jersey cubs fan

Wait, didn't Demp start a few games for us - or am I crazy??? I thought I remembered the Dempster experiment ending poorly and him quickly returning to the pen . . . He made a start, but I'm not sure that qualifies as being a starting pitcher. Didn't the fatter Jon Lieber (David Weathers) make a start against the Cubs in 04? If he attempted to become a regular starting pitcher again, I think you can safely say that he hasn't been a starting pitcher since the late 90's.

I do not get the Gus Johnson love. Not that I think he's bad, he's fine actually. But the love is ridiculous. I don't need the announcer to be the most excited person in the stadium.

A day and night, or just a day? I think Central Park is underrated. I'd at least walk across the lower section of it, from east to west. Take the 1/9 downtown from columbus circle (actually, I think it's just the 1 now - the red one). Get off at 14th street and walk south through the Village and toward city hall. Maybe check out the Chinatown/Little Italy area - although not a must. If you get a chance, walk across the Brooklyn Bridge. Try to find a good pizza place and grab a slice to go, or a hot dog at Papayas. Just walk around, stop in a pub or three if you can. Maybe stop by south street seaport area, because the water is another underrated part of Manhattan (Battery Park on the west side is another option). I wouldn't recommend WTC, even though most people ask about it. There's nothing but a giant hole, construction site and office towers there. If a night is planned, grab a Zagat's, do a great restaurant and drink til dawn. There's a population of people who swear they've never been above 14th street. I think they are insane, and lying, but if you do have one day in NY, you can get all you need south of 14th (and if you have a handheld GPS, bring it). I think things like Empire State Building and Times Square are unnecessary. Wall Street doesn't offer much. Most of midtown is just office buildings. Rockefeller Center is nothing special. Plus you'll just get in my way when I'm trying to get home.

If somebody is coming from nowheresville, driving is an option, but I'm assuming most visitors would be trying to get back into the city. True. I just thought I'd add an option if they didn't want to go to NYC. Garwilly asked about tips for the city, and I couldn't imagine why anybody would ever consider coming all the way out here and not going into the city. If you've never been, you really have to go to NYC - I mean that in general for anybody thinking of going, not you cuse.

Oh man, the worst part. We have a 4 seat box at work, that means two rows of two, with two seats on the aisle and two butted up against a rail, with a rail behind the back two and in front of the rist two. It's so obnoxious. Who designed that nonsense? How ridiculous. I refuse to sit in the inside seats.

If somebody is coming from nowheresville, driving is an option, but I'm assuming most visitors would be trying to get back into the city.

I wouldn't put it that strongly, but I somewhat agree.

I'm with you. I wish they could just build a new stadium on the land where Cabrini is in the process of being torn down. Bring the beachers, bricks, scoreboard and the red sign, plant some ivy and build a stadium that can seat at least 50,000 and has parking around it. To hell with Wrigleyville. It's a bunch of obnoxious frat bars and arrogant, jerkfaced residents who act like living near the Cubs is a burden. And you think the way to solve that is to move to Cabrini? Forget for a moment that what you propose is impossible, but if you move the Cubs to another neighborhood in Chicago, those same bars are going to follow, and the neighbors are going to have the same complaints.

And you are because it's a horrible idea. Wrigley Field in Wrigleyville is a very important aspect of the Cubs. Moving is a horrible option, and a new stadium would require moving.

The only way this is true is if there really is no advertising value in having your name on a ballpark. it is true. NOBODY associates Wrigley Field with Wrigley Gum. I don't even associate the Wrigley Building with Wrigley Gum It doesn't have anything to do with associating the name. People don't think United Airlines everytime they think United Center. Certainly it's not the same as a company that explicitly advertises it's name on the building, physically and on paper. I'm not arguing that the benefit to Wrigley is the same as the benefit US Cellular gets from having its name on US Cellular Field (if there is a benefit to that). But there is a benefit. WM. Wrigley Jr. Co. clearly gets some benefit from having its name attached, however loosely, to Wrigley Field. There is no doubt about that.

