XZero771679666304

Umm, no. Let's not do that. Yes, lets. You win as many games as you can, and put yourself in position to win as much as possible. You can't control the rest.

And the Pirates and Brewers probably won't have any good seasons during that time, either. So we tank 3 seasons, then split the division evenly with the Cardinals for the next six. Congratulations, Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer, you just matched Jim Hendry's term. The Brewers are likely to decline. They have holes now, and purged their system over the past 4 years so they don't have the means to fill them. And let's dispense with predicting the number of potential playoff appearances and focus on the number of wins. If the Cubs win 90-95+ games each year for 6-7 consecutive years, that's success. If it leads to only 2-3 playoff appearances in that span, that'd still be a much more successful run than the one Hendry had. You can't control what other teams do, but if you're consistently winning 90+, you're getting it done. Hendry did not do this.

After reading the "transcript" on BN, it's pretty clear that comment was in regard to deferred salary and otherwise eaten monies that made the payroll look higher than it was, not that it was too high. The implication, imo, was that they won't defer money or backload deals in the future.

Well, it'd be a massive understatement to say that didn't go as I had expected.

Sandoval, I'd guess.

Not to sound like a dick, but... If I had been behind the wheel of a car after drinking that much (and I don't care how high a person's "tolerance" is or how turbocharged their metabolism is, that is [expletive] drunk), I'm not sure I'd admit it publicly. In fact, I hope you don't drink that much regularly, you'll kill yourself. That's well into the "possible alcohol poisoning" range, and right on the cusp of possible death. Oh I wasn't anywhere near a car that day. I didn't mean it like I was driving. That was my only "drunk" story I had. It was a Purdue homecoming football game (7 years ago when I was in college), partied hardcore that weekend, and just turned 21. I puked in a yard while walking and the cops saw me. Definately got a taste of alcohol poisoning and learned my lesson that weekend. Since then, I hardly drink (MAYBE once a month). Most of the time it's 2 or 3 beers and I'll get a cab to go home. Heck, I usually tell my friends or family that if they need a DD to let me know as I don't mind being the DD. There's no reason to drink and drive IMO. It's just not worth it. I only know like 2 people who gotten a DUI and I think they blew a .10 and .13 IIRC. Anyway... back to Grace. How is it possible for him to not have interlock in the vehicle when it was court ordered? Don't they usually check to make sure it was done? I don't understand it how a guy like Grace (or any athletes who gotten a DUI/etc...) who got more than enough money to just take a cab. I apologize for the presumption. As for Grace, OMC is right, they don't usually check. I had an acquaintance who was ordered to have an interlock installed but didn't, and ended up in much the same situation Grace is. The reason a lot of people (particularly men, imo) won't just call a cab or something is simple pride/machismo. They don't want to recognize/admit that they are impaired, like it's a mark of manliness to be able to drink a bunch and still be "all right to drive". My best friend used to be like this; he had money and often times a sober friend around offering to drive him home, but you'd practically have to pry the keys out of his hand because he insisted he was fine to drive even when he was visibly drunk. Of course part of it is simply impaired judgement, but I've seen stuff like with my friend go down innumerable times (especially when I was tending bar).

Isn't .08 the legal limit in all states? Or is this one of those "the limit is too low/that's not drunk, it's buzzed/I'm not drunk at .08/my tolerance is so high that blah blah blah/etc." arguments where people rationalize their drinking and driving? The world is full of billy badasses who think the legal limit doesn't apply to them, but they set these limits where they are for a reason, and it's really not realistic to expect these things to be assessed subjectively on a person to person basis. Point is, it's unwise to get behind the wheel of a vehicle if you've had more than a drink or two, regardless of how well you might think you hold your liquor. You're an idiot if you do so and have previous DUIs, and an abject moron if you do so without having your court ordered interlock in the vehicle on top of that. No one should feel the least bit sorry for Mark Grace, or question whether he deserves the trouble he's in. Not to sound like a dick, but... If I had been behind the wheel of a car after drinking that much (and I don't care how high a person's "tolerance" is or how turbocharged their metabolism is, that is [expletive] drunk), I'm not sure I'd admit it publicly. In fact, I hope you don't drink that much regularly, you'll kill yourself. That's well into the "possible alcohol poisoning" range, and right on the cusp of possible death. And FTR, the U.S. standard legal limit of .08 is among the highest in the world, higher than countries like Ireland, Scotland, Germany and Australia. Most set the limit at .05 or below; some have zero tolerance at all.

