Outshined_One

I'm guessing Dunn's bunting ability might not be good enough for him to consistently get it past the pitcher. I still might give it a shot against a pitcher who I was 0-9 agaisnt lifetime. Potentially, but lefties tend to fall off the mound to the 3B side. Dunn doesn't have very good speed and I'm guessing he bunts rarely as it is. You need a good bunt to get it past the pitcher and in fair territory. The odds of that happening compared to Dunn getting a hold of one or drawing a walk are not very good.

I'm guessing Dunn's bunting ability might not be good enough for him to consistently get it past the pitcher.

I know it's a pipe dream, but here's my rationale. The Yankees are currently in that annoying in-between place where teams can convince themselves that they're in contention and not hold a fire sale, but the team is too far back and not quite talented enough to make the kind of push needed to make up a 5-7 game deficit in August and September. They're not going to outright dump any players for prospects at this point. So, I can see them making two types of trades: 1) Deals which make them just as good as they currently are, but they shed some salary and have a good future in the long term. 2) Deals which improve them immediately while possibly shedding some salary and getting some long-term help. While the Yankees would have a downgrade at 3B (although Blalock is a solid player), they would receive immediate huge upgrades at 1B and RP. Moreover, they get themselves set up nicely salary-wise (the luxury tax hurts) since Blalock is cheap over the long haul and Gagne's a FA after this season. Blalock and Teixera combined is better than A-Rod and Andy Philips, imo. That would help the Yanks out quite nicely. Humberto Sanchez is the big name out of that group, but he underwent Tommy John Surgery in the spring and is currently rehabbing it. He was the big name in that deal. Kevin Whelan has done fine in limited time. Anthony Claggett has been respectable.

It would take a boatload for that group, and at least 2 blue chippers. The Cubs don't have any outside of possible, Felix.....and I don't see the Yanks giving up Hughes when they are giving up ARod. The Yankees farm system has rebounded pretty well over the past two or three years. Ian Kennedy, Joba Chamberlain, Austin Jackson, and Jose Tabata are all doing fairly well and are all held in rather high regard. So, they don't have to give up Hughes...necessarily speaking.

Mesa shutout the Rangers 8-0. Suarez with two scoreless/hitless with 3 BBs and 2 Ks. Andy Lopez (remember him?) hit a home run and is hopefully going to get back on track for a return to Peoria soon.

I have a baaaaaaaaaaad feeling about this thread... Also, my contribution: Hendry seems to target guys who will, in all likelihood, stick with the Cubs for longer than half a season. With guys like Ramirez and Lee, they were under contract for a reasonable amount of time. With Garciaparra, Cubs fans welcome him with open arms and he responded by re-signing with the team for a reasonable price. When it comes to guys who are utility and mid-level players, he doesn't tend to trade for guys who are going to stick around for longer than a year. One name sticks out in terms of the Nomar comparison... Alex Rodriguez fits the Nomar mold in that he would pretty much get non-stop standing ovations for the first week he's with the Cubs and would also get to be back under his old manager, whom he admires and respects. If he came here, I think the odds of him staying in Chicago would be quite high. The problem is, the Yankees are 7.5 games out in the East and 6.5 back in the Wild Card. That's far enough back that they're not actively in contention, but that's not far enough back for them to blow up the team. The only way I could see the Cubs getting him is if they help the Yankees get players they need now, ala the four team Nomar deal. So...what about a three way deal with the Rangers? Cubs get: A-Rod Yankees get: Teixeira, Blalock, Gagne Rangers get: A boatload of Cubs and Yankees prospects

There's a funny thing about Vitters potentially not signing. Under the new rules, the Cubs would get a draft pick immediately following the #3 pick in the 2008 draft if Vitters does not sign. By that time, the new ownership will have taken over and the Cubs will (hopefully) be able to afford whatever draft pick falls into their laps. Here's hoping they get both Vitters and Sanchez, though. I'd be feeling really good about this draft class if both were signed.

The vig is part of what blunts the blow, but it's pretty much a given that there will be an unequal number of bets for two possible outcomes. If you track point spreads over a given period of time (i.e. if the Bears start out the week as 7 point favorites, but become 8.5 point favorites by game time), you can clearly tell which way the majority is betting on a given game. In that case, you'd like to have the majority lose. However, if you'd rather not get involved in these matters, you're right. Take your bookie charges and whatever money you get from the losers and walk away happy. Those are not the kind of people I'm talking about and who seem to be involved in this mess.

