UMFan83

no they dont 11-10 on the road if they lose this one isn't struggling considering their overall record?

Huets a stud! More importantly this team struggles on the road.

Watch him lose so much weight that he has no power this year.

His last healthy season he hit .286/.353/.460/.813 with 21 HRs. Some team will sign him. He typically hit's lefties much better in his career (even his last 2 horrible years he put up .768 and .817 OPS against lefties) and would be a defensive upgrade. If we could get him playing RF for minimum salary and platooning with Fukudome, it wouldn't be the worst option. It certainly wouldn't be the best option either. If there are 10 options Byrnes would be like 6th assuming the other options are the names we've heard floating around. High risk/slightly above medium reward. Sounds sexy doesn't it?

They seem to have been pretty content to wait the past few years when they started playing better. They should have added Gasol a few years ago, but fell in love with their own roster. They were linked with Amar'e and Garnett at one point too. If a trade is going to obviously improve the team they're going to do it. Sometimes deals just fall through. Yeah, teams often overrate their own guys, but the only big deal we've heard rumored this year is for Bush and it's pretty hard to imagine they'd turn it down along the lines that have been discussed unless Toronto is asking for the moon. If LA is going to give them Bynum, I can't imagine Toronto getting a better return than that. Coupled with the fact that the Raptors pretty much know he's gone, I have a strong feeling that deal will go down if it is, in fact, being discussed. Man, that would make for a ridiculously scary LA team. I'd instantly put a lot of money on the Lakers winning the championship if it does. that's a virtual all star team if that happened. I don't know the other pieces but if they could get Bosh and keep Gasol, Kobe, Artest and Odom wow. Fisher Bryant Arest Bosh Gasol 6th man: Odom They might want to make a run at Chris Paul just to shore up that shaky PG position.

Good news...with the Hawks win tonight coupled with losses by New Jersey and San Jose (SO), for the first time that I can remember the Hawks have a slight edge over NJ for most Points Per Game in the league. They are also slightly ahead of NJ for least goals allowed per game, and tied for 2nd in the league in goals scored (although 16 goals behind Washington for 1st). As expected they are +14 ahead of Washington in goal differential so they pretty much own that category.

You are right..the closest is Denver who has beaten Atlanta, Cleveland and Orlando (actually are 3-1 against those teams) but has not yet played Boston. Orlando is the closest top 4 team to beat the other 3 teams, they have beaten Boston and Atlanta, but are 0-1 vs. Cleveland.

Good to see that we can still beat Boston without Garnett (and Wallace). They are such a mediocre team without Garnett in there...he's the difference maker for them.

Man we keep taking good shots and getting nothing from it.

The team looks sloppy tonight. Passes aren't on target, players aren't showing as much speed as they do in the past, etc.

And you can't completely use the success argument with Brady too. True Brady has been to 4 Super Bowls and won 3, but Warner's 3 Super Bowls and 1 win isn't horrible either, especially when you consider that 2 of those Super Bowl appearances were on worst-to-first teams.

An abridged list of Free Agents still out there: Erik Bedard Jon Garland Vicente Padilla Ben Sheets John Smoltz Jarrod Washburn Chien-Ming Wang Joe Beimel Kiko Calero Octavio Dotel Jose Valverde David Weathers Bengie Molina Yorvit Torrealba Hank Blalock Russell Branyan Carlos Delgado Nomar Garciaparra Adam LaRoche Jim Thome Chad Tracy Dmitri Young Ronnie Belliard Orlando Hudson Felipe Lopez Joe Crede Melvin Mora Orlando Cabrera Miguel Tejada Garret Anderson Johnny Damon Jonny Gomes Rick Ankiel Rocco Baldelli Frank Catalanotto Brian Giles Jermaine Dye Xavier Nady Randy Winn Matt Stairs

Semi-good news for those that want Calero:

