NCCubFan

He became a topping for one of Hendry's bacon cheeseburgers. :D Seriously, it looks like he's out of baseball. He doesn't show up on MiLB.com.

Read the first post in this thread and there's no need to assume.

Unless it's changed, I believe that limit is 20 days (although I don't think that limit applies to pitchers).

Or Edward K. from Indianapolis. :D

If there was any news it undoubtedly would have been posted here. And I believe it's 6 months allowed to complete a trade.

I haven't seen a specific timeframe, but he is out on a rehab assignment now (Peoria, I believe).

This makes next week's series with the Mets even bigger than it may have looked before.

Can the end of the world be far away? :D

There's really nothing to that. All of the teams' websites are tied into mlb.com, so what you see both places is really the same. This was one article posted on two related websites, not two separate articles from independent sources.

In one of my fantasy leagues one of the managers is a big Brewers fan. I definitely feel a sense of doom on their part. 2007 Brewers = 1969 Cubs, except they started their decline earlier (and unlike the 1969 Cubs they have the Wild Card to fall back on). (Edited to spell "Brewers" correctly)

Me too. The Brewers can't even beat the Reds (losing 3 of 4). They're ripe for the picking.

that's awesome. 2 games back from the brew crew, and 1 game back in the wildcard right? It's just so great to actually be competitive and have something to root foor. I'm watching the cubs last night dismantle a bad cardinals teams, and i watched every pitch. I love to see us on the correct end of a butt whooping in Busch. Actually 1.5 behind the Brew Crew and .5 behind SD for the Wild Card. Tied for the WC in the loss column! And also tied for the division in the loss column.

Fixed. Yep. Mets have 44 losses; Cubs, Brewers, Dodgers, and Padres all have 46 (pending the outcome of tonight's games).

Brewers fall to the Reds again today. If all goes right tonight the Cubs could be leading the Wild Card and only 1 game out in the division.

I voted Braves because, with the exception last year, they somehow find a way to make the postseason every year. And no, I wouldn't vote for the Cubs if this were a "who wins the wild card" poll. The division champion cannot win the wild card. :D

I think it's coming pretty close to time you can remove the question mark from doable for 90 wins. I disagree. The Cubs will go into a lull that keeps them from reaching it. Right now they're riding a prolonged hot streak that is keeping their stripes from being seen. That's possible, but I'm not saying they'll definitely win 90 anyway. I'm saying I don't think there's any question that it's doable, but that term refers to whether it can be done, not whether it will be done. And I don't think there's any question that the Cubs reasonably can win 90; the question is whether they will. It's possible that we're just debating semantics here. Not to be a jerk NC, but if all we are talking about is whether it is possible to get to 90 wins, we would just need to see if there are at least 37 games left on the schedule. Technically, it is possible that we will reach 116 wins this year, just extremely unlikely. The chances are about as good as me sitting with Jennifer Anniston, Jessica Biel and Jessica Alba in a luxury suite at Wrigley Field (and almost as nice to think about.) Meanwhile, the likelihood of 90 wins is about as good as me sitting in the bleachers during my next visit to Wrigley, i.e. pretty likely. I probably wasn't clear enough, but I meant reasonably possible as opposed to mathematically possible by going undefeated. My point was that there's a difference between a realistic chance vs. definitely happening.

And the collapse that year was due to injuries (Steve Smith out all year, 3 or 4 halfbacks out) rather that a Super Bowl letdown. They started something like 1-7 but rallied to finish 7-9 and were in playoff contention until losing the last game of the season.

He ain't nothing but a hound dog. :D

You don't think he'd be starting virtually every game?

The problem you're failing to recognize is that, if he bets on a game, he may do something stupid like mess up the bullpen for the next several days just to try to win one game. Sometimes a manager needs to look at the bigger picture and realize that at times you need to think of future consequences (such as burning out the bullpen or leaving a starter in too long) resulting from going all out today. Yes, a manager's job is to win, but from the bigger picture of winning enough to make the postseason as opposed to winning one specific game. Basically, it's the idea that sometimes you need to lose the battle in order to win the war.

Mark Grace is another example of that. They also make others better (Shawon Dunston in the case of Grace, Aram for Lee). I have doubts that Aram would have improved so much that he's now mentioned as a Gold Glove candidate without Lee at 1B.

Wade Miller. :lmao:

He finally passed the test. :D

Prior deserves every dig he gets. He does not. It's not like he's trying to be hurt so he can collect his paycheck without having to work for it. And it's certainly not his fault that Dusty abused him in 2003.

I'd rather meet Satan. Maybe they're one and the same. :twisted: