Soul

Put plexiglass up all around the field and any ball that bounces off is in play. You wanted offense, Chicago.

He had plenty of time to practice, you know! I like how he believes he should receive "the benefit of the doubt" because of all the good he's done for the community. Yep, we should all be able to buy our innocence that way. I watched the 60 Minutes interview as well. I was patiently waiting for Wallace to drop the "lie detector" bomb on Clemens and was starting to wonder if he was ever going to ask Roger if he would be willing to take the test. This is where I think Clemens REALLY failed to look believable. Not that I needed a lie detector question to determine his innocence. Wallace asked Clemens if he'd be willing to take a lie detector test and Clemens really skirted that question, calling into question the validity of the tests. Wallace posed the question 3 or 4 different ways, and each response continued to call into question the validity of a lie detector test. So, if and when McNamee and Clemens each take a lie detector test and McNamee passes and Clemens fails, it will just be more icing on the cake. During the interview, I learned that McNamee had to be truthful to avoid prosecution. So, if I understand this correctly, and according to Clemens, McNamee risked his get out of jail free card and lied about Clemens taking steroids. Sure thing, Roger. :roll: Roger's story is now that McNamee was threated with prosecution if he didn't say what they wanted him to say about Clemens. The law suit is really a stretch. It's talking about "Cold-War era style questioning" and crap like that. I couldn't help but wonder if it was even written by an actual lawyer, it sounds so amateur. I would love to have had a bug on that Clemens/McNamee phone call.

I know a bucs fan, and getting him to even want to talk about his team is like pulling teeth. Most Pittsburgh baseball fans are so beaten into submission by now they couldn't care less what happens.

I can't believe we're going to give up 2 good pitching prospects for this guy and Cedeno. I think it's likely to turn out just horrible for us.

I think that last part is the only reason people are giving the Jaguars a chance. The Jets did it in horrible conditions because Brady couldn't pass the ball well at all. If the conditions are even decent for passing, New England will blow out the Jags. If they aren't, it could be interesting. I can't even imagine the Jags could win that game. This is Foxboro in January against the best team in a decade. Jags will fold like a house of cards.

Clemens files lawsuit against McNamee: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3184646

that's pretty asinine. fisher and dungy are two of the most respected coaches in the game. the colts didn't call time out because they didn't give a crap about winning the game. if the browns wanted to make the playoffs, they should've beaten the bungles in week 16. they didn't, so too damn bad. Or the Raiders back in Week 3. These are usually the only words that need to be read. PFT sucks, period. However, this time they're quoting Kerry Collins from an interview, so it has a little more weight than their normal "sources." Even if the Browns file a grievance, it will mean nothing. How can one separate the Colts not caring about the game from all the other teams that had nothing to play for? The Colts had one motivation in the final minutes of that game: get off the field with no further injury. How can the league tell a team not to act in their best interest?

. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/sports/baseball/04clemens.html Love the use of the word "banned". LOL, yeah I wonder how long it's going to take the larger masses to pick up on the huge loophole Roger is invoking with that particular word. Oh, and as I'm sure everyone knows, the best way to tell a lie is between two truths. It's the classic smokescreen technique.

The guy is the second coming of Jose Valentin. Avg to bad outfielder and infielder, avg power and typical batting average numbers with an obp. He also only hits .250 against right handed pitching despite his switch-hitting capabilities, and he is terribly slow. On a team with so many question marks and rotation problems, I don't see why you would give up one of the best AL pitching prospects around for an average guy like Swisher. Average? His OPS+ the last two years was 125 an 127 He is 27, and has a small salaried, long term contract. BTW Jose Valentine best year hitting was 116 OPS+ You post is what I like to call incorrect. And the supposed knowledgable White Sox fanbase is what I like to call overrated.

ROFL. White Sox fans whine about Rowand for the 10,000,000th time.

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for. Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home. Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease. Perhaps not "Go Home" but rather, "please play in our prestigious bowl game for a chance to win this cool trophy and claim to be that Bowl's champion for that year". (I liked how the Rose bowl was the reward for the Pac10 and Big 10 Champs. Tradition feels good sometimes.) Oh, and are you really using the "it would cause too much hypothetical arguing ad infinitum" argument against this concept? Really? Hehe, I see your point but I thought what we were trying to do was to come up with a way to eliminate the hypotheticals, not another way of just continuing with them. The Rose Bowl as it was? It was great, as long as the winner wasn't involved in the National Championship argument for that year. For example, the final year Michigan won it, there were co-national champs, nothing was solved, and it left everyone with a horrible taste in their mouths. That's why you just eliminate the concept of naming a National Champ. People can argue about who was the best team of a given year forever. They do anyway and this way there won't be any convoluted BCS or playoff system to muck it up. Every argument can be ended with "I guess we'll never know." What a fun way to pass the time between the last pitch of the world series and spring training. Yet people don't argue hypotheticals about the Super Bowl champ, even when it winds up being the 6 seed as it was 2 years ago with Pittsburgh. That's what a playoff gives you. Sure you can say the Pats and Colts were better that year, but the argument ends with "well they shouldn't have blown it in the playoffs then." Big difference. At least for me anyway.

