Soul

If he made the team out of spring training he would sit the bench nearly every day. IMO that would be horrific for the kid. Let him work on his hitting @ Iowa. Maybe I'll make the 5 hour drive down there to see him early this season.

I don't think it should be THAT black and white, but I do understand what you are saying. There are times that the pitcher really isn't to blame for the runs that score, so I still want a little accuracy when viewing the stats of a game. Differentiating between ERA and runs given up in general are useful stats, but don't really tell the whole story. As a team, yes, all runs scored count. No doubt. Doesn't matter how they score. I generally agree with the sentiment. The biggest problem I see is the subjective judging of what constitutes an error. I suppose it should more or less even out over the course of a long schedule.

This is the crux of it for me. DirecTV just does a much better job of this than cable (or Dish for that matter). They'll add extras, put more games on in HD, innovate the package -- something cable just never does. I'd like to use my HDTV as much as possible. If DirecTV offers more HD programming, I'm definitely purchasing this package. Too bad cable does not have the capacity yet to offer more HD channels. Perhaps some of you who are angry could write your cable company and ask them politely to get off their arse. The rest of the world is moving forward, with or without cable.

I guess on Chicago Tribune Live tonight Woody's career will be over too.

SS game, surely.

He wasnt as rated as high as he is now because of his recent combine. This draft was done before the combine and i dont think accurately projects what his value is now, running a 4.53 helped out a lot. Lotsa good LB no doubt in this draft. Timmons would be a fantastic pick if he slips. I don't see Timmons making it that far, but that would be a no-brainer at 31, not to mention 37. Really? I'd like to see Angelo avoid replacing Briggs with first-round money, especially since he's going to lose Briggs over money. As long as we're cutting a guy because we aren't going to pay him, it seems to make more sense to try to replace him with the same sort of high-value, low cost player.

Given home court and health, I think the Bulls can beat any team in the East in a 7-game series. Agree. I fully expect them to win a minumum of 1 series. I guess I'd consider that "doing damage". They're sitting at 5 right now. I don't think it's reasonable to assume home court at this point. They have home court right now because they have a better record than the 4th seed Toronto, and they are closer to the 3 seed than losing that home court advantage over the Raptors. Perhaps, but there are still games left to be played. Like I said, home court can't be simply assumed right now.

I also like Harris, but from what I'm hearing he's not being rated all that high in the draft. I think he'll slip to at least the 3rd round. nfldraftcountdown.com has him listed as a mid-round pick. Edit: I really wonder if Lawrence Timmons will slip to that #37 pick we've got. That would be perfect for Briggs' replacement.

I'll agree with that. I don't know that it rules out Adrian Peterson. Jamal could still be a very productive running back, but the likelihood is he should split time with somebody. If they draft AD, the two could split time and the backfield is set for years to come. I find that to be highly unlikely.

Given home court and health, I think the Bulls can beat any team in the East in a 7-game series. Agree. I fully expect them to win a minumum of 1 series. I guess I'd consider that "doing damage". They're sitting at 5 right now. I don't think it's reasonable to assume home court at this point.

If we want to look on the bright side, Prior never got that huge money, long term deal, so no matter what happens we won't be saddled with massive deadweight for years & years. There will always be other options out there, other ways to build a dominant pitching staff.

Of course you said the Bears had no chance against the Seahawks, so I think we can all pencil the Bulls in to the NBA Finals. :D 8-) I'd be happy to be wrong. Do you honestly see this team doing damage in the playoffs?

I call it foreshadowing. Indications of things to come in the playoffs.

......just gonna wait for another 2 ST starts. That's all.

They may have sold out, but there wasn't that many bodies in the seats. That's right. Fans finally pulled the plug on this thing. Then suddenly the Cubs are signing the top FA in the market -- for the first time that I can remember -- then they're outspending everyone in baseball, even the Yanks and Bo Sox. Looks like a pretty direct cause/effect situation to me.

You are simply wrong. 2004 spiked because of 2003 results. 2005 stayed high because of 2003/2004 results. Attendance spikes in the years following the playoffs. Additionally, tickets sales were in party driven by the huge profit margins on the secondary market. Fans had very high expectations in 2005 based on the relative youth of the core. By 2006 however, people started taking a bath on unused tickets. They sold out early, on higher expectations, but butts in the seats was clearly lower. And they would have stayed lower in 2007 had it not been for huge offseason investment. Explain the '87 - '93 flap then. Should 15-20 year old attendance figures really be used to classify the current fanbase's mentality? I'm saying no such thing. I've already said current Cub fans are expecting more, and showing a renewed willingness to express their displeasure.