This is the answer. There wouldn't have been enough room for the FIFA reg'd field dimensions, signage and photogs. In 1994 FIFA let us cut corners on the stadia for the sake of market penetration. No reason to do it this time. Also, the fact that the Park District was considering putting field turf onto the surface, and I can see why we were left out. KC was added due to Lamar Hunt's lingering influence on the USSF. I can't see why. This wasn't the final cuts or anything. Give Chicago time to get their crap together after the Olympics and see if our leaders can figure something out that would work for FIFA. If it can't, then drop them later in the process. Chicago has been pretty good to the USOC over the years in terms of hosting well attended soccer matches, and it's also the nation's 3rd largest city and former host of the World Cup opening ceremonies, so I feel like it deserves a little leeway considering the city just got screwed over for the Olympics. I can't believe they would hold a World Cup on US soil and not include one of the largest and most important cities in the country.

As the Hawks remain idle, other teams are making up ground. The Devils won in OT and are now 1 point behind the Hawks for most points in the league, with 2 games in hand on Chicago. Nashville is about to win again, and should they will be 7 points behind the Hawks in the Central. The Sharks are about to win again, and assuming they do will be 1 point ahead of the Hawks for #1 seed in the West, with the Hawks having a game in hand on SJ. Nothing to be concerned over. The Hawks are probably not going to pull away from SJ so it's gonna be a dog fight all the way. Nashville still isn't much to be scared over, up 7 points in a game in hand. NJ just keeps winning, and while it'd be nice to get a trophy, the President's Cup is not one of our season goals. Still worth following though while the Hawks have 3 days off.

This is a great start: It's funny how against this contract I was when it was handed out in 2006. I hated Soriano as a player and I knew what a big mistake we made when we signed him. That said, I actually feel like I completely underestimated how bad this contract would be at the time, if that makes any sense. I went from thinking it was a horrible contract that will slightly hurt the team long term and be a thorn in our side, to knowing that it's a deal that gigantically hinders the Cubs long term. Seriously, imagine if we don't sign that contract in 06. It's hard to say what would happen. Does Ted Lilly sign with the Cubs? Do we win the Central in 07-08? I don't know but we'd be in a much better situation right now. Ahh who am I kidding, we would have wasted the money on someone else.

The stupid stadium capacity always works against us. I'm satisfied with the renovated Soldier Field from a Bears standpoint, but in terms of having a stadium equipped to host a multitude of international events, it sucks. The Olympic plan would have been much easier if Soldier Field was built to accommodate an Olympic Opening ceremony, and now this goes against us partially because of the stadium size. Again, I love Soldier Field for football. It's small, and somewhat intimate for football at least. The seats are over the field for the most part, the luxury box crowd is accommodated and best of all the sound travels pretty well there compared to some other cavernous stadiums in the NFL. But seeing as how the city built this park, it surprises me that they didn't concern themselves with Soldier Field being a multi-use facility, or at least more of one than it is.

I'm depressed about this slap in the face, but I personally don't think the USA will win the bid to host anyways.

Not with Golden State. He was a 2 time all star with the Hornets and not since.

I'm concerned Tyrus is one of those guys who you trade and then he wakes up and becomes a good player. But you have to trade him for him to get the message, so he'll continue to be inconsistent with the Bulls. Argh. Just like Cedric Benson (except that he wasn't traded). It's true that the Bulls haven't had an All-Star since the Jordan years right? Yup. Only the Warriors have a longer streak (1997 vs. 1998)

For all the talk around here about the MLB playoffs being a crap shoot why isn't the NCAA tourney viewed the same way? Teams get hot at the right time and make a nice run. Unfortunatel,y Purdue has not had success in that manner. However, they have been able to endure and triumph through a very tough conference season 21 times. That cannot be dismissed just because of the lack of their tournament success. In some respects it's a crapshoot, but the best programs get to the Final Four and Title Game much more frequently than your Boilermakers. At some point it has to count for something. As for your next point, how do you have any clue how "very tough" the conference seasons were in 1920? Of your 21 Big Ten titles, 13 were won between the years of 1911-1940. I mean for many of those years, the radio didn't even exist. Yes I know that's part of the "historically the best" argument that Bum made, but you cannot honestly compare a Big Ten title in 1921 to one any year after 1960, when there were advancements like the shot clock, national recruiting, and television that completely revolutionized the level of play in college basketball. You can't win 62% of your titles 70 years or more ago, then have a couple of good recruting classes in the mid-80s and mid-90s while having a tournament history that pales in comparison to half of the conference, and then claim that Purdue is historically the 2nd best team in the Big Ten with a straight face.

