jersey cubs fan

Seriously. Shootouts happen so infrequently, that theres gotta be no correlation between attendance/ratings and shootouts. Unless the general public can't stand hockey because of the potential for ties. I guess that's possible. I would imagine they put the shootout in because casual fans (i.e. non hockey-watchers) said "I hate the ties!" alot. But I'm not sure. But then how do you figure out if it's actually working? I guess that's why some people have degrees in Marketing, and I don't. Isn't the 'breakaway/penalty shot/1-on-1' widely considered one of the most exciting plays in sports? I would think the NHL instituted the shootout because it adds more of their 'premier' most exciting play. If a 'casual' sports fan is flipping channels he/she will likely stop to watch the shootout because it lasts a couple of minutes and decides the outcome of the game. The NFL and the NBA have both installed rules that allow for more offense. People like to see dunks, touchdowns, homers, and goals. I don't want to come off like a hockey expert because I'm definitely not, but to me the shootout is nothing like a breakaway goal during the game. If I had to choose a football analogy, it would be like taking everyone off the field except for the QB & WR and maybe 2 DBs, then having them throw bombs from the 50 yard line. Sure it would be fun as a distraction for a little while, but as the final deciding factor of the game? I guess what I'm saying is I can see why people who love hockey don't like this. Except shootout style plays occur in regular games as the result of some penalties. Plus, while the end of baseball, football or basketball games you either win or lose and it's done, the end of a shootout results in one team getting 2 points while the other gets 1. Winning the shootout gives you a little bonus, while losing the shootout doesn't really hurt you in the standings. I don't think there's a perfect answer to this situation, and I don't really see the point in getting worked up over shoot outs. Ties are messy, never ending playoff styles overtimes are unreasonable for the regular season.

They did just draft a college closer who probably has very little chance of succeeding in the starting rotation. Cashner could provide a significant amount of bullpen help if Marmol is dealt. Not to mention there are some decent relief options out there in free agency. I don't see Cashner breaking with the team in Spring Training, but he definitely could be a September callup next season if the Cubs keep him as a reliever. Yeah, I love Marmol, but I'd give him up for an elite pitcher or hitter. Peavy is an elite pitcher. I can't think of any logical deal I'd make that trades away Geovany Soto. Yeah, you'd have to acquire a guy that gives you such an improvement over what you have that it would completely offset the obvious downgrade you'd get from losing Soto and going with what is likely to be crappy catching production. I just don't see how that could work.

They did just draft a college closer who probably has very little chance of succeeding in the starting rotation. Cashner could provide a significant amount of bullpen help if Marmol is dealt.

The Bears are listed as 12.5 point favorites. Detroit was a 7.5 point dog and lost by 8 at home yesterday.

I think you may be overstating Wood's (or any player's) affect off the baseball field on the team's performance. What teams did you play for in the majors? I'm assuming you disagree with him and therefore I ask you what teams you played for I've never played in the major leagues. That's why I find it so difficult to judge whether a player's leadership/personality off the field has little to no effect on team performance. So you disagree with both 5412 and Wade? I don't disagree that Wood is a leader of the team. Numerous players have said as much. I do disagree with any definitive statements regarding how much of an impact his leadership/any player's leadership will have on how a team performs if you've never been in that environment before. We just don't know. Well, one guy said "devestating effect" while the other said "I think you might be overstating".

I read a columnist type suggest it, I haven't read anybody saying it will happen. I don't think it'll work. It's fine for Miami when they are using one of their 2 RBs, but Hester is a little receiver, he's not going to be able to do the same things.

I think you may be overstating Wood's (or any player's) affect off the baseball field on the team's performance. What teams did you play for in the majors? I'm assuming you disagree with him and therefore I ask you what teams you played for I've never played in the major leagues. That's why I find it so difficult to judge whether a player's leadership/personality off the field has little to no effect on team performance. So you disagree with both 5412 and Wade?

That's a long time from now, though. In a way, it's unfortunate that the tickets go on sale so close to the disappointment and so far from the event. No I know. I've accepted that come April 6th, I'll be pumped up for the Cubs season...but the Cubs Convention...an event where your supposed to celebrate and generate hope for the upcoming season. If I go and Ron Santo speaks and says "This is the YEAR", I'll probably have to leave the hotel. I've never really understood the point of ever going to this event.

They definitely need to monitor this issue. The history of RBs taking huge numbers of carries is probably scarier than young pitchers racking up large innings pitched.

I'm pulling for Philly. I could not believe how many NL champs hats were floating around south jersey this past weekend. Everybody had them. People still hate Ryan Howard. Makes me wonder if they'll drive him out of town like they drove Abreu out.

