davearm2

Oh jesus rant about Gold Gloves and allstar games next please

But will it cripple them?

Why wouldn't they? He's not a bigtime power threat.

Obviously the issue here is the chain of custody -- who was in possession of the sample when. The arbitrators must have decided that in terms of the potential for the sample being tampered with or becoming contaminated, there's a difference between it sitting in a sealed FedEx package, in FedEx's possession, and sitting in this guy's fridge where who knows who has access to it. Setting aside the Braun vitriol, I would hope we could all agree that having a urine sample sitting for days in some dude's fridge between collection and analysis is not a very wise testing protocol. It's not very wise testing protocol, but synthetic testosterone just doesn't appear out of nothing. Braun's entire defense hinges on his sample being contaminated by the collector. But ... there is absolutely no suspicion of this at all. What's the collector's motive contaminating the sample? Are there any rumors of the collector being untrustworthy at all? The whole reason to follow proper chain of custody protocol is so these sorts of questions don't need to be asked, because the opportunity for contamination does not exist.

Your defense of Braun has hinged on 2 things: 1) MLB turning down Braun's offer to take a DNA test and 2) the possibility the guy who collected the urine sample screwed up, possibly intentionally. We already know #1 is false and even Braun's defense didn't try to question the validity of the urine sample while appealing, yet you are. I would imagine if you're Braun's legal team, you consider arguing: 1) the test was a false positive 2) the urine tested wasn't Braun's 3) somehow the testosterone got into the sample sometime after Braun peed it out I suspect #1 is a surefire loser because the test itself is considered bulletproof. Nobody's going to buy that there wasn't actually elevated testosterone in the urine that was tested. The DNA test was pursuant to #2. And raising a stink about the timing of the FedEx delivery was pursuant to #3.

Obviously the issue here is the chain of custody -- who was in possession of the sample when. The arbitrators must have decided that in terms of the potential for the sample being tampered with or becoming contaminated, there's a difference between it sitting in a sealed FedEx package, in FedEx's possession, and sitting in this guy's fridge where who knows who has access to it. Setting aside the Braun vitriol, I would hope we could all agree that having a urine sample sitting for days in some dude's fridge between collection and analysis is not a very wise testing protocol.

isn't that exactly what we did? In a way, yes. Again, my annoyance isn't in giving up Carpenter for Theo, it's that prior precedent was much lower than Carpenter, but Lucchino pitched a fit and got his way. I really felt like we should have given up a lesser asset for Theo than what we did. Quit saying Lucchino got his way. I highly doubt this is the resolution he had in mind. The Cubs did just fine here.

This is the sort of asymmetry I was talking about. And the well is a different shape in LF than RF. And there is more foul territory along 1B than 3B. And the side wall rises differently along the LF foulline than RF. And there are fewer bleachers in LF than RF. (Not sure this is so much true after the renovation.) RF has the knothole and LF doesn't. Symmetrical is about the last word I'd use to describe Wrigley. The grandstands are. Not much else though.

1). Symmetry 2). It's not and never has been symmetrical. Exactly. Wrigley is one of the lest symmetrical ballparks in the majors. And that's definitely part of its charm.

How could you tell? It's just scaffolding and plastic. I guess it looks OK if you were anticipating a greenhouse.

I believe the Dodgers played an exhibition game in LA Coliseum a few years ago. That's when the pic was taken.

Quite amusing coming from someone that spends quite a bit of time here looking down on other NSBBers.

And 162 home games the following year

Not sure if there's been an announcement, but beer is available for purchase during games at Miller Park. Coors Field and Busch Stadium too.

Poor Kapman needs to read this thread re: the years.

At one point I recall hearing that Soler has until July to sign before becoming subject to the new IFA rules.

Resources aren't really the issue. All of the teams involved have the ability to pay a historic (for a Cuban) sum.

100% agree. Whatever the Cubs are or are not offering any of these guys will never be known unless and until a contract is signed.

No other team with competent management is going to change their offer to Soler based upon where two other guys signed.

The video is not from a security camera. It's from a bar patron's cellphone.

