dalgreen

Dobbs couldn't play on the Cubs. For some stupid reason he feels has to run hard out of the box.

Okay, putting aside bias, who has the best 12 to 6 curve? Adam Wainwright or Rich Hill?

I hope the Mark Redman that everyone else hits shows up tonight. Historically, it seems the Cubs stink against soft-tossing lefties.

I wish Theriot would've done what Marquis did.

You left out questionable calls by the home plate and 1st base umpires.

He still left with a lead Would you prefer he left with a 5-1 lead, or a 6-5 lead when you're on the road? Z stunk this game and he left with the lead thanks to a wild pitch. That's right, lots of aces leave with the lead not because they pitched well but because of wild pitches.

Has everyone forgotten how piss-poor our ace has been? Had he pitched like a $15 million dollar ace, we'd be over .500.

And strikes out against Matt Morris. Man, Albert has sucked so far this season. Rolen too. Which means Pujols will hit .380 from May- September.

Yeah, I don't get the game here, but how do you expect Murt to score on a groundball to the 3B with no outs? It was a high chop. Chipper had to go toward the pitching mound. I don't think he would've been able to go home with a good throw --- especially not in a two-run game.

Does Dusty work on fundamentals with this team? Oh wait....

Touche. No curse, bad baseball. if you think it's just bad baseball you haven't been a cubs fan for long. bad baseball doesn't last 100 years. if you traded rosters with the Yankees and had them play in Chicago, they would win I don't think so. I don't believe in curses, though. I think when you're a Yankee there is an expectation of winning and second doesn't count. I don't think that really exists with the Cubs organization. there's been an expectation of winning for 4 years now. they haven't. curses exist. Saying it and believing it aren't the same thing. Somehow I don't think the Yankees would have Jones, Floyd or Murton in their outfield.

Are any of you old enough to remember when the Braves were like the Cubs?

Touche. No curse, bad baseball. if you think it's just bad baseball you haven't been a cubs fan for long. bad baseball doesn't last 100 years. if you traded rosters with the Yankees and had them play in Chicago, they would win I don't think so. I don't believe in curses, though. I think when you're a Yankee there is an expectation of winning and second doesn't count. I don't think that really exists with the Cubs organization.

This makes reason #112 why I'm glad I moved from St. Louis.

At this point, isn't service time to the Cubs rather irrelevant? I have come to the belief that he is the Cubs' 2000 version of the 1990's Mike Harkey, a heralded pitcher who got hurt and may never be the same.

That's only because Ramirez generally plays it off by holding his hamstring, calf, groin, etc. after a pop up.

Man, that's exactly why I held out. I'm with you. I don't know what deal was made yesterday that couldn't have been made a week ago.

Thanks for this update. Let us know when you hear something new. I'm still holding out hope, BBB!

Depends on who your carrier is, I suppose. Cox (my cable company) is offering to pay 100% of my tab for MLB.TV. I prefer that over switching carriers. It sounds like the cable companies were in a no-win situation. DirecTV (whether you like their dealings with MLB or not) offered up a big package for EXCLUSIVE rights to MLB EI. While MLB did give the cable companies an opportunity to match what DirecTV was offering, as soon as they did, DirecTV would have turned around and pulled their offer off the table, since their exclusivity was no longer true. I haven't been following this as closely as I probably could have, but from what I gather, MLB is the only one who wins with all of this. Option A: DirecTV has exclusive rights to MLB EI Cable has nothing MLB gets basically the same amount of money from DirecTV that they received last year from everyone combined, and MLB.TV subscriptions increase dramatically. Option B: Cable matches DirecTV's proposal DirecTV reconstructs their deal because the exclusivity offer is no longer on the table, virtually changing nothing except a bigger profit for MLB (cable offer being much higher than previous year), though not nearly as much as MLB.TV subscription won't dramatically increase. Option C: DirecTV has exclusivity Cable refuses to pay the ridiculous matching price for MLB EI, but offers to pay 100% to their cable subscribers if they would like to purchase MLB.TV. Option C isn't ideal, but it attempts to keep their customers from switching to DirecTV. No matter how you slice it, all of these options help MLB profit big time. Preventing DirecTV from profiting is at least attempting to keep the competition (DirecTV) from profiting on the exclusivity deal. I'm going to go with MLB.TV. I can't place blame on my cable carrier for being in a no-win situation. And I appreciate that they value me enough as a customer to want to help me continue getting baseball games somehow. They didn't have to offer up anything at all. The amount of subscribers for out of market baseball games really isn't all that overwhelming that they would lose all that many customers to DirecTV if they did nothing. A high percentage of those people would have gone MLB.TV instead of switching carriers anyway. I still would have gone MLB.TV if they weren't offering to pay for it. In a perfect world, fans from everywhere could get out of market games on any cable or satellite system or via MLB.TV. We all know this world ain't even close to being perfect, so I guess Option C isn't the worst possible outcome. Yeah, I got my letter from Cox last week. We have to pay the $89 for MLB.com and then we'll get reimbursed in 6-8 weeks. So far, I have held out hope for the television package since we have until June to get the deal for MLB.com. The problem is what happens over the next six years because I don't think they'll give us this same deal.

Thank you. Thank you. I thought I was the only one thinking this.

It's called a prediction. I don't know why people are getting offended by it.

in his tenure at UK (97-07), Kentucky has only won fewer games than Duke, Kansas and UConn How long has it been since a Final Four? He won with a Rick Pitino team, which should've been the 3-peat (I still despise Simon for that one as well as Anderson's knee). my point was that 99% of the other team sin teh country would kill for the success of the guy you just ran out of town. I think UK fans are spoiled by their school's success. As they should be. Just because UK hasn't matched their past success doesn't mean they should lower their standards and expectations. I heard the same crap when Lavin was let go, but I can't think of too many UCLA alums, students or fans who were the least bit disappointed to see Lavin go. There's prob. 3 other schools that are in that position (UCLA, Duke, and UNC). Wonder if Travis Ford is a possibility.

Seems to me the same could be said about Happy Valley fans who were trying to push out Paterno.

Why shouldn't UK try to get Pitino, again? So what if he left before. Other than Donovan, none of the other names mentioned thus far have won a national championship.

Sure they do. Predicting 5th is absurd. For all intents, this team is adding Lee and Soriano to the offense. No more absurd than some people on here picking the Cubs to win the division this time last year... and, yes, there were quite a few. Until our pitching is as good as what the offense should be, I don't think it's absurd for anyone to predict a fifth place finish for the Cubs. By the way, shouldn't we pencil in Ramirez to be out for at least 15 games this year?