Yeah, I'd rather part with Dempster than Wood. It's easier to replace a bullpen arm than a starter. Also, I don't understand all of the posters who think Dempster's year was a fluke. It's not a guarantee that he will be as effective in 2009 as he was in 2008, but he was our most consistent starter last year. Dempster was a highly regarded prospect as a starter before becoming a reliever. He wasn't a prospect, he was a starting major league pitcher that wasn't good. Semantics. And it's not that he wasn't highly regarded or didn't have good stuff; he always has. He just figured out how to locate his pitches better and more often found the strike zone. Fixing that one thing took him from a 4.5 ish ERA guy who walked a bunch of hitters to what he did last year. Did he still over achieve a bit last year? Yeah, more than likely, but I still think you'll see a guy with a 3.5-3.6 ERA next year rather than the 4.5 he's had in the past. That is not semantics. There is a tremendous difference between being a highly regarded prospect and being an established major league pitcher who had over 150 starts and 1000 innings pitched and wasn't good. Jason Marquis was a highly regarded prospect with good stuff as well.

I must have missed those parts of town The beer part?

Philly is a fine city. A passionate city, but a fine one. It's a good beer town. Philly is a pit, but Tampa is the much douchier city.

Yeah I read that and the first thought I had was, "Yes, Phil the Cubs would trade Derrek Lee just to get Micah Hoffpauir into the lineup. NM Tex is available, no, no, Micah would be the 1st baseman if the Cubs dealt Lee." Rogers is a tool, and I get dumber reading his articles. Phil and Paul are different people And your point is..................... As mention in the post above, both are idiots. regardless, you claim to have been reading an article by Paul Sullivan and thought to yourself "yes, PHIL" and called Rogers a tool. the world's filled with idiots Excuse me, my bad I confused one idiot with another. Oh no, what should I do. And I did read the article, I just didn' tpay attention to who wrote it. Stop nitpicking. Move on, Bob. That's not nitpicking, it was the entire point of your post.

So premier, but not top 25% of the pre-90's expansion premier?

Yeah, it would be very reasonable to refuse to offer that much. I'd think about a 2 year with a vesting option based on appearances in 2010 though.

Once the precedent is set, there is no stopping other teams and players from making similar arrangements. The player's union will not stand for this. Opt out clauses can be found in newer contracts that protect a team or player from uncomfortable situations. Contracts are meant to be honored, and the player's union will fight for the player anytime the contract is not honored, whether it's mutual or not. Didn't they step in on the ARod situation when he was almost traded to Boston? He was allowing them to rip up the contract or something and the union wouldn't allow it.

why? It seemed like important news and was starting to get buried on this page. It'll be de-sticky'd after this news has run its course. If it was important it wouldn't have been buried. There really isn't anything to say on the matter. I think you let it die a natural death.

Yeah, I'd rather part with Dempster than Wood. It's easier to replace a bullpen arm than a starter. Also, I don't understand all of the posters who think Dempster's year was a fluke. It's not a guarantee that he will be as effective in 2009 as he was in 2008, but he was our most consistent starter last year. Dempster was a highly regarded prospect as a starter before becoming a reliever. He wasn't a prospect, he was a starting major league pitcher that wasn't good.

why?

Good God... Many Jets fans started walking upright only a few short years ago. If gonny sees the dude in the fireman's hat I hope he clocks him one. No chance, I'll be in the cheap seats, fireman Ed is down low.

The week 8 bye will hopefully give the defense enough time to heal up for what should be an easy win. I'd bet the Bears will be favored by double digit points, after destroying Detroit by 27 points in Ford Field. The longterm forecast is calling for highs around 40 and partly sunny skies. I'm spending my bye Sunday at The Meadowlands for Jets/Chiefs.

Baseball player wins something: he can do no wrong. Unless he's highly paid and that something is anything other than a world series title within the past year.

There is no possible way for this to happen and have people save face. Huge F up by Gary Hughes and Jim Hendry, huge bed crapping by Fukudome, huge waste of money by Cubs ownership. There just isn't a way for this to work out with everybody saving face.

after 100 years, yeah, its WS or bust for me. However, I would have settled for going down valiantly in the playoffs not yay, we won another division flag, vacation time. wow, you're 108 years old or whatever? that's crazy. i mean, i'm only 23, and didn't really follow the team until i was like 10, so i've got 13 years to claim. i mean, it wouldn't make sense for me to whine about the team's performance in the years before i existed, so i assume you're not doing it either. Why can't I? If the Cubs had won in 1982, the year before I was born, I would never have to grow up hearing about the team's inept past, curses, black cats, etc. If I, as a Cubs fan, have to carry the baggage of the teams past failures, I sure as hell can complain about it. Pre-2006, do you think Cardinals fans born after 1982 spent any less time ripping on Cubs fans for their historic drought because they hadn't experienced a title in their lifetime? Seriously, pretending the 100 year story is meaningless to any Cubs fan who isn't 100 years old is rather ridiculous.