David

I don't think we'd ever see that. Barring injuries leading to it as an emergency plan in one game, at least.

No. It is named for Wrigley the man himself. In no way other than the commonality of the name "Wrigley" is there any effort to sell Wrigley's chewing gum products: no Wrigley logos, advertisements, &c. People fail to get this. "Durr, Wrigley's a corporate name too." No, it isn't. Yes. Yes it is. That's the advantage of naming a company after yourself. It's like saying Turner Field isn't a corporate name.

There's a link to a sweet gallery of old school pics of Wrigley in that story.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/sp/getty/e8/fullj.b55b294b7c80f2c64072236a222a7855/b55b294b7c80f2c64072236a222a7855-getty-78802335eg033_2008_los_ange.jpg

Weird. Our pythag goes down because we score fewer runs and give up more, yet we wind up with one more projected win.

lawl

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080223&content_id=2385866&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Honestly, I don't see that as one of the big issues with this deal. This team is obviously built to win now, and while, at 31, I wouldn't look at Roberts as much of a long term option, anyway (maybe the two additional years on his deal plus 2-3 more), I've never been one to really worry a whole lot about the Cubs keeping important players around (at least, not recently). They usually don't have much trouble getting guys re-signed when they want/need to (even in the middle of this uncertain ownership situation, thus far). I don't think we need to worry a whole lot about payroll at this point. Again, though, Roberts, like much of this team, is in the 30-31 range, like much of this team's core group. It's not like he's a player just entering his prime that we'll be looking to acquire and lock up for years and years. My concern (as is the concern of many others here) with this deal isn't so much mortgaging the future (or "constricting it," as you put it), but giving up all of our trade-able assets for Roberts, who is definitely a good player and an upgrade, when we could be using it to try solidify the rotation or the SS position, which are much bigger holes. It appears, though, that Hendry is happy with those two spots and isn't looking at upgrading them at all, unfortunately. It does bring up an interesting question, though. What will the Cubs be doing in the next 4-5 years as this team collectively ages it's way out of its prime years?

He's spent almost 600 million during his time in charge. The Cubs still have the longest professional sports streak with no championship. "We could be a lot worse off"? Is Hendry to blame for all 100 years? The amount of time since the last WS championship has little to do w/ Hendry's performance as GM. The only years that effect his grade as a GM are the ones when he actually held the job! I guess I didn't make my point clear. He's spent 600 million and they still don't have a World Series title. I wouldn't hold him to that standard, what with the volatile nature of playoffs and all that. But at least giving us a chance to win one with multiple 90+ win teams in a division that we should absolutely dominate with our payroll (not just hope to eek out a title with 85-89 wins). If this team was winning 90+ (if not 95-100) games consistently over his tenure and making the playoffs (as the type of team that would go in as favorites, not an also ran like we have been many times) just about every year, I'd have a hard time blaming the GM for any failures in the postseason. The problem is, Hendry isn't doing that.

Sometimes you just have to take that flat curve deep. I was bummed when the ivy turned brown when the Cubs were playing the Marlins as it normally looks so beautiful out there. Heh. You would've never guessed it was October for Game 3 last year.

Knew that was coming.

I think I bring this up every year, but I've always loved the idea of a potential lakefront stadium (maybe on Northerly Island), but it just wouldn't be practical with the wind/cold in April/October, I guess. Would be spectacular from about late May-Sept, though.

You do that. I couldn't care less where they play. Wrigley and Wrigleyville makes going to the games a bit more fun, but that's where it ends.

Don't know. Ask voice.

Derwood plays in a band? Who knew?

LOL By the trade deadline now. Wow. This is beyond ridiculous.

LOL He's right, though. The game threads are just beyond ridiculous. I can barely stand to read them sometimes. I think I'll be at the chat a lot more this year, if it's working.

I'm pretty sure he's doing ESPN radio coverage, not ESPN TV. At least, that's what I heard on Waddle and Silvy on the drive into work.

Seriously, are you joking? Grasping for straws? How am I grasping for straws? Almost everyone else disagrees with you. Are facts "grasping for straws"? That sounds ridiculous to me. Fighting unfairly? Are you joking? You blatantly lie repeatedly, I call it out, and that means I'm "fighting unfairly"? Where do you come up with this stuff? And the "I have kids and work for a living" stuff is nonsense as well. What does that have to do with anything? Does that make it okay to lie? Does that make it okay to repeatedly say things and then fail to back it up? You guarantee it? Okay, then what sort of compensation are you going to offer me if that doesn't come true? If you can't somehow compensate me, then you're making a prediction and not a guarantee. I seriously think you need to listen to that interview again, because Lou never said that. If he did, why don't you listen again and type word for word what he said, so we can judge it ourselves? Oh, because "you have kids and work for a living", so you don't have time. Right. I'd say there's about a 50/50 chance Soriano would be moved down if they ended up getting Roberts, and I think the odds are only that good because of Soriano's leg problems. If I had to bet, I'd still say that Roberts would bat second and Soriano leadoff. However, I'm reasonable enough to know that I can't make some sort of ridiculous guarantee as if I know for sure, because none of us know that. I also know that I won't lie about what Lou said just to make my point seem more valid. How did I speak for a moderator? All I did was remind you to what HE said. As for disagreeing with that I've said, then fine. The thing is, you never make counter arguments. You act like you can't hear anything and then jump to other statements instead of carrying on a discussion, all the while claiming it's because you "don't have time", which we all know is just an excuse, since you clearly have enough time to post repeatedly. These are a few of the reasons why most of this board doesn't take you seriously and either a)make fun of you, or b)ignore you. As for me, I think it's time for letter B. As others have said in the past week, congratulations for being the first person that has ever made me feel inclinced to use the ignore feature. I'm sure I won't be the last. Have a nice life. I have to admit your responses are a bit hostile. Back it up a notch and just have a healthy discussion. No reason to get upset about it. lulz I remember that. I was the dude he was referring to.

Why would a walk hurt this scenario? how about 3/3 a BB and a sac fly? Wouldn't that give you a BA of 1.000 and OBP of .800? Yes.

That's the thing that separates Lou from Dusty: The ability to recognize something isn't working, and the willingness to change it. That's not necessarily a good thing. Of course it's good when he gives up on a bad idea after 2-3 games, but the fact of the matter is, 2-3 games isn't enough to determine anything, and if it was a bad idea, he shouldn't have done it in the first place. The same goes for the inverse. If he comes up with some brilliant idea and then gives up on it when it doesn't go well for the first couple games, it would be a bad thing. A - He should be able to recognize what a bad/good idea is B - Once he has determined that something is a good idea, he should stick with it What if Marmol has gotten rocked his first two outings out of the pen and then he had just gone away from him the rest of the year? I realize no manager is perfect (especially among those that are realistic candidates), and I'm fine with Lou for now. For the most part, he doesn't do any really stupid things like Dusty did, and that's all you can really ask of a manager. Don't screw it up. So, I'm not trying to be hyper-critical of Lou here. I like him. I'm just saying that if you decide to implement something and give up on it almost immediately after if it doesn't start out well, that's not a good thing.

Damn you, UM.

It's possible because sacrifices count as PAs (which are used in calculating OBP) but not as ABs (which is used in calculating BA). So if a guy is 2 for 2 with a sac fly, his BA is 1.000. His OBP in that scenario would be .667. I think I'm right, but I could be wrong as I confused myself a couple times trying to explain this.

We should be a lot better off.