Jump to content
North Side Baseball

SouthSideRyan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    48,510

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by SouthSideRyan

  1. SouthSideRyan
    As long as you don't include what happened throughout the 20s and into the early 30s
  2. SouthSideRyan
    The point is that "looking for huge guys" isn't an accurate way of guessing who was and is using PEDs. Not everyone hulks out. When do you think Sosa started using? Sure, not everyone does. But Bonds did. That is really not debatable. Nobody has disagreed with that point, so I have no idea what you think you're arguing. So his power and build increase from 1993-1997 was just one of those things? I never said everyone gets huge after PED's, but you asked me how I knew Bonds got big and I said 25 lbs of muscle in one offseason and that most everyone in the Giants organization put two and two together was plenty of evidence. When Sosa went from 36 to 66 home runs and had gotten huge rather quickly, something was up. I said he could have started PED's before 1998. Probably did. But I'm certain he was on them in 1998. Of course, Sosa was on pace for 52 HRs in '96...And '97 was his worst HR rate since he was 24 yrs old in 1993
  3. SouthSideRyan
    Tommy's got his eye on an Arby's
  4. SouthSideRyan
    Science. If Sosa never took steroids how many homers do you think he would have ended up with? 927
  5. SouthSideRyan
    Davey Johnson (in his first season with Hank Aaron) was Rich Aurilia before Rich Aurilia was.
  6. SouthSideRyan
    We have the physical evidence on Bonds, not Aaron. I give people the benefit of the doubt. Same for Pujols. You have no "physical evidence" because nobody was looking and testing, yet you've had people in the game talk about how PED usage goes back decades. Goes back to Hall of Famer Pud Gavin in 1889, FWIW. And even St. Babe??? GUFFAW
  7. SouthSideRyan
    BECAUSE IT WAS THE OLDEN DAYS!!
  8. SouthSideRyan
    Um yeah that's what roids do. People noticed it. Everyone saw Bonds in 2002. He was a different person. Do you think Sosa was on roids in 1998? When do you think Alex Sanchez started on steroids?
  9. SouthSideRyan
    We have the physical evidence on Bonds, not Aaron. I give people the benefit of the doubt. Same for Pujols. You have no "physical evidence" because nobody was looking and testing, yet you've had people in the game talk about how PED usage goes back decades. Of course. But has anyone accused Aaron and seen him take them? No, so I give him the benefit. We know ARod took them. I'm not keeping anyone out of the HOF with no evidence, steroid era or not. Then why are you arguing against a bunch of guys who have no evidence?
  10. SouthSideRyan
    It was just a late life surge you ass!
  11. SouthSideRyan
    How can you possibly put a number on this? Statistical averages. You don't leap in your late 20's or early 30's like that. Ya know...Hank Aaron hit more HRs from his 30s on than he did in his 20s. He also set a career high for HRs at the age of 37. HENRY WOULDN'T DO THAT
  12. SouthSideRyan
    Science.
  13. SouthSideRyan
    So you don't have a problem with "cheating" as long as the "cheating" doesn't help too much.
  14. SouthSideRyan
    Tell that to Bonds who only became once in a generation after he took them. PED's made multiple once in a generation players (Bonds, Sosa, ARod). None of those guys would have been that good without them. Bonds and ARod were going to be clean HOFers, but we'll never know for sure. Oh my. This is delicious. Bonds' line through 1998: .290 .411 .556 .966 164 OPS+ 411 HR 99.6 WAR Yeah, I think we know for sure. I think Bonds is a tough example to use because he was so good all around and would have obviously been a sure fire HOFer without the cream and the clear. But you certainly can't deny he wouldn't have ever become even a 50 HR guy without them. Oh can't I?
  15. SouthSideRyan
    He probably should've stayed on the steroids. Not to mention, how dumb are all these pitchers? Could've been taking steroids and putting up record setting numbers
  16. SouthSideRyan
    Does that really matter anymore? The Cubs are going to get the penalty next year, so it'd literally be trading for money.
  17. SouthSideRyan
    http://ktwop.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/popeye.gif
  18. SouthSideRyan
    Just ask Hank Aaron
  19. SouthSideRyan
    Yeah, let's have a baseball hall of fame without Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez
  20. SouthSideRyan
    What are you the davell of the Mariners?
  21. SouthSideRyan
    :lol: The comments at the bottom of the article. It's hilarious. One person suggesting they should move to the burbs because it takes too long for them to get to Wrigley. Who do these people think they are? Tim?
  22. SouthSideRyan
    I think if the Cubs could have come to an agreement with Garza they would have done that already. Garza knows his value on the open market and that's what he's going to seek. Woe is the team that signs him to that deal. Garza also realizes his value will be suppressed if he's tied to losing a draft pick.
  23. SouthSideRyan
    He's already rehabbing in double A. This was a guy that was supposed to miss the whole year and probably be done with his career, and now he'll undoubtedly be pitching game 1 of the World Series. Maybe if he wins, he'll go out and celebrate and Hancock himself?
  24. SouthSideRyan
    If Paniagua was as good as Pedro, I'd prefer him.
  25. SouthSideRyan
    that would be AWESOME if the indians were too cheap to send out a scout and insisted we put lake in games on tv so they could decide whether to trade for him I'm pretty sure that's where Jed/Theo would tell them to [expletive] off
×
×
  • Create New...