soccer10k

Since I had to work during the Cubs game I figured I would watch the shortened replay of the Cubs game on ESPN at midnight. During the telecast Scott Weiss was the guy designated to give the "we know move forward in the game" notices. Well, numerous times he said this: "The Cubs come into the game with 39 losses on the season. This is the first time in [a number of years] the Cubs have had this few losses after the first 100 games of the season. I don't remember the exact number Weiss stated (39 years rings a bell) but it was in the thirties. Also, he did this at least two times. I was flipping back and fourth between a couple channels but I caught this statement twice. It would be unbelievable if the Cubs only had 39 losses right now. For one, not only would they be in first place in the NL Central, but they would have the best record in the league. Major screwup by ESPN and I found it funny.

Bad: Dusty is going to be the Cubs manager the rest of the year. Good: No extension will be offered to Dusty for the rest of the year.

so what you are saying is that you haven't gathered all the evidence possible, and you haven't gathered as much as I have gathered, but you know for sure. you're so openminded about it. it's so obvious you have considered my point of view. now go over to a wall, put your right shoulder against it, imagine a ball is flying to the otherside of the wall, and see if you would be able to reach it. I admire your attempt to be a stand up guy and not make excuses. doesn't change this one simple fact...physically impossible. Oh for crying out loud, have you ever once stopped to consider that you may not be right all of the damn time? That was not an obvious fan interference call. I've seen the replay from different angles dozens of times, and it looks pretty clear to me that if nobody touched it, the ball would have hit right on top of the wall. Not in the stands, not on the field. Must everything be a pissing match? Thanks for the defense Pedro.

You can hear it on SportsCenter. It is a very annoying call. So then why do you use it?

Thanks. That's what I thought but I wanted to be sure.

What does DI stand for?

ESPN said he has reached base in 9 straight at bats.

I'll probably watch some of this game.

Cubs win and Rich Hill's ERA increases? Interesting.

To potentially plug some of those holes, that's why. Barrett's trade value is likely as high as it will ever be. If dealing him can plug 2 holes and an adequate replacement could be found to take his spot, it would be a great move. I don't get it the Cubs offense stinks and people are suggesting trading Barrett and ARam. Yes, we might get back some decent prospects or even a veteran OF, but you need to take into consideration that it is much harder finding decent replacements at C and 3B than the OF. For the Cubs to consider a trade of ARam or Barrett, they would need to have Cabrera, ARod, or many can't-miss prospects including a 3B and C. You probably don't get it because you're not reading the reasoning. Nobody is advocating trading Barrett or Aramis for "decent prospects or even a veteran OF". Barrett's value is at an all-time high and a deal should be explored if that deal makes the team better overall, plugging other holes as well as finding a suitable replacement behind the plate. If dealing Barrett and getting that talent in return takes this offense from pathetic to tolerable, that's a huge step in the right direction. Aramis should be dealt if there's strong evidence that he will opt out of his contract and go elsewhere. Losing him for nothing would be dumber than any trade we could make. Having said that, there is nobody within the entire Cubs organization that should be 100% off limits. There is nobody in baseball that should be considered untouchable. Any player should be available for the right price. I worry about some posters wanting to make trades just for the sake of making a trade. A lot of these top prospects mentioned make us drool at the thought of getting them, but let's not forget that they're still "prospects". I agree that nobody is untouchable, but it would take a real knock-your-socks-off deal for me to trade Barrett or ARam. Include DLee and Z in there for me.

But we know that isn't going to happen.

Agreed. I would only trade ARam if you can get somebody who is going to put up numbers comparable to what ARam will put up.

Very true, he hit three game winning homers in one week - if he only hits one of them, we may have missed the playoffs because we won the division by only one game. You'll have to refresh my memory. Did those home runs come when the Cubs were losing or when the game was tied? If they came when the Cubs were behind, then you are correct. If they came when the Cubs were tied, then you don't know if the Cubs would have won/lost the game.

If Z can turn this consecutive win streak into something really memorable, he'll likely end up with the best record and most wins in the NL which would likely get him the Cy Young.

