dalgreen

Is it a requirement that every one of our starters not named Maddux has to throw 100 pitches by the fifth inning?

Sadly enough, that lineup could probablly score just as much as the regular lineup.

ie Jose Cruz Jr.? I wasn't talking about anyone specific, particularly not an ex-Twin... No, but Cruz fits the bill. He was picked up after being DFA'd by the D-Backs, then 2 weeks later is DFA'd again by the BoSox. Think they found something irregular in the pee cup? Jose Cruz, Jr. is a "star" player?

I agree with you totally and that is the issue I have with the NCAA ban. Yes to some it is offensive, yet to others it is not. So now that the NCAA has sided with those who find it offensive, where do they draw the line? I have read alot about the Fighting Irish. Is that next? What is to stop the Irish who are offended from getting a ban on that? (I am not Irish so that may be a bad example since I really don't know how true Irish people view it) There were always be some group offended by something, but there has to be a line drawn (much like JC's little chart). The NCAA has now set a precedent and I just feel there may be a huge flood of people coming out of the woodwork to see to it that they are not offended by mascots and nicknames that have been in existance for nearly 100 years. I don't think that changing nicknames will affect (effect?) a teams performance, but if that team wants to keep what it has had it's school tradition set in, it should be allowed to. Likewise if a schools mascot/nickname is deemed offensive it should be up to them to change it, not the NCAA. Of course this is all my opinion and I could be way off base in other minds. I think it's a bad analogy whenever anyone uses Notre Dame as an example. When Notre Dame made the decision on the nickname there weren't Asians or Native Americans at the table making the decision, it was Irish Catholics. I know there were no Native Americans at the table when Illinois chose to have Chief Illiniwek as its mascot, nor were they present when Washington's football team decided to call itself "Redskins" or Atlanta or Cleveland, etc. After all there must be something to it, Stanford changed its name almost thirty years ago, and then later St. John's, Marquette, Miami (OH) and others. I think people go way, way overboard when they bring up stuff like PETA will find nicknames of animals offensive. They might if they were whipping them or treating them cruelly, but when people say PETA will then say they find animal nicknames offensive I think they're grasping for straws.

Just as I suspected, I found a site that says that the term Redskin does come from the scalping of Native Americans. Not saying your quote isn't accurate, but just that I'm sure on this issue there are two sides. I would hope the person who told me way back in college wasn't making it up. Who knows. If I were more computer literate I'd have listed the site, but it's one of the first ones I found when using the search engine for the term "Redskin". It's still interesting how the term "Redskin" came to being.

You must be burning up some bandwidth. Interesting find. Interesting find. So I guess the term "Redskin" comes from the skin color of Native Americans? I'm guessing, I don't know. All I know is that I know of no Native American who looks like the one depicted on their helmet. And I'm not about to tell them they shouldn't be offended by that logo or any other logo just as I wouldn't tell an Arab American they shouldn't be offended if several depictions of them on tv shows have them as terrorists. Ultimately, what are people really afraid of if all Native American nicknames and mascots were eliminated? Would sports as we know it cease to exist?

Nicknames, however, are part of the ban, as quoted above from the link in the original post. As far as the Cleveland Indian goes, I deem it as a characiture. Nothing more. As such, I likewise don't deem every Latino priest as a fat, round cleric running around in a brown tunic a la the mascot of the Padres. Similarly, I don't think all Irishmen look like Leprechans, I don't think all pirates have one eye, and I don't think people who fabricate boilers carry around sledgehammers. Common sense isn't suspended just because someone flaunts a mascot out in front of you. Thanks. I stand corrected. I read the original story on some other site and it said the same thing, but I didn't see how the NCAA would view a nickname as "hostile or abusive" so I kind of ignored that and paid greater attention to the mascot issue. I understand you deem some things as characitures, but I also understand, equally, that there are those who find it offensive and I just don't question their sensitivity. You will always find people who think some things are fine where other things are offensive. There's a poster who finds Blue Collar TV offensive. Should I just ignore their view as being over sensitive? As an Illinois alum, getting rid of Chief Illiniwek will have no bearing on the success of our sports teams.

I know we're only playing "what ifs", but it sure would be nice if the Cubs can field a lineup without the usual "ifs" to it. Man, our "ifs" sure didn't pan out this season.

From what I was told by a Native American is that the term "Redskin" is deemed like a racial slur. The term "Redskin" was first used back in the late 1800's when they were scalped. And the scalping was not just related to the head, but their skin would be "scalped". I'm just telling you what was told to me. Once again, people are using the George Bush school of thought - tell something that's not the truth, but close enough to it so that people will believe you. Once again, it's the mascots that many Natives and non-Natives find offensive not the nicknames. The nicknames are a tribute, but when you have some ridiculous stereotypical depiction of Native American people, that's where people get offended. What Native American do you know who looks like the logo on the cap of the Cleveland Indians? Washington Redskins helmet? The Blackhawk painted on center-ice at the UC? Again, it's not the nicknames that are offensive it's the minstrel characters.

