DivineBovine

Don't worry guys. We'll win the next one 14-0 and then lose the next 2 by 1-0. Go Pythagoran Cubbies!

Except when the 2003 NLCS is on the line.

I think I'll start a thread entited "DLee sucks".

That just ensures a 1 run loss. Gotta keep the pythagorean record intact.

Regardless of if they run the Cubs for profit (which I think any owner will do) they also need to field a winner if they want people to come to the ballpark. The Tribune Company has been very fortunate that the Cubs have had "good" teams, at least on paper. My dad told me that when he use to go to games in the 1960s the upper decks use to be closed. If the new owners are perceived as only out to make a profit and not put out a good product people will stop going to the games and profit will suffer. I'm sure all owners are going to want to make a profit. I think the difference is that some will want to maximize their profit. They could probably maximize the profit by putting together a good team instead of a great team. The thought that profit is maximized by producing a winner is pure fallacy. There's a big difference between revenue and profit. A team that wins is always going to have more revenue, but that doesn't mean that it will have the most net profit. Wasn't Milwaukee hugely profitable when they sucked? And what about Florida and their $20 million payroll. The fact is, owners whose priority is to win don't maximize profit. You'd have to be dumb to lose money every year just to win, but that doesn't mean sports owners all prioritize profit- like the Tribune company did. Whoever the new owner is, its tough to imagine them being worse than the Trib has been. And I certainly haven't been fooled by their current payroll. The only reason they have written some big checks the last couple years is the impending sale.

100 years after the last Cub WS, they will lose on the road in game 7 of the 2008 World Series. Thanks Dan Uggla.

The length should refer to the distance from the end of the grip to the sole of the club, or more precisely, the point at which a line formed by the sole intersects the line formed by the shaft. Club length should not vary according to hosel length. Unfortunately, manufacturers seem to measure length differently. My Pings at 1/2 inch over standard are the same length as my new Taylor Made irons, although the Pings measure 38.25" while the Taylor Mades measure 38" according to the manufacturer. Perhaps a more important measure is lie angle. Lie angle is an important component of fitting. That is the angle between the line formed by the sole and the line formed by the shaft. Lie angle is another measure that varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.

Isn't it cheating to time the closing of the roof so that the Cubs bat with the pitcher in the sun and the roof is fully closed by the time the Jays bat?

Some quotes from Cuban that I liked: When asked who he would draft: Beasley or Rose On Sam Smith:

Hey, cooking books takes time. Remember when we told everyone we barely broke even in the 90's and blamed it on the White Sox being in the same town? Oh, that's our bad. We actually made a billion dollars. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

This team is so good it makes me sick.

I don't either. I don't see how so many people can be so negative about him. The one time he actually had a championship worthy team, he almost won it. Maybe Collins was "immature", "emotional", maybe he had personality issues at the time, but there is no way I would blame him for not winning a ring. Phil Jackson got way too much credit for all the Bulls championships, still does to this day. Let's face it, the team was about to win. It didn't matter much who coached at that point, as long as that coach didn't screw things up, ran Tex Winter's triangle, and let MJ do his thing. And then Phil goes and wins with Shaq and Kobe in their primes. Wow, what a tough task. He should've won more with those Laker teams. Phil's Zen magic wouldn't have done squat with the Wizards or Pistons teams that Collins coached. And Phil wasn't the reason the Bulls broke through for championships. I'm curious to see what Doug Collins can do with the team.

A few things: 1) re: hybrids- everyone should use them. Even pros are playing them. Tiger doesn't use a hybrid, but he uses a 5 wood rather than a 2 iron, and he's the best ball striker in the world and could hit a 1 iron consistently. The issue isn't the ability to hit a club, its what you can hit better. To think that a hybrid prevents you from learning to hit a long iron is a terrible reason to not own one IMO. 2) Re: knockoffs. I hate to bash knockoff since so many people seem to like them. They are cheap, and plenty of people play them. They only resemble their counterparts in pure looks. They do not have the technology or quality of the real thing. why mess around with a knockoff when you have no idea what you are getting. They are made by shady people overseas and violate all sorts of patents and really have no quality control. A lot more goes into making a club than making it look a certain way. With ebay, clubs are more affordable than ever. After a club is replaced by a newer model, the price tanks. Clubs are replaced every year. Pro-line top quality equipment can be had in great or new condition for the price of a cheap knockoff. There is simply no reason to go with a knockoff these days, imo. Check ebay. Anyone want advice on woods or irons in a particular price range for a particular type of player, I'd be happy to make a recommendation. Ebay is the place to go.

Eh, I like their woods. I play with Nike woods and Taylor Made irons. As for the slingshots, they are kind of ugly. A friend of mine had a set and let me hit them, and I found them to be very easy to strike the ball solidly with, but hard to work the ball with as well. Maybe good for a beginner, imo. I'm sure they are forgiving. I was referrring to the clunkiness factor. To many people, clunky irons prevent solid contact, particularly beginners. The slingshots are some of the clunkiest irons I've ever seen.

I'd avoid the slingshots. They are huge. And that's probably why they flopped so bad. They are horrible to look at and really clunky. Bigger is more forgiving, but if its too big to enable a solid strike, then it defeats the point. Slingshots were a bigtime flop for Nike. Personally, I'd avoid Nike clubs, especially if you are an average or worse player. They used to make crappy clubs and relied on Tiger to sell them (Tiger does not use any Nike clubs that you can buy in any store, btw). Now, their clubs are okay, but their forged irons are good for expert players and their woods are just OK- plenty better out there. Look on ebay. You can get plenty of good iron sets for $300 or so. Try looking at the following: Taylor Made Rac OS, Taylor Made 320, Taylor Made 360, Ping G2, Ping I3, Callaway X 18, Callaway X 16. All these sets are 1-3 year old models and are every bit as good as current iron sets, and all are forgiving for the average player. All were in the $500+ range when they were current. And all blow away the Slinghots, IMO. I wouldn't go near the slingshots, personally. They have to be the ugliest clubs I've ever seen at address. Yuck. As far as woods go, check out Taylor Made, Callaway, Ping. All better than Nike, IMO.

Recent highly drafted (top 10) 6'9" ish fowards: 2007: Kevin Durant, Al Horford, Jeff Green, Corey Brewer, Brandon Wright, Joakim Noah, 2006: Lamarcus Aldridge, Tyrus Thomas, Shelden Williams, Rudy Gay 2005: Marvin Williams, Charlie Villaneuva, Channing Frye 2004: Dwight Howard, Emeka Okafor 2003: Darko Milicic, Chris Bosh, Michael Sweetney Recent highly drafted PG's: 2007: Mike Conley 2006: none 2005: Chris Paul, Deron Williams 2004: Devin Harris 2003: TJ Ford Guys that can score and rebound are way way more common than playmaker PG's. This is true in the draft, and this is true in the league. And look at all those forwards. Some very good players, even some great ones. A lot of mediocre players. And a lot of mediocre players who got drafted over much better guards because they could put up 20/10 type numbers against smaller, slower, weaker guys in college or high school. Yawn. PG's who are projected to be bona fide #1's don't come along very often, and PG's who proved themselves in college are even more rare. Rose supposedly has once in 10 year talent, you have to take him. If he has a chance at being Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Steve Nash, its a no brainer. Players like that are simply not available, and make a huge impact on their teams. Guys that can score and rebound can be had. They can be traded for, they can be paid as free agents. And they can't easily carry their teams to championship contenders. It's not necessarily about who's better Rose or Beasley, because they play different positions. It's about how often are you going to have an opportunity to get a PG of Rose's caliber vs yet another power forward who can score and rebound, who maybe can do it in the NBA.

the black steve nash? Nash can only dream of being so athletic.

I doubt the Clippers would do that, but that would be sweet from the Bulls point of view. Then again, I wouldn't mind the Bulls doing whatever this offseason (besides getting Rose, and then throwing the bank at Wade next year). Rose and Wade would be absolutely incredible). Don't they both have opt out clauses? Maggette is supposed to be gone anyways as a FA, Elton is coming off an injury and may stick around. Elton still only has another year remaining, so I'd say he's definitely tradeable. After all, the Clippers arent going anywhere in the West in 2008-9.

Unlike the sentiment on this board, a lot of the mock drafts have the Bulls taking Beasley. I think they are making a big assumption- that the Bulls are content with Hinrich. I certainly am not. He's a solid player, but the Bulls are going nowhere with him at PG unless they have superstars elsewhere. He's no star, never will be. I agree that we should trade him. He may have some value. Try and get an inside scorer outside of the draft. They have tradeable assets and some money. They should sign and trade Gordon also if they have to (too bad Isaiah isn't still around). He's one dimensional and is a poor ball handler. It's been a long time since the team had a player that can create off the dribble. Hopefully, Pax sees it this way also.

How do you know that if you are not number 9 you must be 3 or better? 1.9% chance. Amazing. The way the lottery works. Only the top 3 are determined by lottery, the rest of the picks are by record for the teams that didn't win a top 3 spot. That's why it was impossible for the Bulls to land picks 4-8. Therefore, when the Bulls were not announced at #9, it meant they were top 3.

Sweet. NUMBER ONE!!!!!! I wonder what Dantoni was thinking. Haha.

I agree that to the Trib, it was all about money. They obviously don't give a rat's ass with regard to the future of the team, their primary motivation has always been money. To me, this says that they rethought the initial theory that the 2 assets would fetch more money apart. Many of us have mentioned in prior threads that any owner would want both assets together. Clearly, not owning Wrigley and being locked into a lease with the owner of Wrigley would affect the potential bids for the Cubs. As a fan, this is fantastic news. I was very concerned about the prospect of another entity owning Wrigley. This would mean profits from the park to be separated from profits from the Cubs and therefore not necessarily being reinvested in the team. After all, the owners of Wrigley would be motivated sheerly by profit. We all hope that the owners of the Cubs will be motivated primarily be the desire to win- after all, billionaires don't buy sports franchises primarily for profit. There are better investments out there. Let's hope for an owner who is willing to dish out the dough to win. The fans deserve it.

78 Eh, one more inning then. I'd still take him out. But I'd have let him bat anyways.

Who knew Aramis was such a speedster. First the steal yesterday and now this.

That's Cy Wainright.