SaorsaDaonnan

If you say Mena Suvari, this is more or less what I see: http://www.kellie.de/alicia/mena-suvari.jpg That looks nothing like Denise Richards to me. first of all, I'm not trying to say that DR and MS look like sisters or anything, just that they're closer to each other than either is to SE in terms of facial structure. that's why I chose the Mena pic I did; I wanted a pic showing her with minimal makeup and a neutral expression. (we still need one like that for Shannon. here's a closer one, albeit still not perfect for our purposes: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1367055104/nm0002436) I think BBB is right about the eyes: the widely spaced eyes are a huge part of DR's look, and that's something that MS has too, although Mena's eye separation is somewhat less noticeable because of her thicker nose bridge and lower brow. jersey's picture shows Mena with partially raised eyebrows, maximally retracted eyelids, and a hair/downward- camera-angle combination that minimizes her forehead, not to mention the makeup. all of those things tend to make it harder to compare people, because angles and expressions introduce so many more variables I am starting to notice, though, that the foreheads of SE and DR are closer to each other than to MS, although SE's looks a little smaller and definitely has a more "forward" hairline. must keep thinking about this...it's so much more important than the paper I'm supposed to be writing...

I think she looks more like SE than Suvari, and that's not just taking chest into account. really? DR: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1621660416/nm0000612 MS: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2395835136/nm0002546 SE: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm889100032/nm0002436 much closer resemblance between DR and MS imo

of course, but that's not an argument against guest conductors unless there's some reason to think that the conductors harm the organization's ability to field a good team. I can't see any reason why that would be the case, unless you want to argue that the piss poor performances embarass the players to the point that they play worse after the stretch :shock:

First guess? Because your last film of any note was Love, Actually in 2003, and your last TV appearance worth mentioning was on Dancing with the Stars where you were quickly eliminated? oh. so you meant that from the guest's perspective, rather than the team's? my bad. she mentioned in an interview I saw somewhere that she's working on raising money for charity; I assume she mentioned that during the interview in the bottom of the 7th, telling everybody where to send their money. that's one motive. publicity is another, and in this case, results notwithstanding, there seems to have been plenty of synergy between the two goals

the hope is that it increases their appeal to any non-fans who may happen to be watching, whether they're at the ballpark or watching on tv, and that it'll help keep things fresh for the casual fan, something that isn't trivial when you're trying to get fans to routinely spend three hours in front of a tv. it's often a negative for the serious fan, but let's face it...the serious fans are going to be watching anyway, as long a there's a halfway decent team on the field. overall the 7th inning stretch and its guest conductors, the YMCA song, ect are all a part of strategy to make the game more family oriented, something that's obviously in their best interest: young kids at the ballpark = future baseball addicts = $$$$

it's not a metaphor, it's a double entendre. one of the meanings is the ethnic stereotype; the other is that he's still thought of as the ground ball machine he was when he first came up. I'm not sure that there's anything intrinsically wrong with the joke, so long as it's understood that the wearer is not endorsing the stereotype, but it's definitely not the kind of thing anyone should be wearing in public...no matter what the intent, people are going to interpret it as a racial slur and be justifiably offended, and, especially if they're latino/a, perhaps be hurt as well, and that's just not something people should have to deal with

not exactly screaming, but definitely more in that direction than genuine singing, at least for most of it. there were some other, shall we say, suboptimalities involved as well, for example that she sang through her nose, but I'd have to agree that it wasn't notably worse than most of the other guests that pass through the booth. I have some friends who dislike her purely because they think her reputation for hotness is unjustified. I don't see why that would be her fault, unless she's particularly smug about it, but maybe that's what was going on here? or is there some other reason that the faithful might have for thinking that she, unlike other famous women they've enthusiastically accepted, simply doesn't belong at Wrigley?