You can see where this is going. The Bulls throw all the eggs in Wade's basket, Bosh gets traded/signs somewhere before Wade does anything, and Wade eventually reups with Miami and it will never be clear if he had even considered Chicago at all.

Fizer - bust, bad draft pick Curry - part of the infamous Chandler/Curry HS gamble, I don't know if it was bad scouting, bad, cs coaching or if it was just that these are just risky picks that failed. Also one of the weakest drafts ever. But we gave up Brand in this draft so it's a net huge loss. Williams - Not really our fault, we told him not to ride a motorcycle Hinrich - Horrible luck. Bulls finished really strong that year and got the 7 pick. Before their pick: LeBron, Anthony, Wade, Bosh. After (best players): David West, Josh Howard. That's honestly it. Horrible luck there. Gordon - Was a fine pick, maybe not for number 3 but the draft was a little weak. Devin Harris, Al Jefferson, Iguodala, Josh Smith and Kevin Matin drafted after, but none of them is outrageously ahead of Gordon on talent, if at all. None Thomas - Yeah this was pretty bad. We drafted Aldridge to trade for him, but the thing is everyone thought we needed Aldridge and Thomas was a much bigger project. They said Aldridge's ceiling is lower than Thomas' but the risk is less and he fits a need. Was highly questionable at the time and looks even worse now even though Tyrus isn't as horrible as people seem to think. Some were horrible picks, some were horrible luck, some were in the middle. I don't think drafting consistently high in the draft isn't the lock people make it out to be.

I'd be for the move, but its an extremely high risk move. It might be more risky than Harden, or at least as. Without fail Sheets has missed time with injury every single year since 2004, and sometimes twice a year. And that list doesn't include 2008 where he was unable to make his last 2-3 starts in the Brewers playoff push as well as unable to play in the postseason. Again, I'm for the move because it's a really high reward. He's one of the top 5-10 pitchers in baseball when he's healthy, but he's not healthy all that much.

You make it sound the Hawks should be afraid. I'm sorry I can't get afraid of the Ducks, I simply can't. There is not a team in the West that the Hawks can't beat. And you could argue the Hawks could beat every team in the NHL. So you're statement, NUN, really should fall on deaf eyes. I don't disrepsect the Ducks, I, and I am pretty sure the Hawks players themselves will agree with what I am saying, just don't fear them. To NUN's credit, the playoffs are another animal than the regular season. Things get more physical, different styles of play are more effective than in the regular season. You can be a great regular season team and fall flat on your face in the playoffs. Most teams can translate well, and the Hawks team certainly answered questions about their playoff abilities last season when they went to the WCF. But all it takes is one bad matchups and a few bad breaks and the best team in the NHL is eliminated. Plus being the best team in the NHL, if that's what the Hawks are, is not always a black and white kinda thing. You can have the ability to beat just about every team or style in hockey, but there might be a team out there that can keep up with them and play them well. To that team, the Hawks aren't the best team in hockey. I'm speaking in hypotheticals here, but my point stands. I'm at the crossroads of wanted to say "lets not get to cocky here", and "screw it lets enjoy it while it lasts because our teams are never this awesome, lets act cocky". As for the Ducks, NUN has a reason to respect them, as the little 8 seed that could took out the number 1 seed Sharks, and took his Wings, the number 2 seed to 7 tough games. I believe that game 7 was tied until the last couple of minutes when the Wings finally put them away. And after that tough series, the Wings regrouped to take care of the Blackhawks with ease. So you never know. Let's just enjoy our team being really damn awesome and try not to look too hard at the playoffs, a lesson I learned from the 2008 Cubs season. I don't think I appreciated that year as much as I could have because all I focused on from May onwards was the playoffs, and look where that got me.