I'm very frustrated at this team right now, but at this point what difference does it make? Even if Murton were given an everyday job, he, alone, would not turn this pathetic offense into a seven run a game team. Our offense plain stinks. Our 2-6 hitters were 3-19 today. We need multiple players not just one new guy in there over one bad guy.

Can you give us Fredi Gonzalez's baseball philosophy? I know about his affection of young players, but that can't be the only baseball skill he has.

I don't care who manages the Cubs. There is no manager alive or dead who would make this collection of 25 players any better. We need a new manager, GM and players. Or at least two of the three. No to Little. I don't think Baker is a horrible manager and I don't think Little is a horrible manager. Remember, Little got fired more so because he wasn't Theo Epstein's hire - the GM before him hired Little. The excuse is the 2003 ALCS, but had he been hired by Epstein, you better believe he wouldn't have been fired.

I've drawn mine too, but unfortunately we will get to hear how it's injuries and unsupportive fans who are to blame. The more ridiculous this gets, however, the more likely that Baker AND Hendry are gone. There were very real rumblings from the Trib Tower mid season when things were going bad. By and large, Baker and Hendry got healthy within a couple games of the WC race and have since plummetted. The suits aren't going to be happy with the bottom line at all. The Cubs have regressed while the payroll has increased and Baker and Hendry have gotten about everything they wanted. It is beginning to be a glaring embarrassment for the corporation. I can't believe that Hendry is on completely solid footing. I tend to think there's a bigger rift between Hendry and Baker than is widely believed. I would wager money that, if this continues for about 3-4 more games, Baker would be gone, and the payroll slashed to about $75-85m for 2006, with Hendry given a stern "last chance" mandate. I'll take that cyberspace bet. If there's a rift, all Hendry would have to do is fire Baker or get rid of some of the players that they disagree over. Funny thing is, after Alou, Mercker and Farnsworth and moving Clines to hitting coach were let go during the offseason there were plenty of people saying that this was an example of Hendry taking control of the team. Some control.

I've drawn mine too, but unfortunately we will get to hear how it's injuries and unsupportive fans who are to blame. The more ridiculous this gets, however, the more likely that Baker AND Hendry are gone. There were very real rumblings from the Trib Tower mid season when things were going bad. By and large, Baker and Hendry got healthy within a couple games of the WC race and have since plummetted. The suits aren't going to be happy with the bottom line at all. The Cubs have regressed while the payroll has increased and Baker and Hendry have gotten about everything they wanted. It is beginning to be a glaring embarrassment for the corporation. I can't believe that Hendry is on completely solid footing. But does MacPhail have the nads to fire Hendry? Remember, as bad as it was with Lynch, it was Lynch who resigned... twice.

By my count, our 2-6 hitters went a robust 3-19 today.

Not meant to start a lengthy discussion, but that's why I wasn't too upset at Ohman being brought in. The stupidity of Wood coming out of the pen hurts because he can't be used two straight days, and Williamson really shouldn't pitch but two games a week. That really leaves Novoa, and I wouldn't want him facing the Reds' lefties. But, the whole thing known as the Cubs just simply stinks right now. From Hendry on down, the only ones I'd be sad to see go, would be Lee, Ramirez, Prior, Zambrano and Walker.

isn't there a guy on the bench with a .400 average and .490 OBP? i think he has red hair. We also have a guy who has a .490 OBP in Iowa. But he has no tools.

Which is why I'm not that upset at bringing Ohman in. Our best bullpen arm can't throw two days in a row. Isn't this Dempster's first outing since last week in Philly?

With the offense we have, I'm trying to figure out a way Chris Carpenter will not throw a no-hitter against us.

So does Pat. And he's usually good, but from his call he thought Ramirez's ball was leaving the yard.

Can someone look up to see how may earned runs we've given up in the eighth inning compared to other innings?

Can't blame Ohman. He's a loogy. That's not a good enough excuse. Our bullpen has been used up. Righties aren't hitting a thousand against him. I'm listening on the radio, but based on the way our bullpen has been I bet he missed location. And, once again, I wish our starters would realize it is permitted in major league baseball to pitch a complete game. Yes, that means you may have to give up gunning for double digit strikeouts, but going 9IP with four K's and a "W" would be good enough.

I love Ron Santo, but sometimes I wish they would do a three-man booth so we could have a real analyst. Pat shouldn't have to do play and play and color if there's someone else in the booth.

How many pitches has Harang thrown?

Perhaps Mr. Hendry will address the bench problem next year. I could've sworn we said that last year, too.