hm... it's going to depend on your criteria, obviously, but I don't think so. if you're ranking them individually by greatest expected contribution to the team's run differential over the rest of the season, I'd say it seems possible but not very probable. here's the argument: 1) I'm not convinced that Marshall will outpitch Lilly this year. despite the disturbing annual creep in Lilly's HR/9, I still expect him to be a very solid pitcher this year. Marshall might be able to match Lilly for several months to come, but has the reputation of tiring noticeably down the stretch (although, IMO, Cubs brass has exaggerated on this topic more than once), and if he continues to pitch well it's likely that he'll be the subject of much more careful scouting than he has been in the past. I should note here, though, that Lilly has had a silly BABIP so far, and that it wouldn't be fair to use his 2009 year-to-date WHIP or ERA as evidence against Marshall. 2) despite the early start we've all gotten on worrying about Harden, it's way too early to tell what kind of season this is going to be for him health-wise. if he gets in anything much over, say, 125 innings or so, he'll be a very serious challenge to both Lilly and Marshall in these rankings. 3) Zambrano's shoulder and the (probably) related decline in K/9 over the last few years is extremely troubling, although it's made to look worse than it should by the slight spike he had in '06, but he's still going to be an effective pitcher as long as he can stay on the field. I don't see any reason to worry about the leg issue being a long term problem, although it can't be much of a positive. if Lou does a halfway decent job managing his innings once he comes back, there's a good chance that he'll throw enough innings to outdo Lilly and Marshall as the rankings. even if healthy, though, I don't think the difference between his contribution, L's, and M's would be that great, which itself says volumes about how the last few years have gone for him. I'll give Z the benefit of the doubt, though, because of his stuff and bat so I'd say at least one of Harden and Zambrano will outpitch Marshall this year, and that Lilly will do so as well. I wouldn't feel comfortable making a more specific guess, but if you put a gun to my head I'd rank them in the following order: Lilly-Zambrano tie, Marshall, Harden. as has been implicit in all of this, I do think that Marshall has a good shot at outpitching Dempster. I see them as pitchers of similar quality right now, but Marshall still has upside, while D has reached and probably exceeded his

It's been clear for a long time year -arguably since the day he was drafted, certainly since last September- that Shark needs to be starting for at least this season and very probably a lot of next season as well, not because that's his best long term role, though it might be, but because he's so damned raw that the best thing for him to do is get in as many innings as possible. The only reason it's not bat **** crazy to have him on the major league roster right now is the fact that we mismanaged our bullpen resources so badly over the offseason. Of course, he should really be starting at AAA, or, as I argued this past offseason, at AA where he initially started to put things together last year. So I completely agree that the notion that he could be an acceptable starter for the major league team this year is, as you say, ludicrous, and something that reflects poorly on H/L/L, barring some truly massive improvement in his stuff. (I say stuff, but not command, on the assumption that command doesn't improve overnight, whereas stuff sometimes does, for instance when a pitcher learns a new pitch.)

Did Bradley ever claim that the media's treatment of him is the cause of his struggles? There is a huge difference between his arguing that the media is treating him unfairly and his arguing that their treatment of him is the reason he's been struggling. The difference is that the first version involves taking personal responsibility for his on-field performance, while the second version does not. It is impossible to overstate the importance of that distinction. He can say that media treatment of him has been analytically unsound, or motivated by the selfish desire to make a buck at any expense to the truth, or motivated by personal vendettas against him, without in any way passing the buck when it comes to his struggles at the plate. Of course the logical fact that he can do so is separate from the question of whether he has. I've been too busy wrapping up the semester to read the sports pages as closely as I'm sure many of you have, so I don't know the answer to this question. Do any of you? Is there a quote out there that clearly establishes who he's blaming for his struggles?

If Hendry let Wood go in order to avoid insulting him, he's a bigger idiot than anybody every claimed he was. when he announced after the Gregg trade that Wood isn't going to return, Hendry plainly stated that his reasoning is based on the idea that Wood has an ethical obligation to sign a higher-salary deal, since, in Hendry's opinion, that would be the best thing for Wood and his family. he made it sound like he wanted to do what he could to limit Wood's 'temptation' to return to the Cubs. edit: 'temptation' is my word, not Hendry's

Yes, they sometimes do. I don't understand how you are trying to incorporate the players association into this argument. it's a commonplace that we are in a buyer's market for closers this offseason, economic troubles notwithstanding, so it shouldn't be too hard for Wood to make the argument that a shorter, cheaper deal for the hometown team won't do much to depress the market for other closers down the road. if necessary he could also mention the fact that he's perhaps the largest injury risk to go on the FA market in recent years (Sheets might be more likely to get hurt, but Wood is more likely to suffer a catastrophic injury) ...all of this assuming that the MLBPA even has real influence over this sort of thing, which is far from obvious...

fine, but that's not the question. a player can be a useful contributor without being especially good. mere competence can be quite valuable, provided that it can found at low cost. Teahen could be a useful player to have around, but he's in the arbitration stage and, if traded for Fontenot or Marshall, would be replacing cheaper players who have more time left before free agency. if there's any chance of the Cubs giving the 2B slot to Fontenot in '10, it'd be a bad idea to move him. it's anybody's guess whether they'd take the idea seriously, though

no chance. Hoffpauir's bat is not special at 1B or, if he can even play there, in an outfield corner

of course it would. Lilly is under contract for two more years at 12M each Peavy is under contract for four more years at 8--15--16--17 with a 22/4 club option for 2013 trading Peavy for Lilly straight up, just as a thought experiment, would save us four million this year, while adding three million in fixed costs to next year's payroll. even with the pessimistic assumption that the time value of money is zero, the trade would be a salary wash. since Peavy is a better pitcher than Lilly, the trade would be a performance boost at no (financial) cost. obviously, though, we need to include the value of the prospects we'd lose in the deal as well. start by imagining a quantitative system that assigns dollar values to performance increments above league average (or, if you prefer, above replacement level). now, use that system to calculate the value of the prospects we'd be giving up: first, make predictions about the likely contributions of our prospects to the major league team in 2009 and 2010, the period in which we're directly comparing Peavy and Lilly...then, plug the expected contributions into your dollar evaluator. finally, plug Peavy and Lilly into your calculator in order to get a number for the Peavy-for-Lilly bump. I think you'll find that none of our prospects are likely to make 2009/2010 contributions that exceed the value of the 09-10 Peavy-Lilly bump. if you'll agree to that, then we already have a strong argument for doing the deal, especially since the Cubs are at the peak of the contention cycle and thus should place a strong premium on immediate results. but wait, there's more! given the magnitude of the contracts that baseball's best pitchers have been signing recently, there is plenty of reason to believe that Peavy's contract in the post-2010 time period will be a significant bargain. pitchers like Santana and Sabathia are looking at paydays in excess of 20M/year, and it is not hard to imagine that many major league executives will see Peavy as an equivalently talented pitcher. it is obvious that a Peavy-like talent on the 2009 free agent market would pull in far more than 16/17/22 in the first three years of a new deal, and while the economic downturn might raise questions about baseball's ability to sustain giant contracts, it is hard to imagine that marquee contracts will decline by 20 or 25 percent. so, if you agree to both parts --that the Peavy bump has more immediate value than our prospects, and that Peavy's contract is probably going to remain a bargain after 2010- you've got a great case for pulling the trigger even if Lilly must go as part of the deal...and, really, just one of those two arguments should be enough to convince you

id rather lose with wood than win without him. and i know i am not in the minority. would resigning Wood have been a smart baseball move? no. would I have done it anyway? yes. would I have been justified in doing that? hard to say

what is the value of having an opinion about Hill's future? Hill has talent and costs essentially nothing. all we need to do is: a) make sure that our plans don't require his presence b) sign his ~major league minimum paycheck c) do whatever we can to get him the medical help he needs, if any d) watch him closely and be prepared to give him another shot if his performance merits it we can do all of this, and keep him on the 40 man if need be, without having to give up anything of significance. even if the probability of his returning to form were very low, say 10%, there'd be every reason to keep him around and see what happens. if we release him, we gain.....nothing. except, I guess, the grim satisfaction of having cut ties with a player who will probably disappoint us. but would we really give up even a vanishingly small shot at having a cheap no. 2 starter just so we can avoid some minor emotional rollercoaster? why sacrifice talent just for the cheap satisfaction of it?

Walker? scary to think about what his HR/9 would look like if he went from playing half his games in SF to playing half his games in Wrigley. combine that with imperfect control and there are serious problems... as for the general thought that we need to bring in another pitcher besides Wood, I think it depends on what we do with the rotation. if we resign Dempster, we'll have five acceptable starters in Z, Harden, Lilly, Dempster, and Marquis, with Gaudin and Marshall throwing out of the pen and acting as sixth and seventh starters in the event of injury or a Marquis implosion. assuming we also resign Wood, that's already four of seven bullpen slots filled (Wood, Marmol, Gaudin, Marshall). we know they're also going to carry a loogy in the fifth spot, leaving just two slots to be filled by the other candidates, probably two of Guzman, Hart, and Wuertz...and if Shark isn't going to start, put him at the top of that list. two of those guys should be just fine in the unlikely event that we a) don't resign Dempster and b) don't bring in a new SP, however, we might very well need to think about signing an FA reliever, or making a trade for one. with either Marshall or Gaudin in the rotation, we'd have to rely on three guys from that pool, or from contributions from guys like Wells or Petrick, who we'd be better off not counting on. and, perish the thought, if Z or Harden went down, we'd have essentially no room for error, requiring everyone to be both healthy and effective all season. none of this seems very likely, though, as it would make much more sense for the Cubs to find an SP

for 2009 this is probably correct. we do have interesting relief prospects at lower levels in the minors --Ceda, Cashner, perhaps Veal if we're really lucky-- but no one who seems ready to play a major role in next year's pen. internal options for 2009: Gaudin------------- outside chance he's in the rotation Samardzija---------- could very well be starting at AA Guzman------------- hasn't had period of sustained health in ages Hart---------------- should be solid, but Lou hasn't been eager to use him in tight spots Wuertz-------------- Cubs don't seem to have any confidence in him Marshall------------- outside chance he's in the rotation, good chance he'll be misused as a loogy Cotts and maybe another lefty could be in the pen too, but aren't even remotely setup candidates

clearly you think that 1) IF we resign Edmonds and IF he sucks, THEN the storyline will be similiar to the Gaetti storyline 2) Edmonds will suck next year as long as you're maintaining premises 1) and 2) as separate claims, you haven't made any errors of logic...others could dispute your premises but not your reasoning from them on the other hand, if you're trying to argue that premise 1) constitutes evidence for premise 2), you're out of your mind

Yeah, one bad pitch, after a series of very good ones that should have ended the inning. You can't disregard circumstance. this is a stupid debate. Zambrano's pitch was a bad one. every pitcher is always responsible for every bad pitch he makes, so long as he is physically sound (ie healthy enough to pitch and not pitching past obvious mechanical breakdown). no fact about the external circumstances in which he is pitching qualifies as an excuse. so, that particular pitch was a failure by Zambrano. but the NET performance by Zambrano was nevertheless NOT a failure, because the expected runs allowed by his performance was still a figure low enough to win. (it's irrelevant what the actual # of runs scored was)

my quick count is 16. three each in April, May, June, and August; two each in July and September (I'm counting 4+ game winning streaks as just one three-game streak) bear in mind, though, that I counted at 4:30 in the morning...trust it at your own risk

good for you, carolinacubbie. it is refreshing to hear from a fan who, despite long odds, has not given up on a talented team still in the middle of a playoff fight. a disgustingly high percentage of this board has already conceded defeat and turned its attention to composing amateur reflections on the psychology of baseball victimhood, as though there were no more games to play, no chance of a reversal, and no value in playing out the rest of the series with maximum effort. apparently these quitters would rather roll over in a playoff series than risk the further disappointment of playing well but falling short in the games to come! what crap! so, carolinacubbie, while I can't quite say I share your optimism, I admire you for still wanting to see the Cubs give it evertyhing they've got, and for remembering that no matter what, no possibility of playoff success is too small to be worth fighting for. here's hoping that everyone can somehow bring themselves to stop writing their beer-soaked meditations on the uniquely devastating effects of Cub fandom long enough to actually cheer for their talented team to make a series of it in LA... after all, whatever the probable result, what kind of self-pitying piece of Howry can't bring himself to cheer for his favorite team in a playoff series? indeed, what kind of baseball fan would ever want to see anyone mail it in in October?