Just wanted to be sure to point out that big market teams have enough resources to turn a 71 win team into a 90 win team pretty easily if that's the route they want to go. If the Cubs managed to do that, it wouldn't be the first time it's ever happened with a big market club. "Big market teams have enough resources to turn a 71 win team into a 90 win team" is hardly some global truth, and it surely is not a pretty easy thing to do. If it was, they'd go ahead and do it every time. Under the right conditions it can be done. Those conditions do not exist with the Cubs right now, IMO. The conditions were right. How do you not see that? Ownership with money to spend? Check Front Office in place to make smart decisions with the money available to spend? Check Competitive teams within the division becoming weaker rather than stronger? Check I'm 100% convinced they had the resources to drastically turn this team around THIS year. The front office, however, seems more interested in turning over the entire roster and winning with their team rather than attempting to patch up the mess they were given, which is entirely understandable. Those aren't the conditions I'm referring to. It goes without saying that to pull off the sort of radical transformation you're outlining, a team must have a top notch front office and ownership willing to spend money... lots of it. I was referring to the dearth of above-average or better players on the current roster. There's just very little in the way of established impact players to build around. It's JMHO though.

lol...he didn't submit. He just wanted to stop debating. There's really nothing left to debate. I view things differently than some others. Nothing wrong with that.

Absolutely ridiculous argument. There are numerous things this team could have done to make the postseason. The Cubs are not in the AL East. They are in a division where two of last season's best teams in the division are now without their best players. One of those teams is also missing their other best player for nearly 1/3 of the season. The other three teams in that division have no recent history of success that makes one believe they are going to dominate. There were trades that could have been made for established talent that could have easily put this team in a great position to win the division. I'm certainly not saying they should have gone this route, or that I'm disappointed they didn't go this route. But to argue that this team had not chance to challenge for the postseason is ridiculous. That's ignoring all of the free agents that were available, also. Personally, I like what this front office has done this offseason. I'm not complaining one bit. And I hope that this direction will make them stronger down the road than they might have been if they made trades to be competitive immediately. We disagree about the Cubs' immediate outlook, which is fine. At least we both approve of what the front office is doing. Let's just leave it at that. Just wanted to be sure to point out that big market teams have enough resources to turn a 71 win team into a 90 win team pretty easily if that's the route they want to go. If the Cubs managed to do that, it wouldn't be the first time it's ever happened with a big market club. "Big market teams have enough resources to turn a 71 win team into a 90 win team" is hardly some global truth, and it surely is not a pretty easy thing to do. If it was, they'd go ahead and do it every time. Under the right conditions it can be done. Those conditions do not exist with the Cubs right now, IMO.

Absolutely ridiculous argument. There are numerous things this team could have done to make the postseason. The Cubs are not in the AL East. They are in a division where two of last season's best teams in the division are now without their best players. One of those teams is also missing their other best player for nearly 1/3 of the season. The other three teams in that division have no recent history of success that makes one believe they are going to dominate. There were trades that could have been made for established talent that could have easily put this team in a great position to win the division. I'm certainly not saying they should have gone this route, or that I'm disappointed they didn't go this route. But to argue that this team had not chance to challenge for the postseason is ridiculous. That's ignoring all of the free agents that were available, also. Personally, I like what this front office has done this offseason. I'm not complaining one bit. And I hope that this direction will make them stronger down the road than they might have been if they made trades to be competitive immediately. We disagree about the Cubs' immediate outlook, which is fine. At least we both approve of what the front office is doing. Let's just leave it at that.

I didn't miss the point. I just fundamentally disagree with the premise that I bolded above. I'm either a pessimist or a realist, but to me this Cub team had very poor odds of challenging for the postseason in 2012, short of doing some really stupid things to land more than one of the $100M+ guys. The Cubs won 71 games last year while getting 49 starts from Coleman/Lopez/Ortiz/Russell/Davis. Dempster had an ERA a full run over his peripherals. Randy Wells was never at full strength. And don't forget the Z debacle. Soriano and Soto underachieved. Colvin and Fukudome were sub-replacement level. Byrd's face got exploded. Some of these things happen over the course of a season. You hope you get unexpected production from elsewhere to compensate. But we didn't exactly get a bunch of that. Who is a real candidate to regress? Garza? There was enough talent that adding a few low cost pieces could have easily made the Cubs an over-.500 team. Hell, if we don't trade Garza/Dempster/Byrd/Others, I'd probably put us in the 78 win range right now. Nobody is saying that would have made us a favorite, or even given good odds of "challenging for the postseason in 2012." But the real potential of being relevant after August 1st is nothing to scoff at. (In an effort to avoid my point being misconstrued, I'm gonna state again that I don't necessarily disagree with the decision to blow it up. I'm just arguing against the contention that it was always a necessity.) Well again, we just don't agree about how close this team is to .500. At this point it seems as though the player losses and additions about cancel out, leaving them in the low-70 win range. Hopefully I'm wrong. Time will tell.