I like Nessler, but Musberger is terrible. I don't know why or how he's still on ABC's 'A' team. Herbstreit should really be with Nessler because I think that would be a great booth. Nessler is stuck with two buffoons in Griese and Maguire. Just put those idiots with Musberger and make that your new west-coast team instead of having Dan Fouts as your west-coast play-by-play man. Fox could easily be doing a better job with the BCS, but I don't really care for ABC's coverage either. I just like Musberger. I don't care if he's terrible technically or whatever, I've been listening to his voice for decades and it feels comfortable to me when he's calling the game.

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for. Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home. Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease. Perhaps not "Go Home" but rather, "please play in our prestigious bowl game for a chance to win this cool trophy and claim to be that Bowl's champion for that year". (I liked how the Rose bowl was the reward for the Pac10 and Big 10 Champs. Tradition feels good sometimes.) Oh, and are you really using the "it would cause too much hypothetical arguing ad infinitum" argument against this concept? Really? Hehe, I see your point but I thought what we were trying to do was to come up with a way to eliminate the hypotheticals, not another way of just continuing with them. The Rose Bowl as it was? It was great, as long as the winner wasn't involved in the National Championship argument for that year. For example, the final year Michigan won it, there were co-national champs, nothing was solved, and it left everyone with a horrible taste in their mouths.

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for. Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home. Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease.

He's been better on the road this regular season, but it's still Eli on the road in a playoff game. He's Rex Grossman with more playing time under his belt. And Giants are not world beaters by any stretch. They nearly gave the Bears a win. They lost to every contender they played this year, with the lone win being early against Washington. Bears really had no business losing that game. I think the Gnats are vulnerable -- but then again, all the NFC teams are vulnerable. Tampa fans support their team well from what I've seen. I see a rocking house down there, and I also see Garcia being able to sidestep that rush more than some other QBs. Also, people are conveniently forgetting there's no Shockey. To me that's a factor. Of course, the fact that the Bucs generally suck on offense is also a factor.

Yikes, I can only imagine the slew of responses that are likely to follow. I joined the board a little over a year ago and am pretty sure I had a similar thought process back then. Might want to check out some of the baseball discussions that lay out the cold facts about strikeouts/stolen bases/Theriot's status as "team MVP". It is interesting to see how perception and reality often differs on a player. I believe I have been guilty of the same thing a few times :oops:

Bucs are going to shock everyone and beat the Gnats. Tiki's unloading every bit of knowledge he knows to Ronde even as we speak. There's my bold prediction for the week. I'm prepared for the proverbial egg on my face come weekend :)

Well, he's put up over an .800 OPS since he's stopped, including a .900 OPS season. And you honestly consider "the farm", Gallagher and Ptterson? I don't want to lose Gallagher, but you have to give something to get something. I could really care less about Patterson, considering we have Thomas in the organization who I believe is a better prospect than EPatt anyways. Then it comes down to Murton, who won't get any playingtime whatsoever this year, so it depends on how you perceive his trade value, and the reality is nobody knows. It might not be that much. For a team wanting to win, giving up a grand total of one player who would probably help you next year (Gallagher...and you don't even know how good he'll be) for a legit 2nd baseman who allows less at bats for the rest of our sucky players via DeRosa, I think it's alright, and certainly not giving up the farm. If there's any way to keep Gally, sign me up, but if it hinges on him being the main piece in the deal, i'll still take it. Alright, so I engaged in a little hyperbole. My point is, how can we be sure what we're really getting? And how do we actually know he stopped and got those numbers clean? We don't.

His word is the thing that landed him on the Mitchell report in the first place. What reason would he have to lie to his friend that he tried them once and then stopped? I can understand why he would lie to the press, but he told another ballplayer that he had stopped them back in 2004. If he wanted to lie, he didn't have to admit to the guy that he used steroids at all. It seems likely that whatever his other faults, right now it is only reasonable to believe Roberts at his word that he stopped taking steroids several years ago. The evidence doesn't make sense if you believe he's lying. What difference does it make if you are lying to a friend or the press? The end goal is the same: to save face by making others believe you stopped when you may actually not have. I don't see how telling it to another ballplayer somehow makes it truthful. I find it far more likely that a guy who used PEDs in the past kept using them, regardless of what he said. Again, though. I'm not condemning the guy. I'm just saying -- he's a known user. That elevates the risk considerably. I don't see any way an argument can be made against that. We're talking about giving up quite a load of prospects right now. Given the guy's past, I don't see why the price isn't now lower.

And I agree with you.

The only reason we have these arguments is because the bowl organizers won't give up power in order to give us a playoff system. That's why I try to stay out of it. I think everyone realizes it would be better. It's like banging your head against a brick wall with these guys though. They don't care if it's better.

I'm still not convinced Roberts won't simply suck post-Mitchell report. What assurances do we have that he isn't the product of PEDs? His word? And we're going to give up the farm for this guy? Why? I wouldn't be upset if this thing simply dies a quiet death.

That's exactly what he said. It's exactly what every god complex next big thing coach who thinks he's got the system to beat all systems thinks. The only thing between him and a title is effort from the kids. In a way, you probably have to think that way. But it's pretty funny how insanely overhyped "buying into the system" has become with modern coach/gods. It's pretty ridiculous. I think this is the first time I've ever heard a coach call out his seniors in that sort of manner. I don't know how anyone can actually defend that statement. Wow, did he really mean it that way? That sounds way harsh.

Yeah that was bad. I had stopped following that one.

Right. If all he needed to do was play good defense, we could trade him and bring up Jake Muyco. My bad. I agree Soto just needs to basically be a good ballplayer :wink: