David

Yea, in 2003, I only remember two day playoff games. Game 4 of the NLDS, and Game 5 of the NLCS.

I believe, in the event of the playoffs, we'd be competing with a Yankees series and a Red Sox series as well for coverage. Fox is having a wet dream right now drawing up their Red Sox/Yankees Cubs/Mets Championship serieses. They're also dry heaving over Rockies/Diamondbacks and Angels/Indians Unfortunately for Fox, they won't have any piece of the Cubs until the World Series. TBS has the entire NL playoffs. Will ALDS/ALCS games be going on at the same time as NLDS/NLCS games? It'd be odd if TBS put the Cubs up against Fox's best AL matchup to compete for viewers. It would make more sense to stagger the game days as much as possible.

I'd assume that the Cubs would get the prime time time slots because they're, well, the Cubs, and they're not in the playoffs often and they're a big draw. Of course, New York is New York, so they might get the prime time slot, although I'd assume that the Cubs are a better draw nationally than the Mets. This could all be moot if the NLDS is Cubs/Mets (if the Phillies take the WC), in which case, that series for sure would get the prime time slot.

The most excited I've ever been as a Cubs fan. I'm definitely down for some recreation on their part. That was the one time in my life I really let my guard down with them. I thought for sure after that game we were going to the World Series. I thought for sure in 1984 we were going to the World Series. That scared me as a Cubs fan forever. I knew in 2003 after game 5 we were in trouble. We looked flat in that game. After the game I went on espn.com message board and told everyone that we are going to blow this. I just felt it. Of course everyone laughed at me... Of course, they were 5 outs away from taking it in game 6. I'm not sure how dead on your feeling was on that one. ;) I don't think it had anything to do with them being "flat," per se. They just got owned by a Josh Beckett who was dead freaking on in Game 5. It took one of the most absurd sequence of events I've ever seen in a baseball game for them to blow that. 9/10 times, the Cubs win that game.

I agree, but I don't foresee that much of a stir will be caused about it. Hell, most of the people on here didn't even know what I meant by an OTA simulcast. I think I read a couple of years ago (I'm sure it's less now) that only like 10% of American homes didn't have pay TV, and a good sized chunk of that were people that didn't watch television at all.

To be fair, once you watch like 55% of your games (all the WGN and CSN home games, plus the occasional national game) in HD, the other half or so look pretty freakin crappy.

If I were you I'd be calling DirecTV or Comcast right now... That, or, if I had a cable modem, I'd be detaching that line of coax from my cable modem for 3-4 hours a few nights in the coming weeks. Or you could just head to your local bar. NLCS will also be on TBS, fyi.

Hill and Marmol are even with 11 win shares, so either one would go. Theriot has 12. Is he the cost effectiveness MVP?

Yea, they are working hard to make sure there's new sod in the outfield by the time the first NLDS home game (or a one-game playoff) rolls around.

Give me an example of when a player is somehow more valuable than what he produces. For the sake of discussion...not being argumentative. Depending on how you define value, the most valuable player could be the most cost effectively productive player. Although I would tend to agree with your general theme. I'll take most productive over most grittiest. That's a valid and interesting point. I'm not sure who the MVP in terms of cost-effective value would be on the Cubs, either. Maybe Rich Hill? Theriot certainly comes into the team picture on this one.

Was that the grand slam in the NLCS? Yep. The very same one. The one that towered over the foul pole.

Give me an example of when a player is somehow more valuable than what he produces. For the sake of discussion...not being argumentative.

Basically.

It seems like every time a conversation starts about who a team's MVP is, people love to bring up the most overlooked or seemingly undervalued player rather than the player who has actually been most valuable. They'll say things like, "I'll tell you what, David Eckstein is MY MVP." Usually this tends to happen most with the "gritty" guys. It drives me absolutely nuts. You can't argue with these people either. Hell, it happened in last year's World Series, didn't it? Scott Rolen should have won it. Hell, even Yadier Molina out-hit Eckstein. Why??? Case in point, Mike Murphy on the Score continues to tout Theriot as his Cubs MVP, Jesse Rogers called DeRosa his. These guys have been solid contributors, no doubt, and they aren't big names. That doesn't make them more valuable than players that have been far more productive. I mean, are you joking? Could anybody with a brain really think that Ryan Theriot means more to this team than any of Aramis, Lee, or Soriano mean? Oh, and Murph called Marmol his pitching MVP. Again, a great contributor. But losing Lilly would hurt us a lot more. Hell, losing any starter would hurt the team more than losing a dominant setup man. They should just say, "Ryan Theriot is my overlooked contributor." Calling him MVP is just laughable hyperbole and it's absurd. /semi-rant

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned in here, but how awesome was it when Geo grabbed Z by the jersey when he was trying to settle him down?

It's funny. The latest target of his ire seems to be Mark Cuban. I think he can't stand that, as someone who might be part of a prospective ownership group, he's not the people's choice, and this out of town, young billionaire is.

Adam Dunn is a free agent after this year? Am I nuts? How did I not know this?

http://reds.enquirer.com/2003/10/12/nlcs_zoom.jpg I expect to see plenty of this tonight. EDIT - This was the exact moment I was 'sold' on Aramis Ramirez, btw.

as is Pujols, I believe. And nobody in MLB believes Pujols is the age he proclaims. Riii-iight, the same Albert Pujols who was born in the Dominican Republic. Who later moved to Kansas City in 1996, graduated from a high school there, enrolled in a community college to play baseball, and became a US citizen in 2007? Got news for you, Albert is the age he says he is. Because today, after 9/11, you can't become a US citizen without real, verified documentation. I agree with this post entirely. I'd just like to point out that the only reason I brought up the thing about Soto being natural born was to point out that you can't really claim the fact that they're both citizens makes their situations comparable. Soto was born a US citizen. Pujols was born in the DR, moved here, went to school here, and then ultimately (this year) achieved citizenship.

Pujols was born in the DR, though. Having been born in Puerto Rico, Soto is a natural born US citizen.

Wasn't Cabrera a young (for MiLB) teenager for most of those AB's, though? It's a little more understandable there. Not that I have any doubts about Soto, I'm just saying.

There was also a lot of whining about DeRosa on that thread, we got the signing of Blanco right. However, Hendry made a good signing in DeRosa even though the message board fans did not think so. some of us did think so :D I was always of the opinion that it was pretty likely that DeRosa had turned around his career last year and not just had a fluke season because there were actual reasons for his turnaround. He got consistent playing time and he made adjustments to his swing. As Cubs fans, we've seen enough guys thrive after swing adjustments that we should understand (i.e. Sammy & DLee being major examples)... Anyway, yea, not to toot my own horn, but I was never real down on the DeRosa signing. I saw him as a Todd Walker type hitter with versatility and more ability in the field.

At first I was like, "Um, what?" Then I re-read and saw the word "host."

Maybe the Brewers could be the Wild Card.. :shock: Nah, prolly not.

I hear they hate calisthenics. Ha... I was going in that general vicinity... But I was just going to ask if they were out of shape.