You're either a lot younger than me, or you have a really bad memory. :cry: No, they really are that bad. I started following the Cubs in '69. This team may have more talent than some of those awful teams in the 1970's, but they are worse. :(
I am so depressed. These guys are the worst Cubs team I've ever seen, and that, my friends, is really saying something!!! Went to the game Friday & Sunday. They were over before they started. I have four more games this season, one of which is with the White Sox. Man...., it's just really depressing....they really look like they don't even care to be there....
Guzman looked very good. Not his best stuff, but he worked, and pitched, and showed moxie. When the Tigers zeroed in on hime, and they did, he adjusted his approach, and worked through it. Hank White is an absolutely awesome catcher. Very encouraging, Guzman's performance.
As I recall, Hough was a knuckleballer. Control is always an issue with guys like him. I don't recall if he was known as a "headhunter", or if he just had control issues. the point is that the "most feared pitcher in baseball history" didn't actually hit that many players Agreed..., he didn't have to. :wink:
As I recall, Hough was a knuckleballer. Control is always an issue with guys like him. I don't recall if he was known as a "headhunter", or if he just had control issues.
Well, I mean, it's a Cubs board. The fact that some posters hate the Sox shouldn't be surprising. There may even be 1 or 2 that don't like the Cardinals. (hand up) Yessss....my hatred of the Cardinals is almost as passionate as my love for the Cubs. The Saint Louis Cardinals - now there's some hate you can sink your teeth into. :twisted:
How do you know that? He might be playing Pierre because upper management says to play him. Rusch, I can't explain away.... I know, Hendry says that Dusty makes the calls on the field, but it is possible that the higher-ups want Pierre to play to see how their (poor) investment pans out. Regardless, Pierre has no reason to hate Dusty. And it's highly doubtful that Dusty is being forced to play the guy. Dusty openly supports him all the time. And he plays him everyday. If he didn't want Pierre playing, he'd find more days to sit him and he'd dropped him in the order when he does play. Pierre and Dusty are clearly on the same page. Even given the remote chance that he's being told to play Pierre, Dusty still makes out the lineup that has him leading off EVERY DAY. Good point. OK, you've all convinced me that Pierre is not on the list.
Can we stop with the "our 2003 team was good" garbage. We got hot at the righ time, but only won 88 games. That's not powerful. If anything, the 2004 collapse was much worse, as that team was better. Didn't it even have a better record? It's the collapse of the last 2 years that has been so horrible, though we were never even on that high of a pedistal to fall from. Only our expecations were lofty, not a team performance. One more win, third place finish.
How do you know that? He might be playing Pierre because upper management says to play him. Rusch, I can't explain away.... I know, Hendry says that Dusty makes the calls on the field, but it is possible that the higher-ups want Pierre to play to see how their (poor) investment pans out.
I'm wondering the exact same thing. I didn't hear the spot, but apparently, one (or more) of the on-air guys has been told by a source close to the team that this situation exists. The on-air conversation centered around host and the callers trying to guess which guys are disgruntled with the Dustmaster. If true, it is interesting that the so-called "player's coach" would have so much dissent. I mean, there's no way that everyone would like him (does everyone at your job like the boss?), but really it is interesting to find out if this discontent is causing divisiveness in the clubhouse.
...who would be VERY happy to see Dusty gone. I don't listen to WSCR or WMVP, but a friend of mine said they were tossing this about during a show today. Who do you think those six guys are? My guesses: 1) Walker (easy one, I know) 2) Murton (almost as easy as Walker) 3) Maddux (he's smart and classy - he knows a dufus when he sees one) 4) Juan Pierre ??? (performance speaks volumes) 5) Glendon Rusch ???? (performance speaks volumes) 6) Ramirez???? (performance speaks volumes)
Gibson rarely hit batters. Two reasons for that: 1) Nobody would be stupid enough to show him up. 2) Nobody would crowd the plate on him. That would hurt. Even though he didn't hit many, very few hitters were not intimidated by Gibson.
Jimy. so you think the rook is a wuss 'cause he wouldn't hit the guy? I also believe Guillen is a prick. Nobody, and I mean nobody has the right to publicly humiliate anyone like that. I would have punched Guillen right then and there. I think the pitcher was a wuss because he didn't stand up to Guillen, the almighty. I hope he learned a lesson, and I hope the next time he drops Guillen like a sack of potatoes.
Baker's man-love for Neifi overrules any advantage gained by Walker's superior offencive statistics. This just boggles my mind. Really. I don't hate Neifi, but Jeez, come on. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)
Watching the Astros hit Maddux in the 2nd inning tonight (06/14/2006) illustrates how nice it is to have contact hitters. One ball hit hard, the lead-off double, everything else was dribblers, and bunt, and a dink in to RF. I'd take that approach.