Organized crime is a strange thing. Gambling is a massive enterprise which can be incredibly lucrative, as Vegas has shown us. It's not about betting on games and rigging the game so that a certain outcome will occur; that's rather foolish. As it has been mentioned, numerous crazy things happen in games all the time and nobody wants to raise any eyebrows. If you bet a million dollars on a game, you don't want to be out a million dollars because of a fluke result. The real money is made with the bookies. While plenty of these criminal organizations run illegitimate sportsbooks, plenty of them also operate legitimate ones. They make a ton of money off of it in the process. This isn't about shaking down a hooker for $500 a week or about forcing a business to pay $1,000 a month for protection. Those are peanuts compared to what a large-scale gambling operation can pull in a night. Granted, an organization can still take part in those activities, but they're still relatively small-time. So, let's say you own a casino, so you're already a substantially wealthy person. Let's further say you have a huge baseball game coming up which is going to attract a lot of gamblers. The line on the game has caused a very large number of people to bet on Outcome A happening with a smaller number of people betting on Outcome B occurring. Odds are pretty darn good that if Outcome B happens, your casino will make a pile of cash. You want Outcome B to happen pretty darn badly and would be willing to take certain measures to make sure it does. However, if Outcome A occurs, you probably won't be too badly off since the Outcome B people blunt the financial blow. Now, granted, this is not the only way things can happen. Donaghy sounds like a compulsive gambler that got in debt to some small-time bookies who in turn got lucky he fell into their laps. However, the Gambinos are allegedly involved. Who knows what the real story is right now? My point is that there are plenty of people out there who have the resources, motivation, and organizational competency to pull something like this off and profit in a major way from it. Donaghy said he was going to cooperate with the feds. If he's not the only one who's doing this, the fallout could be unthinkable. At the very least, every major professional sports organization in the US has to be incredibly nervous about what's happening to Donaghy. If he knows other officials involved in this, it could be absolutely devastating. Having a problem like this be systematic has to be the worst nightmare of everyone associated with professional sports.

Look at it this way, if the Cubs started out with two losses like these and ended with two wins like they started with, you'd be much happier at this moment.

*Paging Mr. Pie, Mr. Soto, and Mr. Murton, your tables are ready.*

Didn't this team learn from Juan Pierre that scrappy singles hitters who are "veterans" and "leaders" are worthless?

We can't keep counting on our only power threat (Ramirez) to bail this team out whenever it's having offensive trouble. If this team isn't getting walks or hits, it's screwed.

I dont see how well Cliff plays RF has to do with how well Matt plays RF. Matt didnt play well in RF. Maybe hes better since getting starts in Iowa but in the majors he wasnt very good. Part of the reason a number of people were happy Murton got sent down was because he was defensively deficient in RF. Thus far, Cliff Floyd hasn't shown himself to be a defensive upgrade over Murton.

Trade Kendall, Jock, and Floyd. Call up Soto, Pie, and Murton. I don't see how the three young guys would be any worse than those three at this point in time. Floyd's a stiff in RF who no longer hits for any power.

...and yet, we had no trouble beating up on Brandon Webb. Yeesh.

Pie has hit 6 HRs over his last 10 games with a .372 BA, 11 Ks, and 2 BBs and the Iowa game isn't over yet. For the love of everything holy, call him up and play him every day

Time for chattin', kids. chat/flashchat.php

I liked your post quite a bit, but I'm not totally sure I agree in full with this part. I agree with the fact that there are certain aspects of baseball which an umpire could not rig a baseball game through. The second base umpire does not call balls and strikes. No umpire is going to call a single into center field a foul ball. Moreover, with the close plays that could heavily impact a game one way or another, the umpire cannot predict what it will be or whether he will be in position to call it one way or another. However, there is one aspect of the game which an umpire can heavily impact: when he is standing behind home plate. If you give one pitcher a tight zone and another one a loose zone, that will greatly help one team while greatly hurting the other. There's no guarantee that you will get the desired outcome, but you're upping the odds quite a bit by doing so. Yet, that umpire will only be in that position once every four games. So, at the very least, there is that safeguard. And yes, baseball is quite easy to bet on. Quite honestly, there are plenty of people out there who will bet on anything. You can bet on it game to game in different forms, to boot. You can bet on who will win, how much they'll win by, what the combined score is, and so on. I think this perception might be a result of the popularity of gambling on baseball compared to gambling on other sports, though.

With the Tim Donaghy scandal starting to pick up steam, I'm noticing some people are discussing the likelihood that he was not the only official who's ever engaged in this kind of behavior. Let's face it, officials can do quite a bit in attempting to fix the outcomes of certain games. Whether it's something as simple as expanding or contracting a strike zone or ignoring a minor foul on a player or whether it's something huge like a holding penalty on a TD pass, officials have a lot of power when it comes to determining the outcome. Moreover, it seems like people are inclined more to believe that officials are incompetent rather than believe the officials are intentionally affecting the outcomes of games. However, with this Donaghy thing happening, there might be a bit of a shift in the other direction. Maybe this issue is more of a problem than we think? So, here's what I'd like to delve into regarding baseball. Would it surprise you to find out an umpire has been affecting the outcomes of games for gambling purposes? I'd like to see what you all have to say.

Ruh roh.

Been awhile since we had a fake rally. I almost missed it.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but it's because he plays for the Colts. :(

The more Badgers on this board, the better. :D

Just a friendly reminder: chat/flashchat.php