Soul

It always seems the Bears play worse when people finally pick them as favorites. So I guess all things considered I prefer the additional bulletin-board material that comes with being doubted.

If Hendry won't acquire a long term CF option, then I guess we're down to hoping for Brady Clark. Ick.

Though Bonds in 2001 came very close to changing that balance for himself. And Mizzou: I'll take a team that can draw a walk every time to one that can make solid contact every time - every time. Every single time. As long as we're stating the obvious... Give me the team that ends up with the World Series trophy. 8-)

I hate ESPN even more than the Heat for refusing to cover the Posey story, which is the REAL STORY, and not Hinrich's obviously accidental hurting of Wade.

I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly. There are tons of laws that have no direct bearing on an athlete's performance in a professional sport. So any professional athlete that commits a crime should have his accomplishments brought into question? Let's just say that Darryl Kile had HOF credentials (he didn't). Should he not get into the HOF because they found marijuana in his system upon his death, and, we can presume, therefore broke the law? It shouldn't work that way. If steroids weren't against MLB policy, they weren't violating any MLB rules. As an aside, who is to say that marijuana doesn't have some sort of effect that enhanced Darryl Kile's own performance? Does it matter? Did MLB have a legit/enforced substance policy? Why should their statistics, then, be questioned? They didn't break any MLB rules in the process of achieving whatever it was that they achieved. An additional question which might bring up something to consider. Would it it illegal if these guys, say, drove to down to Tijuana, shot up there, and came back? Is it illegal for a US Citizen to go to Amsterdam and use recreational drugs and return while the drugs are still technically in his/her system? My point with the second part is that, if it's not illegal, (I'm not sure that it is or isn't), the player may not have even broken the law by using. It doesn't matter if they weren't violating MLB rules. Companies and organizations don't have to come up with parallel rules to match every law that's out there. How ridiculous. Here's a test. Go out and break a law which has no corresponding specific policy with your employer. In the process, make sure it reflects poorly on the company you work for. See what happens. I'm betting you won't. Think very carefully about *why* that's the case. BTW, these are federal investigators, not MLB ones. As for Marijuana, I don't think it's all that bad, but it's also illegal. I've known a friend or two who lost his job over the stuff. Nobody asked or cared if they snuck out to Amsterdam to smoke their joints.

I could see the Bears playing stupid----Hester muffing a punt, Grossman tossing multiple INTs, etc. But as for the Seahawks just coming in and dominating us from start to finish---i.e. controlling the line of scrimmage, moving the ball up & down the field at will, stuffing everything we try to do on offense? This I can not imagine. Not after I've seen them play this year. I have a hard time believing anyone who watched the 'hawks play against the 49ers & Cards could believe this, either. They were controlled, and by very, very weak teams. Hey maybe I'm wrong. I'm thinking Seattle is a one-and-done anyway. If they aren't and they come to Chicago, I guess we'll see.

The Rogers Centre inflates home runs more than Wrigley. Also, I don't see how 328ft foul lines, 375 ft power alleys, and 400 ft CF really qualifies as "cavernous". Thats pretty much the same as the Great American Smallpark. You're right, Rogers isn't all that huge. I must have been confusing it with the Expos' old place. Still, the wind never blows out at the dome. That's what I'm hoping for----Wrigley will turn a fly ball pitcher into a quick loser on those days. He'll have to learn how to pitch with that wind or it's going to be rough. Is it possible Lilly could progress just out of necessity, learn a few new tricks? Pretty slim hope, but hey I'm allowed to dream. And if he doesn't, he's just going to suck on those days which is going to be pretty frustrating.

I said there's no way that Seattle comes in and *BEATS* the Bears. Any team can lose if they beat themselves, which is the scenario you are describing. As for Alexander, he's having a down year. Hasn't been himself, even now that he has recovered from his injury. If you look at his splits, he was horrible before the toe injury put him out (understandable), then he was alright when he came back (around 4 yds/carry), but in December he's dipped back down again to under 4 yds/carry. So having Alexander back doesn't mean much to the Seahawks this year-----which is one of the big reasons they are on a 3 game losing streak, 2 of which are losses to terrible divisional ballclubs. Any way you slice it, this Seahawks club is weak in '06/'07. You're going to find scenarios in which they beat the Bears to be very rare indeed----and they all involve the Bears giving the ballgame away, as opposed to the Seahawks actually manning up and beating Chicago.

I don't know what happened during Bayless' brief time in Chicago as a sports writer, but something must have happened to make him hate the city so much. He was run out of town in about 8 months wasn't he? That probably pissed him off. Considering Chicago has put up with the likes of Mariotti for years, when you get run out of town in 8 months you *KNOW* you're an idiot.

The implication on the table is, it's because they're insane. And the evidence is quite difficult to refute 8-)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-0612280242dec28,1,7268686.story?coll=cs-bears-headlines Thanks. LMAO. :lol: Indeed. All I can do is laugh and say......indeed.

Ok. What about a 20-6 halftime score and an opening drive TD by the Bears to start the 3rd quarter says that the Seahawks were in that game? I'm not disputing that the Bears aren't likely to beat Seattle as bad as 37-6 if they played again, but Seattle was never in that game, and has to be a longshot, at best at this point, to beat the Bears. Agreed. Hubes, are you sure you are remembering the same game? Seriously---that one was a blowout pretty early. Seattle was never in it. Rex seemed to just keep slashing them with long passes-----all day long. I know they had a couple drives, but the only one that was meaningful was the first drive of the game. I do remember a long pass opportunity that was just badly overthrown by Hasselbeck. But that would have only brought Seattle to within a couple scores----and it was desperation under heavy pressure anyhow (Bears were putting great pressure on back then). There's just no way in hell Seattle comes to Chicago in the blistering cold and actually *beats* the Bears. Alexander or not. It's not their MO. They play great at home. But get them out of their element and that team often begins to resemble a top 10 draft team, not the NFC champs. This is the same team that got embarrassed by Arizona and SF and are on a 3 game bender at the end of the year. I'd have a tough time feeling comfortable with them beating their wild card opponent in the first round @ home, much less coming all the way to Chicago and beating the Bears. You have to at least consider the possibility that the Bears (re: Grossman) will beat themselves. Now, before you jump on me, I'm not saying Grossman will play horrible in the playoffs and he has played well the last couple weeks but the possibility still exists. Don't get me wrong, if the Bears played Seattle 10 times in Chicago in the cold, the Bears would probably win 7 or 8 times. But to say Seattle has no chance to beat the Bears is flat out wrong. So let me get this straight. Seattle has a chance to "beat" the Bears because the Bears might "beat" themselves?

LOL, can't wait for King's exasperated report on Monday:

We still do. Id rather give Lilly another year then take that ridiculous contract. If you think Lilly is that much worse than Zito right now... Zito will probably pitch his games though. I'm not sure I can say that about Lilly with the shoulder problems he has had. Still though, everyone is right. It's a staggering amount of money for this guy, almost incomprehensibly high. Zito's solid, but this would appear to be the kind of money a multiple Cy Young award winner would get. Zito won one, but it was in 2002 and he's never approached that level of performance since. His ERA+ that season was 169. The last 3 seasons it has been under 120.

I don't see how baseball's non-testing of steroids makes any difference. At all. You took 'em. You knew they were illegal. You got caught. End of story. Baseball's policies---or lack thereof---doesn't even enter in to the equation. Law trumps corporate policy every time.

i just read that on yahoo, some of you thought we had it bad with Lillys contract The number of years is bad on the Zito contract, the pay is not. With Lilly the number of years isn't so bad but the pay is. Zito will probably perform better given the dimensions of Pac Bell. I really worry about Lilly in the NL Central ballparks. So you think that Zito is worth 18 million a year? That's not what I think. I really don't have anything to say about "worth". Worth is relative to the team's payroll and the player's contribution. I don't really know how to determine worth. That said, I'm not all that upset about the Lilly signing, but I worry about The Cubs signing fly ball pitchers. The only hope I have is that maybe Lilly just never had to learn to pitch more for the ground ball because he was playing in that cavernous dome. I know. Pretty thin.

Barett was roundly lambasted though. It was a risk by Hendry. One that paid off. Who knows? Maybe Izzy will improve a little. I think with Barrett there was a season with the Expos where he was healthy and did pretty good. So there was a flash or two there, something to hang on to and hope he could get back to. Maybe there is with Izzy too, I don't know. I think his defense is a marked improvement over Cedeno at any rate.

No, I definitely don't.

Yeah, and notice who Riley ordered to have injured. Not Hinrich, but Deng. Deng's a threat. That's why Riley tried to take him out. I don't think this was a Riley order to take out Deng in particular. Deng was going up, Posey saw an opportunity. I do. This is a pattern with Riley. He gave Posey the go-ahead at first opportunity. Obviously I can't prove it. But we're not in a court of law. I believe Riley orders hits on players. I'm not saying Riley wasn't behind it, I'm saying "The List" of guys was not just Deng. Impossible to say. I just found it very telling that Hinrich was not retaliated against, yet was singled out by Riley after the game. Hmmm.... So then he orders a retaliation on the one Bulls player who is starting to make headlines as a possible all-star, the one player who offers an inside scoring threat and can score from the most places on the court, huh? Interesting. Instead of straight up retaliation on Hinrich, why not kill two birds with one stone and go after the one player who you fear the most? Can't prove any of this, of course. Just seems possible, and knowing Riley over the years I wouldn't put it past him.

Wow that's even more than I guessed. I had Zito at 6/96.

Careers could be damaged because guys took steroids. Don't blame the release of the truth for their careers being damaged. That being said, this isn't a good thing for anybody. It only adds to the distrust between MLB and the MLBPA. I wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for some bum who used roids and is exposed. But dishonoring the confidentiality of this test only makes further testing more difficult. I know that if you sleep in hay you shouldn't be surprised to wake up itchy, but what if some guy tested positive because he smoked a hooter with his college buddies a week before the survey? As someone said earlier, the positive tests might show more than steroids. If they do, it seems this zeal to get Bonds is going to needlessly embarass other players. I guess I shouldn't feel sorry for them, but I do. Yes, that would really suck. They can all blame Bonds, for refusing to come clean.

I'd love to delude myself into thinking the Cubs have the best pitching in the NL Central, but as of Christmas eve, in my book, that honor clearly belongs to the Milwaukee Brewers. Take a hard look at Capuano's #'s last year..combine those with a full year of Sheets, throw in Suppan, Bush and Vargas and the Cubs have a VERY formidable foe in their division that's geographically North of them. This is also a staff that has 2 pitchers in the pen who have made AS teams as closers (Turnbow and Cordero) along with some good looking youngsters and holdovers....our pen may have a slight edge, but it's real close. Well, maybe you're right. Who knows, maybe if Prior comes back strong and Hill breaks out we'll be OK. I don't know----the Brewers always seem to pull a fade to finish the season, and I wouldn't count on Sheets for an entire year. His rehab didn't exactly go as smoothly as the Crew was hoping. We'll see. Everyone's undefeated right now :wink: All it will take is a little luck :wink: LOL. How about the Cubs start making their own luck. Then I'll be happy.

I don't get how they can rank our Minor Leagues so high. There's not a single position player in our system of value, and there hasn't been since Grace came through the system. Our minor leagues are dismal.

The Cubs biggest obstacle is themselves and their own incompentance. Indeed. As it ever has been from the beginning of time. Or at least 1908.

He didn't play another minute. Are you suggesting some member of the Bulls should have jumped on him right then during the break in the action and gotten suspended for 15+ games? I don't see any value in that. Definitely not. No reason to get our guys suspended. That would have made Riley even more happy. I'm glad our players didn't give in to that kind of thuggish behavior.