Prior and Wood aren't Santana and Liriano. Hunter, Ford, and Sterwart aren't exactly Murderer's Row. What about the Yankees and all of their injuries or the Dodgers and all of the injuries they have dealt with this year? There are comparisons to be made about how teams have dealt with injuries and the Cubs, Jim Hendry in particular constructed a roster that was ill prepared to handle any kind of injuries. The Cubs had a lack of starting pitching depth and a horrible bench add to that few if any prospects in the minors leagues that might be able to come in and give a hand (position players). The Dodgers and their 1-13 record since the All Star Break beg to differ on how well they have dealt with injuries.

I'm surprised CubsBullsBears didn't start this thread. That being said, I don't mind the Twins either. Both of my parents were born in Minnesota and a majority of my relatives still live there. I would rather see them make the playoffs than any other AL team except maybe the A's.

I like it when Derwood doesn't post in my game threads. :evil: maybe if your avatar was that new UCLA recruit getting his skin pulled off.... btw, 4 pages in the Game Thread before the game has started? When did people start caring again? This thread is already longer than the 7/8 Game Thread.

:shock: Explains a lot though... I can only imagine what your posts deal with.

Good to hear. Hopefully there are no lingering affects on his hand. EDIT: As per Cubs.com

Oh, you mean my Bachelor party? See you there? Bleachers. Congrats, dude. Are you scared? Thanks. Not scared, we've been together forever, since the end of high school. Went to college together. Already live together. I figure if I'm gonna be around her all the time, might as well brand her (Last name, ring) lol. haha, congrats. My fiance and her 6 year old boy are moving in with me in Indianapolis (Fishers) tomorrow. We are marrying in November. :) Congrats to both of you.

This is the only board I post on, for any sport.

The ump made the right call on the play. physically impossible. both by Bartman and by Alou. look at the replay sometime and try to re-enact what happens. look at where the ball is coming down and where Alou's glove is. if the ball were in the stands, Alou would have had to have reached across his right shoulder. he does not. he reaches above his head, aka in the field of play. it is nearly impossible for a righthanded player to reach over the wall with his body perpendicular to the wall like Alou was. his chest would have had to have been against the wall in order for him to reach into the stands. from Bartman's perspective, go to a game early sometime, go to the front row, and see where your hands are if you are bending over and reaching out like Bartman. again, in the field of play. I know. I've done it. I believe some physiologist wrote a paper on it which showed pretty conclusively it was physically impossible for that ball to have been in the stands unless both Bartman and Alou were trying to catch the ball at a point about a foot and a half from where it was coming down. Believe me, I have watched it and seen every shot of the play that has been shown on television. The ball would not have landed in the field of play. But there is no sense in debating this issue because you are obviously very set in your view and likely refuse to consider any other point of view other than your own to be remotely true. Also, considering I live in California, the odds of me just strolling down to Wrigley early before a game, buying a ticket, and going to Bartman's seat.

You have Greenberg twice on your list. Oops. Fixed that one. I must have thought being ranked third wasn't good enough so I figured ranking him sixth as well would mean a little more.

1. Gehrig 2. Foxx 3. Greenberg 4. Killebrew 5. Cepeda 6. Musial 7. Thomas 8. Allen 9. Ansen 10. Mize EDIT: I listed Greenberg twice.

I read a Gehrig biography "Luckiest Man" by Jonathan Eig. In the book there is something regarding where Gehrig could have ended up in the all time record books. I realize that these statistics are rough estimates but they show the heights Gehrig could have reached had he not been struck down with ALS. This goes for Ted Williams as well since he missed 3 full years in his prime due to WWII and missed almost 2 full years due to the Korean War. To add to the other stats, Gehrig has a career line of .340/.442/.632/1.074 which is good enough for 12th/4th/3rd/3rd all time. Unbelievable player. I'll give my list in a bit. "Today, I consider myself, the luckiest man on the face of the earth." Oh, and it's a very good book for anyone interested.