vs. left vs. right MIL .274/.352/.470 .246/.316/.420 NYM .277/.350/.443 .263/.336/.416 PHI .255/.336/.462 .255/.331/.425 LAD .272/.347/.415 .259/.324/.388 FLA .235/.316/.391 .287/.357/.459 if we play the Marlins in the NLDS, using Ted Lilly in game four is a no-brainer: we get a good matchup and more rest for our starters. unfortunately, the more likely scenarios involve us playing one of the other four teams, all of whom have been notably better against lefties than righties. it's an open question whether or not a Lilly start would be better than a second Dempster start against those teams.

predictions: Marquis: in. every playoff team wants a long reliever as insurance against the possibility that a starter goes down to injury, ineffectiveness, or a high pitch count, or in case the game goes into extras. in our case, there is an even greater need because of the higher-than-normal probability that a starter (Harden) goes down early and disastrously. bullpen exhaustion can sometimes be overcome, especially in a five game series, but with Z's recent soreness the Cubs will want to avoid putting themselves in a situation where Z has to throw 120-130 pitches twice in a week. in a seven game series a long reliever is indispensable because the fourth starter will be needed as a starter...but a long reliever who hasn't pitched in a week and a half is dangerous, so even if the club were inclined to think they didn't need Jason for the NLDS, they'd probably roster him for it just to keep him tuned up for the NLCS and WS. Marshall: in. no way the Cubs will be comfortable with only one lefty in the bullpen. Cotts' youth and indistinguished history will only underline the need for alternatives. Lilly will be a quasi-bullpen pitcher in the NLDS, but he'll be needed as a starter in the NLCS and WS if the Cubs advance out of the first round, and the Cubs will want to keep NLCS/WS bullpen pitchers fresh by getting them some pt in the NLDS. also, having both Marquis and Marshall gives the Cubs an extra innings capability even if one of them is needed to rescue a disaster start. finally, in the absence of a disaster starter, Marquis' presence allows Lou to use two loogies per game if he so desires. Edmonds: in. Jimmy Ballgame has been the club's most productive center fielder this season by a wide margin, is a veteran presence and a former gold glove winner, and was the starting CF for a team that won the World Series two years ago. no way the brass talk themselves into taking a pass on that. the credentials are strong enough that they'd put him out there even if we had superior young talent...which we do not. Fukudome: probably in. it's hard to see the Cubs embarrassing a player they just signed to a large multiyear deal, especially when the alternatives aren't exactly Pujolsesque. given the choice between DeRosa RF/Fontenot 2B and Fukudome RF/DeRosa 2B (I assume the Cubs like these more than DeRosa RF/ Cedeno 2B because of righty-lefty balance), the Fukudome option has both better defense and more veteran experience, two things the Cubs will value, especially in close & late playoff situations. Howry: probably in. veteran presence is an attractive thing for most baseball officials, and playoff experience doubly so. the club has been a little down on Wuertz for two years now, and Guzman has very limited experience and mixed major league success, and the Cubs have proven a willingness to go with 11-man playoff pitching staffs in the past, so they probably believe that there is room for both Howry and Samardzija. Samardzija: would be in if the roster were to be written today, but could go either way. impressed with August performance but could lose his spot to Gaudin or even Hoffpauir. Cubs are probably excited but nervous about the idea of handing a playoff spot to a player they think is very promising but very raw. fate could be determined by control or dramatic incidents more than rate of hits given up or net baserunners per inning. Hoffpauir: probably out. has the organization's attention, and might even become primary backup 1B and 1st PH next year, but they still seem to favor Ward for PH duties. Ward's stock has declined throughout the year, though, and a hot streak by Hoffpauir could potentially cause him to pass Ward on the organization's depth chart. (very) long shot that he could beat out Samardzija/Howry if either pitches abysimally from here on out (& if Gaudin doesn't make it back). Ward: probably in. (see Hoffpauir) Guzman: probably out. Lou consistently goes to Howry and Samardzija and Howry over Guzman. Gaudin: could replace Samardzija if healthy, or Howry if Samardzija overwhelmingly outpitches him. Wuertz; no chance. seems to be behind Howry, Samardzija, Gaudin, and Guzman, as well as Marshall and Hoffpauir. Pie: probably in. pinch running skills and good late-game defense will be attractive to Lou, Hendry et al.