Well, Sweet Lou said it can cause complacency so perhaps you might take it up with him. baseball people never say foolish things based on conventional wisdom with no basis in reality. I'll take the comment of a salty vet like Piniella about what does and doesn't affect players over posters on this board. No offense.

You are simply wrong. 2004 spiked because of 2003 results. 2005 stayed high because of 2003/2004 results. Attendance spikes in the years following the playoffs. Additionally, tickets sales were in party driven by the huge profit margins on the secondary market. Fans had very high expectations in 2005 based on the relative youth of the core. By 2006 however, people started taking a bath on unused tickets. They sold out early, on higher expectations, but butts in the seats was clearly lower. And they would have stayed lower in 2007 had it not been for huge offseason investment. Explain the '87 - '93 flap then.

This isn't true. Fans didn't suddenly changed. Fans have ditched Wrigley everytime the team sustained crappiness. They come back in droves when the team succeeds. The Cubs have been spending more than 80% of the teams in the league for over a decade. The myth of a complacent team with no incentive to win has no basis in reality. Not during the Sammy years, they didn't. Especially when you look at years like 1999 & 2004. of course during those 2 years they were also coming off a season where they made the playoffs. They reached 2 million for the first time in 1987. Record: 76-85 They maintained the 2 million mark all the way through their playoff year in '89 and up until 1992. Clearly no relation to playoff appearances. They reached 3 million in attendance for the first time in 2004. Then they maintained it throughout 2005 and 2006, despite, as goony said, "sustained crappiness." The idea that Cub fans leave when the team sucks is, quite simply, incorrect. The only thing that has helped change the paradigm is the World Series on the other side of town, and the resultant no-shows which appeared last year. For decades, Cub fans were known for not booing, and continuing to show up no matter what. This has changed.

Well, Sweet Lou said it can cause complacency so perhaps you might take it up with him.

I wonder if Rob Neyer will do a piece about how Joe Kennedy's career is over.

Baseclogger! 8-)

This isn't true. Fans didn't suddenly changed. Fans have ditched Wrigley everytime the team sustained crappiness. They come back in droves when the team succeeds. The Cubs have been spending more than 80% of the teams in the league for over a decade. The myth of a complacent team with no incentive to win has no basis in reality. Not during the Sammy years, they didn't. Especially when you look at years like 1999 & 2004.

Excuse my lack of modesty, but I've been trying to make this case for years. Finally someone of stature lets it slip: unwavering fan support even in the face of utter failure can have a negative impact. If the Cubs had good players that played poorly, maybe that would make sense. But the Cubs have sucked because their personel decisions have sucked, not because overly supportive fans brought about complacency. Why bother making great personnel decisions when it doesn't really matter? What doesn't matter? Are you arguing Wrigley sells out regardless of the record? Because that's not true. It was an easy ticket up until 1998. But in 2000 and 2001 it went back to being easy to get. It wasn't until the nearly unprecedented (for the Cubs) success of 2003 that Wrigley regularly sold out again. Management noticed all the empty seats late in 2006 and realized they weren't going to sell-out in 2007 without improving a lot. This is a tired old argument that doesn't hold up. The Cubs suck because management has sucked. Not because the fans show up. I know they suck because management has sucked. That's not even the argument. It's about incentive to win. You're right, last year really showed that the fans will leave if they stink it up. At long last, the fans started booing.......then they flat-out left. The Cubs' spending this offseason in the face of dwindling attendance and the success of the White Sox proves the point. Now that fans have changed their tune, the Cubs have *FINALLY* been forced to react. I'm not saying it's going to pay immediate dividends, but it's a refreshing development IMO.

Excuse my lack of modesty, but I've been trying to make this case for years. Finally someone of stature lets it slip: unwavering fan support even in the face of utter failure can have a negative impact. If the Cubs had good players that played poorly, maybe that would make sense. But the Cubs have sucked because their personel decisions have sucked, not because overly supportive fans brought about complacency. Why bother making great personnel decisions when it doesn't really matter?