The only way this is true is if there really is no advertising value in having your name on a ballpark.

yikes I know, and with such an important game on the line too what's scary is that one or two things go wrong and we're looking at that in a game that DOES matter Ramirez injured/resting, Soriano injured/resting, DeRosa injured/resting/heart surgery. Then of course you'd need Dempster to get knocked out/injured in the second inning (if you really wanted to see the same thing). That's a lot of stuff happening at once. It could happen, but it's probably just as likely that it would be from the Cubs having won the first two games of a series before resting the vets than anything else. If we see that in any one game, it really doesn't mean anything, not scary. If we see that for a month, that's trouble, but I think Murton could stand-in for Soriano for a month and not hurt the team at all.

Rule number 1, take public transportation. And I wouldn't waste any time trying to take in either neighborhood. Yankee Stadium is a dud, but the atmosphere is pretty good. In college the bleachers were fun, as they were around $10, and you were guaranteed to see at least one boob an inning. But due to lots of booby inspired fighting, they went dry, and I haven't been back out there. The upper deck is insanely steep with narrow walkways. and you feel like you're watching from a blimp. There is a very large difference between games against Boston, the Mets, and maybe Anaheim, and every other game. The DBag factor declines exponentially in those other contests. I actually think Shea is a better place to see a game. The sight lines are better, and there are more accessible decent seats. Then again, I can easily get good seats to Shea, so maybe my opinion is skewed. If you go into Yankee Stadium wearing Yankees or Red Sox gear, expect harrassment. Anything else and you're fine, unless you are an idiot who invites trouble. If you go into Shea with a Yankee or Chipper Jones uni, expect problems, anything else is fine. Hotels are another question. You can literally get any level of quality. It's hard to point you in any one direction. Personally, I'd stear clear of Times Square. It's not horrible, but other than maybe seeing it for a few minutes, it doesn't offer much. Some of the hotel areas are actually in rather dead places for hanging out. If you don't need to sleep in Manhattan, there are plenty of options to stay in Brooklyn as well as Jersey City/Hoboken for a little less money, with plenty of public transportation (bus/ferry/train).

New England released Colvin. I wrote in windycityfootball that I thought he would be an interesting name, given he was a likely cap casualty, and provided he doesn't sign for big money. If the Bears lose Briggs, and use most of their draft picks on offense, as well as sign a free agent offensive lineman, I wonder if they'd have any interest in bringing back Colvin to help with the transition to a younger linebacking corps. He's clearly not an everydown guy, and his injury may or may not affect his ability to do anything in 2008. But he could be of use in limited action for the Bears.

4 QBs has been mentioned, but they haven't said anything about Griese being one of them. Every writer who follows the Bears has said Griese has pissed somebody off and is as good as gone. Angelo has said it's Orton vs Grossman for starting QB, and Orton has been extended. It would be a major upset if Griese returns.

I'm abstaining from this vote. But on the Pie/Theriot front, it just bugs the heck out of me that Theriot has been given a job for basically doing the same crap job that cost Izturis his job, while Pie is reportedly in competition with Theriot Jr. out in CF. I don't have an incredible amount of faith in Pie myself, but there's no doubt he should get all the playing time over Fuld, and far more rope to hang himself than Theriot has been given.

you don't mind him? He's good, "minding him" shouldn't even be an option. I like pretty much everything they've done so far this offseason. Clark and Olsen are both good receivers. I'm fine with Grossman, Orton and a draft pick (2nd, or preferrably, 3rd round or later) taking QB duties. I don't like the talk of possibly 4 QBs, unless the 3rd and 4th are both non Griese. Nothing against Brian, but if you are bringing back Orton and Rex, there's no value in Griese this year. I wish they'd get rid of Archuleta, although I'm still a little unsure about how his contract affects the cap. Do the Bears see some QB that is going to be available in 2009 and are just waiting or do they actually think the same 3 QB's is a good idea? Every indication says they will be cutting Griese soon, which would mean they don't see the same 3 as a good idea. It would also seem to be a near lock for them to draft a QB, and let him be 3rd. They have stressed open competition at QB this year, with some reports even suggesting Orton has the upper hand, so it's definitely not status quo. As for 2009, they might have some names in mind, but I don't believe they are waiting for whomever that may be. As for comments about this being a horrible offseason for the Bears, I think Chicago fans are conditioned to assume the worst with management. But the people in charge of the Bears are clearly not the normal incompetent management crew, regardless of what Rick Morrissey or Jay Marioti think. I still believe they can and will turn the ship back in the right direction this offseason and have this team contending for NFC superiority again in the near future.

