Careless

If you were in a stampede or gunfight or football game, yes. If you ate certain meats, maybe. Otherwise, no. and yes, I'm not just using stereotypes, I'm searching for them deliberately

If it has anything to do with getting Fukudome, or betters the chances of getting Fukudome - Kaz Matsui is not going to hurt this team. And if Hendry and Co. are so worried about Fukodome coming that they would go after Matsui, here's a thought: Get a hold of Fukodome's people and tell them they'll pay his interpreter and or personal assistant to come over here with him. That would help a whole hell of a lot more and would give the Cubs one less mediocre infielder. Is that not standard? It certainly should be in free agent negotiations with Japanese players. Pay them, their interpreters, give their girlfriends H1b visas for their special talents, etc

If this is true, it's a big boost to your name theory.

From the ESPN article link So not a baseball test.

I really never thought I'd have to keep my sig for 4 freaking years. why, Jim?

I think you misread. It is: Kevin Youkilis hits FOUR kids. 8-[

How does his "spot" change how many wins he'll get? That might be one of the most absurd things I've ever read on this forum. Well, if you'd face the other team's #3 instead of #2 every game, it would make a difference. Doesn't happen in practice, though.

In that case, the voting should have been fairly close. Since it wasn't, I'm wondering what the overriding factor was that made CC garner so many more votes. I agree based on the reg season CC was a solid choice. He pitched 20% more innings

Heck of a contract for a 38 year old who just had his worst season.

Gross. Carl Crawford VORPed 38, while Hill and Marmol VORPed 40.3 and 34.5 respectively. Does some of a players VORP depend upon how good a team he was on? Surely that must matter. You're probably thinking of win shares

A list littered with former cubs. it's the other Agonz, btw.

There is no backwards compatability on the 40g version. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there's a firmward update to do that. It's something they flat out don't plan on doing I believe. I still play games from 1992 on my Vista computer :? Boo, Sony

Ernstad is available. Sound out that line up and tell me how Erstad fits in with that team? If his nickname is the Spearmint Rhino, he's in. Marco Scutaro would get the job done. :oops:

Ernstad is available.

Very close.

They will, however, hear a lot about the film on various local tv stations. Kind of amusing that hollywood keeps putting out anti-war flops. I just don't think that they're a big deal. Propaganda is not something these people are short on. I think he's referring to this one: http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/11/11/bill-oreilly-just-a-wonderful-confused-guy/ The first part of it is about O'Reilly, who big suprise has begun attacking Cuban over the move. But the second part gives Cuban's take on what the movie is about from his point of view. Well, near the end he basically says "DePalma [the director] thinks that he's going to show people that this war is turning their sons into raping murderers, and that will cause the end of the war. I don't think it will end the war." That's not going to win him back many points with the people so furious at him in the first place. I wouldn't have funded the movie and I can't imagine I'd ever watch it, but I don't hate the guy for funding it. It's certainly a legitimate subject for discussion/debate/art

Our soldiers dont deserve to be depicted this way, its beyond upseting its sickening. Cuban funded the production of this movie to the tune of 5 million dollars. He's done some backtracking on it lately though and had pieces of it edited. Maybe you should ready the blog entry on blogmaverick.com about this before freaking out. And as an aside, those particular soldiers absolutely deserve that type of depiction. Only 2 hits for "redacted" on it, and neither is really to the point, other than that he doesn't think it will have any negative effect. They will, however, hear a lot about the film on various local tv stations. Kind of amusing that hollywood keeps putting out anti-war flops. I just don't think that they're a big deal. Propaganda is not something these people are short on.

There was a minute where I thought "At least this means we won't go after Matsui" Antihistamines really screw with my head.

You're thinking of the 2005 Cincinnati Bengals. 5 INTs from Kyle Orton 5 INTs from Brett Favre 5 INTs from Daunte Culpepper 3 Ints from Jeff Garcia ah, thanks

What was the team that forced 18 interceptions against the nFC north last season (not an NFC north team)

Worked fine for me. What is the prize for winning this thing? The undying love and respect of your mother

Works

No. This is a common misconception. Scenario 1: using the timeout before 2 minute warning After play 1-timeout Cleveland after play 2-2 minute warning Scenario 2: using the timeout after 2 minute warning Play 1-2 minute warning Play 2-timeout cleveland, 1:54 approximately left You save time by using timeouts before the 2 minute warning instead of after. The only situation you don't want to use a timeout before the 2 minute warning is if a play ends with 2:05 or under left. If it does that, then calling the timeout before the warning just gives the other team a free passing play (since the clock would stop automatically after the next down). In all other situations, you want to use it before. You got the scenario wrong. After the first play, they had to run a second one before the 2 minute warning regardless of whether or not a timeout was called. There was 2:55 left. Ah. Sorry for the mixup. They only had 1 timeout with 2:55 left? I don't think it matters which play of 1st and 2nd you call it on, it sets up the exact same situation each time. If they don't use the timeout early, it goes play play 2 mins play timeout punt, so they get the ball with about 1:45 left. The way they did it, it went play, timeout, play, 2 min, play, punt, ball with 1:23 left. Also, Grossman coming in the game and fumbling his first snap was just wonderful.

No. This is a common misconception. Scenario 1: using the timeout before 2 minute warning After play 1-timeout Cleveland after play 2-2 minute warning Scenario 2: using the timeout after 2 minute warning Play 1-2 minute warning Play 2-timeout cleveland, 1:54 approximately left You save time by using timeouts before the 2 minute warning instead of after. The only situation you don't want to use a timeout before the 2 minute warning is if a play ends with 2:05 or under left. If it does that, then calling the timeout before the warning just gives the other team a free passing play (since the clock would stop automatically after the next down). In all other situations, you want to use it before. You got the scenario wrong. After the first play, they had to run a second one before the 2 minute warning regardless of whether or not a timeout was called. There was 2:55 left.

Couldn't cleveland have not used their timeout til the second play and used it after the 2 min to give themselves an extra 25 seconds or so after the punt?