Yeah, I fully expected ND to get blown off of the field tonight. Have to take them a lot more seriously now.

DISGUSTING!!! Shades of Willis McGahee Or Napoleon McCallum. Ugh. I really feel bad for the guy, he worked hard to come back and by all accounts (that I've heard) he is a really good kid. He was still a first round pick, too. Brutal.

Whut

Yea, that's my issue with him. a little nasally, but that should work in Chicago. Sounds like a good talker to me I agree. He's smart and articulate, which scores big points in my book. I could see he and Len having a nice rapport.

And Recker was claimed by the Mets.

All that uni needs are some antennae on the helmet and a stinger for the pants.

I typically carry it in a pocket in my camera bag, which goes everywhere with me. I usually don't carry it in a pants pocket anymore for a number of reasons (lint, scratches from keys/wallet/etc., paranoia about SAR/RF absorption, it falling out when I pull other stuff from my pocket).

I think that if people are being honest with themselves, they know it. I don't even care; I just assume athletes/competitors are going to take advantages where they can find them. But it was McQuaid's righteous indignation toward Armstrong that struck me a being particularly pretentious. If you're going to ignore it, ignore it. If you're going to crack down on it, by all means try in futility. But to pretend Lance and Team USPS were some sort of rogue entity just makes the sport look like more of a joke than if the whole thing had been overlooked.

Off waivers from Twins, and DFA Recker. Link

Like others, I am greatly amused by UCI president Pat McQuaid's "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling" statement yesterday. I have no real problem with Lance being stripped of his titles, but the pretense is amazing. Instead of using it as a wake-up call to clean up the sport, he seems content to play like cycling isn't more doped up than the WWE and that Armstrong is some kind of lone villain who sullied the sport. On Mike and Mike this morning, Greenberg said that of the 21 cyclists who finished 2-4 in the 7 years Lance won the Tour de France, 20 have been linked to doping. That's probably the reason no "winners" will be named in Armstrong's place, and an indictment of the sport in general.

Tigers fans are fans of other Detroit teams, which means they suck. True. I don't waste much thought on the NHL or NBA, and the Lions have almost been a non-entity, but you make a good point.

Nah, I'm going to root for the Tigers. SF fans just got to celebrate a couple years ago, and most of them get to live in a great city. Tigers fans have to live in Detroit, haven't been able to celebrate in a while and the Tigers are a rival of the pale hosers.

Yeah, dirty kong is a piece of [expletive], but that wasn't a dirty play. Vicious, yes. Dirty? No.

I don't see them turning two with a good flip. Pagan can still fly, and the play wasn't that close.

Everything going right for the Giants, Cards playing like crap.

What about Giants in 7? Tigers in 5 regardless of who wins the NLCS. They're finally playing to their talent level, and at the perfect time. Their bullpen might cost them one game, but their rotation is lights out right now, and Young and Peralta are hitting in addition to Miggy and Prince. They're just a tough matchup for anyone right now.

[expletive]. You're hired by the team to broadcast to their fans. The announcers SHOULD be homers. ESPN or Fox announcers should remain neutral. You should have a clear bias, but not be a raging homer. It's just a total turnoff to me to hear an announcer, even for my team, shamelessly cheerleading, or being totally morose when things aren't going well. And in the case of someone like Hawk, so biased they can't even analyze the events on the field objectively. Why would you want an analyst/announcer whose analysis/opinion you can't take seriously? I want the TV team to clearly be in the Cubs' corner, but still remain professional. I felt Len and Bob did this quite well. And in this day and age where just about every game is available nationwide through various channels (like MLB EI), viewer bases extend way beyond the home markets. I watch a ton of games, and I have to say Hawk is pretty singular in his level of homerism. Most TV announcers fall far, far short of his level of cheerleading/pouting/spazzing out, as they should. I can't think of any off the top of my head that even come close. "This is one dead-a.ss team"- Bob Brenly about a million times last season I didn't say they were perfect.

Honestly, if I were a Sox fan, I'd be embarrassed by him.