I guess I don't have a problem with the idea that these guys won't make the roster out of spring if everybody is healthy. I do have a problem that veterans are handed jobs simply because they are veterans, and that baseball people still feel veterans deserve hand-outs. Seniority is a horrible way to make a decision about anything. But as long as these guys remain candidates to take over jobs once the bums bomb, I'll be fine. I don't like Lieber, Marquis or Dempster in the rotation, but I'm not exactly dying to see Gallagher start 32 games this year either.

I used to think that. But Hendry didn't take long to give up on Jacque Jones or Cesar Izturis, and reportedly has given up on Marquis. If Samardzija doesn't get any better, I could see them souring on him soon. And if a new owner brings in new management, there's no longer a tie to the kid. The player could also decide to give up in a couple years and salvage a football career if it's at all possible while he's still young.

No, I don't think that's the point of the draft. The point of the draft is to stock your system with usable assets. Safe and boring can also be useful. You saw GMs go absolutely insane for a bunch of boring innings eaters in recent years. Shooting for the stars can be fun, but it can also leave your system devoid of anything useful. I think it makes sense to go for some guys who are good bets to contribute something, but probably not able to do much else. If you can sign them for little, it can be a nice little investment. And with teams often looking for major league ready (but not necessarily high ceiling) young help in trades, these guys can be quickly turned into something even bigger and better.

I wonder why this same principle doesn't seem to extend to journalists' use of "anonymous sources." Why is it not okay for a blogger to write anonymously (i.e, "hide behind a screen name") but it's okay for a newspaper columnist/reporter to print comments from "unnamed" or "anonymous" sources? If it's cowardly to criticize someone while using an screen name, isn't it just as cowardly for a journalist/reporter to criticize a public figure through the use of unnamed or anonymous sources? Yet, I don't see the same collective outrage from journalists regarding unnamed or anonymous sources (who generally make a journalist's life easier) as I do regarding anonymous bloggers (who generally make a journalist's life more difficult). because the journalist wouldn't get the quotes in the first place if they didn't promise anonymity to the source I know that, silly. If the basis for calling anonymous bloggers "cowardly" is that it's unfair to criticize a public figure without at least allowing the public figure to know the identity of the person who is criticizing him, why isn't it equally cowardly for a journalist to print a column that includes critical comments about that same public figure made an "anonymous" or "unnamed" source? The biggest difference is the journalist is putting his name out there. I don't see either situation as cowardly though. There's nothing wrong with the responsible use of anonymous sources.

While I didn't have a problem with their original anonymity, it was alwasy a weakness that "real writers" could point out, justifiably. Now that they have spilled the beans, I believe they would be better served to use their real names.

Clark has been good since coming to the Bears team, probably since he's been in the league. Any lack of numbers was due more to the team than him. He's good, and fairly compensated. The clamoring for improvement at TE was always overblown. But now that they are both on the team, neither should take time away from the other. Olsen is the better receiving TE, Clark is the better all-around TE. If only one of them is in, defenses will be able to easily know Olsen is in for a pass play, while Clark's presence gives no indication run or pass. I think the majority of snaps should include both players. Whether it's at the expense of a WR or FB doesn't matter. They are two of the Bears best offensive players, and need to be used properly.

I endorse this post with the strongest possible recommendation. I would have liked him much better had he been a 19 year old instead of a 21 year old. In 171 IP in A and AA he's given up 199 hits and struck out 82. Those aren't good numbers. They look even worse considering the competition. That has been my assumption for a while, and will be until proven wrong. Hendry has really thrown a ton of money around the past couple years without nearly enough to show for it. While it would be nice if the new owner cans him, my biggest fear is the new guy will see all the money wasted on mediocrity, and decide he can spend a lot less while getting the same results.

And they really swung and missed. Really the article wasn't funny at all, that was my point. I believe it was, and that you think otherwise because you are upset that they ripped a Bruce Miles article.