Hendry in the slightest, either. A guy who can play a corner infield position, doesn't cause a media circus on a daily basis and only has 1 year on his contract still has 75% it picked up by his former employer without taking back an equally bad contract in return. Actually, a pretty highly respected prospect at one time, although I think he's fallen below the radar a little bit of late. But there's always the issue of cancer in the clubhouse. I'm sorry

I agree, it was stupid to argue against my very simple point.

Sounds like it will be Pat The Bat aferall, and we'll either flip him to an AL team or use him as a really expensive Jake Fox and then sign some garbage like Byrd or Podsednik. Why would Tampa do this? They want out of Burrell's bad contract, but they are taking back a 2 year deal to get rid of a 1 year deal. Maybe instead of paying $9m for Pat this year they pay $6m for Milton this year and $5m the next year. They save money in the short-term, acquire a reclamation project that could be a very cost effective player in 2011 as well. Or maybe they get even more of a break. In short, Milton Bradley is a depressed asset right now. He's probably not worth his contract, but as a player he clearly has value. If you can get him for a fraction of his cost while getting rid of your own overpriced guy, it's a buy low and potentially sell high later scenario (what would he be worth if he OPSs 850 this season and is only owed $5m for 2011?) or buy low and hold scenario.

It's a pretty stupid one. Does it always have be about race. Maybe it's just about Bradley being a petulant ass while in Chicago, just like he's been his entire career. This really just needs to be done with. Not because the team will be better or worse with or without him, but because he is too much of a mental midget to deal with the situation like an adult. It's only stupid if you don't know what is being said. I never said hating Milton Bradley makes you racist. I never said wanting him gone makes you racist. I never said anything of the sort. I've said repeatedly I think he's an ass. My point is that the mythological creature that is the Cubs fan who would abandon the team due to the presence of Milton Bradley is probably going to be a racist person. It's really not a controversial statement. It makes no accusation about anybody here because I'm fairly certain nobody here is going to abandon the Cubs (even if several people threaten to every season). I'm talking about somebody saying, "I love the Cubs. But Milton Bradley is still on the team so I'm done with the team." A) It's very unlikely to happen. B) That rare creature is probably motivated by racial tendencies.

My point is people aren't going to give up on the Cubs because Bradley is still here. They'd give up on them if they go in the crapper, but they aren't giving up on them because of Bradley. It's a ridiculous theory. But to your point, no, that's not the case at all and it's really a silly point you are trying to make. There are all sorts of racists who follow sports teams that have black people on them, you can't deny that. I'm sure they have some internal debate about cheering on a black guy, but they just want to see see their team win so they tolerate the black guys. Things get a little different when that black guy is an ass, he's less tolerable. Again, my point is people aren't going to abandon the Cubs because Milton Bradley is here. It's just not going to happen. If it does happen, it's very lucky that those people are racists and/or complete morons. I think Milton is an ass. I thought he was an ass before they signed him and I thought he lived up to his reputation. I cannot understand why the Cubs decided that a guy who came as advertised all of a sudden has to go, but they did the same thing with Rich Harden, who came as advertised but now has to go. and to reiterate. If you stop following the Cubs because Milton Bradley is on the team, you are very likely a racist and/or a complete moron. But I would pretty much guarantee nobody who posts on message boards about the Cubs is going to abandon the Cubs one way or another, so this doesn't apply to people here and it doesn't make sense to be think you have been accused of anything.

Yeah, if you quit following the Cubs because Bradley is here I'd bet heavily on you being a racist, or an idiot at the very least. Seriously, I'm only the 2nd person to think race played any part in this? How do you come up with such incredibilyi ignorant statements? So why didn't a racist like me quit following the Cubs when they had Sosa and Dunston and Dawson and Fergie Jenkins and Billy Williams etc etc. on the team? You realize those players are the same race as Bradley right? I'm sorry, did you quit following the Cubs? Did I call you a racist? Can you read? Find me a person who quit following the Cubs due to the presence of Milton Bradley, and refuses to come back to following the Cubs until he returns, then I will call that person a racist. You are writing about them on this website right now so it's pretty safe to assume you haven't quite following them. Even if you are so clueless as to think only Milton Bradley and myself think race played any part in what happened here.

That act wouldn't make you racist, but I can't imagine anybody but racists committing the act. Well that and completely freaking morons.