Outshined_One

I love watching the guy call games in which I have no interest. He makes those games so much more exciting and dramatic. When he's calling games in which I have a rooting interest...he makes those games painfully dramatic, haha.

It that on BTN? Yep. Also, groan.

Michigan/Wisconsin has been impressively sloppy so far.

He played some 2B over the past two seasons, so I think the Cubs already have a bit of a jump start on that one.

I think Samson has a Theriot-like ceiling, maybe a tick better athletically. Flaherty's a tough one to evaluate. He has good power potential and has shown some nice strike zone judgment. His bat should be good enough to make the majors and stick there, but his eventual position is up in the air.

I have Nate Samson playing 2B and backing up SS at Daytona (Samson's defense was really bad last year - worse than Flaherty). I'm honestly willing to dispute that. I saw Samson enough last season in Peoria to think he has the chops to stick at SS. I think his errors were more mental than anything else, since he has the physical and mechanical chops to stick there. It just seemed to me like he was shaky early in the season, but got his act together as time went on and he got more reps. Frankly, I think the Cubs would be better off with Flaherty at 2B or 3B and Samson at SS.

The guy's not a future superstar, let's be frank here. However, he's a nice bench candidate with some power.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

I totally forgot about Lilly bowling over Molina. That was freaking amazing.

Ala Richard Harden from last year. After years with Kerry Wood and Mark Prior, I've kind of gotten used to it.

I want Neifi Perez on the list. Just to show that their performance-enhancing aspect is questionable in baseball.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I'm curious about a handful of them, but that's about it. I'll definitely see some games in Peoria this year, but none of those names really excite me. I'm hoping some better names get added to that list.

I don't think I've ever seen a Cubs lineup with less known commodities... It really says something when the top two prospects in the lineup are Micah Hoffpauir and Darwin Barney.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! My favorite JoBo memory was a game against the Cardinals back in...2004 I think? He was having enormous struggles with his stuff. The Cubs were up 1 run and Borowski had to face Pujols, Edmonds, and Rolen in the 9th. Somehow, some way, he managed to go 1-2-3 in that inning.

Do you mean next year or within the next few years? Vitters having the kind of year he's capable of means that he likely shows up in top 10 lists next season. Of course, I believe that if he has the kind of year he's capable of, he'll have the kind of season that Dope put up in the MWL. I should have clarified. Did you mean that about anyone else in the system next year, or anyone else in the system within the next few years?

Do you mean next year or within the next few years?

There's an amazing lack of historical context going on here. Anabolic steriods were really first developed in the 30s, and refined in the 40s. They (specifically Dianabol) were approved by the FDA for use in '58. It wasn't until the 60s when they realized the negative side effects of abusing steriods, namely enlarged prostates and shrunken testes, among others. The International Olympic Committee didn't ban steriods until the 76 games. The government's first attempt to regulate steriods came in '79, but that didn't control much, much less ban anything. The first act that actually banned steriods for non-medical purposes was anti-drug abuse act of 1988. The whole era where athlete's "had" to use steriods to be competitive didn't arise until the mid 70s. Considering they weren't legal, and they weren't even addressed by the IOC until 1975, I don't think it's fair to single out the NFL for what was going on in the 70s. Those Steeler's teams overlapped the time when we first started to realize how bad steriods were. That's not to say they get a free pass in the least, quite the contrary. Those guys were still using them after the international governing bodies addressed it. But, considering what we knew then and what was going on, I think the NFL acted much more prudently with regards to the problem than the other sports. Could they have done more, and could they have done more sooner? Yeah. They don't get a free pass. But let's not start crucifying people for doing something that was perfectly legal, within the rules, and accepted at the time. Let's learn from it and do the right thing now instead. You have to separate out the historical context from the current context, though. It may have been more acceptable to do steroids in the 1970s and its legality was not completely addressed until the late 70s/early 80s. That is definitely a fair assertion. However, I was referring more to the current backlash against that use. As I said above, if Hank Aaron came out tomorrow and admitted to steroid use to help him achieve the home run record, he would be strung up. Numerous people in the media and in politics would be shrieking for his records to be stripped. They would advocate him even being banned from the Hall of Fame. However, if Lawrence Taylor came out tomorrow and said the same thing about his records, there would not be anywhere close to the same kind of backlash against him. The same is true today. Look at the reaction A-Rod has gotten for his steroid use and compare it to the reaction Shawne Merriman got for his steroid use. The gulf between the two in terms of media coverage and outrage is astoundingly large. Merriman did not get a free pass for his actions, but the difference in terms of public outrage is huge. That's the whole point of what I was trying to get at. There is a double standard in terms of attitudes towards PED use in football and baseball. The reason for that double standard is a unclear to me, since athletes in both sports have incentive to use them for injury recovery and performance enhancement. The only thing I can really think about is the over-romanticization of baseball compared to football, but even that seems to be on shaky ground, in my mind.

And they promptly blow it in impressive fashion. It was pretty much a given they'd lose this one. I'm glad they put up a valiant effort, but blech, this team really sucks at scoring. Winning two out of their last three should secure a tournament berth.

If Hank Aaron came out tomorrow and admitted he was on steroids in his career, there would be talk of stripping him of his records and possibly expelling him from the Hall of Fame. Meanwhile, Terry Bradshaw and a large number of other guys who played for the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 1970s, many of whom are in the Hall of Fame, have admitted to steroid abuse. No one has talked about stripping them of their records. Talk about putting an asterisk next to their Super Bowl wins has been non-existent until recently (and even then, it was one writer who said it). There is an enormous double standard when it comes to steroids in football and steroids in baseball. I think that's the point Beertown was trying to make.

That just is not right.

Let Gregg close; I'd rather have Marmol as the fireman.

Wisconsin's getting hot at the right time. I'm not expecting wins at MSU or at Minnesota, but wins at home against IU and Michigan should secure a tournament berth.

Is it clear whether "worse" means whichever team has the worse record or whichever team is picking further down in the draft? Whichever pick is lower. Likely the Nuggets pick. After doing some digging, OKC doesn't have Phoenix's first round pick this year... I'm confused as to what the Bulls got in this trade.

Is it clear whether "worse" means whichever team has the worse record or whichever team is picking further down in the draft?

I'm happy to get Hughes off the books and out of Chicago.