Jump to content
North Side Baseball

SouthSideRyan

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    48,493

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 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

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by SouthSideRyan

  1. SouthSideRyan
    Another point that I'm not sure has been addressed here is legal supplements. Was everyone okay with McGwire taking andro while it was legal in '98? Is it just a muscle issue, as long as people don't have to see a physical transformation in a player, they're ok with it? ETA: If I can get more outlandish, take it to a hypothetical. Say a designer drug is developed that works as well as steroids without the potentially dangerous side effects. It does the work of steroids, but is legal. Is there an issue here?
  2. SouthSideRyan
    Do we really have any idea how much more widespread greenies were/are than steroids/HGH? We have the steroid survey from 2003, I know, but to my knowledge we really only have subjective observation as far as the usage of greenies. Well HGH wasn't tested for in '03(Might still not, can't remember), and I think it's pretty well accepted that there is stuff out there you can be on that won't be caught on a test. Taking the % of players who failed the test in '03 as the % of players on stuff seems foolish to me.
  3. SouthSideRyan
    There's no reason the Cubs should have to suck for 3 years in order to have a team with young, good players combined with high salaried FA-Trade acquisitions.
  4. SouthSideRyan
    I'll admit I'm scared of giving up fair market value for Petco relievers. It changes your entire pitching philosophy being able to go at guys knowing that nobody hits HRs there.
  5. SouthSideRyan
    I'm not going to question Barry Bonds's integrity because Hank Aaron's cheating wasn't as effective as his. I'm also not going to make an arbitrary line to say Aaron's 755 HRs while cheating are valid and Bonds 700 whatever while cheating are invalid.
  6. SouthSideRyan
    Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok.
  7. SouthSideRyan
    Is it a coincidence that some of the worst hitters in the majors or guys that never even made it there have also been busted?
  8. SouthSideRyan
    I don't understand this line of reasoning. The fact that they kept their cheating a secret makes it worse?
  9. SouthSideRyan
    You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care? Regardless of the difference, the intent of the player is the same: to gain an advantage. Seems hypocritical to me to give players from previous decades a pass on taking one substance but condemning more recent players for taking another. In 20-30 years the steroids people took in the 90s/00s are going to be considered quaint novelties from a bygone era. And then the players of today can get on their high horse about the game being disgraced.
  10. SouthSideRyan
    You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care? The point is if everyone's saying "it was illegal, they cheated, they're done. I was taught not to cheat, and they cheated, I have no pity for them."; then what the hell is the difference? Do you think the players of the 60s(or pick a decade) are above reproach and wouldn't have used today's PEDs if available back then. Greenies is what they had(that and people weren't looking for muscled bodies back then), so that's what they took. It seems unfair to punish players of today because they have better science.
  11. SouthSideRyan
    So you're basically punishing today's players(as far as your opinion goes) for having better advancements in science.
  12. SouthSideRyan
    This argument I can respect. This argument goes right back to what everyone is saying. Doctoring a ball with such regularity that it's your calling card isn't cheating in a blatant way? The whole "goes against everything I was taught growing up" is shlocky crap. You were probably taught not to fool around behind your wife's back growing up too. Better clear a few 100 plaques out of the HOF for that. If we only honored players who do the right thing, the HOF would be left with Dale Murphy and maybe a couple deadball guys that weren't virulent racists.
  13. SouthSideRyan
    I'm more interested to hear your opinions on Alfonso Soriano as a leadoff hitter. I think he's great.
  14. SouthSideRyan
    Judging individual relievers by ERA is pretty bad, and judging a full bullpen by it is merely OK, but if you took the 6 relievers that would make up a Cubs postseason bullpen right now, their ERAs would be well above average on the individual(every one of the 6) and group basis(obviously)
  15. SouthSideRyan
    If we want to take a cheap risk that could pay off, the Twins DFAd Luis Ayala. He's probably worse than David Patton.
  16. SouthSideRyan
    So if they only kept charts that said "Take greenies every day" then it would be too far. Luckily they weren't that organized.
  17. SouthSideRyan
    Too bad the refs from the 05 NCAA championship game didn't know he was a scrub. Oh pls. Like you have never, ever seen guys that were great in college but fell flat in the pros. May is just a modern-day Stacey King. That's pretty insulting to Stacey King.
  18. SouthSideRyan
    Once you finish reviewing your tape of Penn St./Michigan 1996.
  19. SouthSideRyan
    Take a wild guess how many blown saves the Cubs had on this date last year.
  20. SouthSideRyan
    Something tells me if Sammy said just before the testing period was the only time he took steroids you wouldn't believe him.
  21. SouthSideRyan
    They don't have a Cocaine special section at the HOF but they do very much have the "No negroes allowed" special section. They have a Negro League section, do they segment out ballplayers who played with only whites? from post-1947 players?
  22. SouthSideRyan
    Do you disagree? I do. All sorts of players have bent rules, including taking illegal substances, to gain an edge, throughout history and many of them are in the HOF. I've almost done a 180 on this. At first I didn't think they deserved to be in the HOF, but now I do. The reason for this is that in the era they played "juicing" was a common practice much like taking "pep" pills or throwing spit balls was in past eras. What Bonds and the rest have done doesn't diminish Aaron or Ruth at all. I think they do need a special section in the HOF for the "steroid era" though. Why not make a wing for each era and put the corresponding players in each? "Dead Ball Era," "Steroid Era," etc. Because it's stupid to honor people while trying to disgrace them. When will the "Cocaine Era" wing be debuting? And the "No Negroes allowed Era?"
  23. SouthSideRyan
    Best part of that link is seeing that fat piece of [expletive] May isn't getting his contract renewed.
  24. SouthSideRyan
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
  25. SouthSideRyan
    If Dempster wasn't due up, I can see his argument, but if you're down 1 run and have 9 outs left to gain 1 run on the opponent while pitching a gassed starter/back of your bullpen, you use every last damn one of those outs, you don't just forfeit one of them.
×
×
  • Create New...