soccer10k

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kurkjian_tim&id=2357368 http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=caple_jim&id=2357321 I don't care about any of the personal issues surrounding Kirby Puckett. As far as I'm concerned, he was the face of the Minnesota Twins for years. He wasn't one of the me-first athletes with a bunch of problems. The guy gave everything he had for the organization. Like Kurkjian, I will always remember Game 6 of the 1991 World Series and the following lines. "And we'll see you tomorrow night" - Jack Buck "Touch em all Kirby Puckett!! Touch em all!!" You will never be forgotten. And please no negativity in this thread.

Unless Jim Edmonds dies tomorrow, this is just a joke that shouldn't be taken seriously. And yes I laughed.

That's exactly what he was. Both of my parents grew up in Minnesota (all my relatives still live there) and they were Twins fans and Kirby Puckett is an icon in Minnesota. It was devastating for the franchise when he was forced to retire with glaucoma. It's unfortunate that his career ended so abruptly. Say what you will about his personal problems or how he let himself go after retiring, but the man was one of the best baseball players of all time and went out and played his butt off day in and day out. He will never be forgotten. RIP Kirby Puckett

I think Kinsella has gone insane. Thats just crazy talk.

I agree completely.

Yes, he's regarded as the third most important pitcher on the Cubs, but if I had to pick the best of those 3, I'd pick Zambrano. Even if all 3 are healthy Z is probably the best of them... I was by no means saying that I thought Zambrano was the third best pitcher on the Cubs. My point was that if you asked a bunch of casual fans to name two Cubs pitchers, they would probably name Wood and Prior. For that matter, more people might name Maddux than Zambrano as well. For my personal opinion I think, when all are healthy, Zambrano and Prior are 1 and 1a as far as which is the best. Obviously if you factor in health, at least so far, Zambrano is the best pitcher on the Cubs.

Looking at it from a national perspective and not a Cub fan's, it is somewhat bold to predict Zambrano to win the Cy Young considering he finished 10th in ERA, only had 14 wins last year, and is regarded as the third most important pitcher on the Cubs behind Wood and Prior.

Or just energy drinks in general because everybody has their own personal preference.

I will never forget Puckett's heroics in the World Series in 1991.

True, but some testing is always better than no testing. Even if the penalties aren't that harsh, having penalties installed in the first place makes it easier to make them more harsh in the future. It took MLB long enough to finally get testing that we should be happy they have it in the first place.

I still don't see the big deal about this. It's not like the Cubs have said that Prior isn't going to throw for a few days. He is still throwing so until they shut him down and don't let him throw, I wouldn't worry about anything.

I'm surprised nobody else mentioned Rivera as a Goliath closer. Rivera has exactly one pitch, the cut fastball. When a hitter steps into the box, he knows exactly what Rivera's going to throw and he still can't hit it. That's a definition of scary. All the other pitchers have multiple pitches. Lidge with high 90's fastball and a slider. Gagne has multiple pitches. Wagner has a fastball and change. All Rivera does is go out and throw cut fastballs and he's become arguably the greatest as far as closers are concerned. That's scary. And no I don't like the Yankees, in fact I hate them.

There's no reason to not use April's light scedule as an opportunity to give Z and Prior an extra day off. Especially since Z is pitching in the WBC. As well as to see what Jerome Williams can give the Cubs this year. Give him a shot early in the season against a light hitting team to try to build his confidence.

"Scott Eyre who just signed a 3 year, 11 million dollar deal with the Cubs staying in a $98 a night hotel." :lol: I remember that when Gary Gaetti came to the Cubs in 98, he lived in a cheap hotel and took the el to Wrigley. Didn't Rod "Dead Arm" Beck live in his motorhome at one time or is that another former Cubs player I'm thinking of? I could swear it was Beck though. It fits in to his personality.

They had the firesale to save money. Trading Willis and Cabrera would save more money (and bring in more cheap talent). Yes, Cabrera is cheap today, but by next season he'll make millions. Same goes for Willis.

It's not like the current Cubs uniforms are hideous like the old Tampa Bay Buccaneers or the San Diego Padres old uniforms were. There is nothing wrong with what they have so why change? People think that just because a team is losing a lot means they need new uniforms. The Cubs haven't won a World Series since 1908 and how many uniform changes have they had since then? I don't have the exact numbers, but changing uniforms obviously hasn't done anything for the Cubs. What makes you think it will make a difference now?

I've long called for a color change, as well as losing the pinstripes on the home unis. yes, I know, it's tradition...but it's a losing tradition. nothing good has come of these uniforms, or the circular "C" since they first came on the scene in the mid 50's. Color change, as in complete overhaul like the White Sox in the 90's when they went black and white? The uniforms aren't the reason why they've lost a lot of games, changing them as some sort of effort to create a winner would be kind of pathetic. color change as in back to the navy like suggested by others. did you seriously interpret that as me saying the reason for losing is the uniforms? I don't like the pinstripes. the usual response to that is "it's tradition." my response to that is "yes, a losing tradition, so why keep them." I don't think I implied in any way that the reason the Cubs lose alot of games is the uniforms. Personally I like the pinstripes. I'm fairly indifferent on either navy blue or royal blue, but I think the Cubs should keep the pinstripes.

Check out benmaller.com. Has been mentioned other places as well. It is mentioned on Sports Illustrated's Truth and Rumors page today also. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/scorecard/03/03/truth.rumors.mlb/index.html

That's enough negativity for the day. Prior will not get hurt this year....hopefully.

It is tiring but he wasn't supposed to be ready for the beginning of the season anyway. So now he's recovering from two injuries at the same time instead of one. And its better that this happen now instead of in August. Although, now that I think about it, he'll probably have another injury then anyway so it really doesn't matter. Oh well.

Harold Reynolds (I think) was just talking about key players playing up to their potential this year being the key for their respective teams. The first two were Mark Prior and Kerry Wood. Reynolds said that each need to "win 15-20 games for the Cubs to be successful." The second was A.J. Burnett for the Blue Jays. The problem I have is what potential is Burnett supposed to live up to? The guy who currently has a 49-50 career record, the guy who has a high win total of 12 wins, or the guy who has one winning season (two if you count 19 starts in 2004) when he makes 20 starts in a year? I know Kerry Wood hasn't lived up to his potential. But under the same comparisions Wood has a 70-54 record, 14 wins and 5 winning seasons. Burnett will be expected to be a second ace next to Roy Halliday this year. Wood could win 12 to 14 games as a third starter, if Zambrano and Prior stay healthy, and that would be good for the Cubs. I do agree that Prior needs to win 15-20, but I found it interesting that Reynolds didn't even mention that Zambrano could be the ace of the staff. At least Prior has won 18 games in a season so far. Basically, and yes I have read Moneyball, I'm sick of hearing people talking about a player living up to his potential when he hasn't done anything yet. Burnett hasn't done anything worthy of having a lot of hype surrounding him.

How can you not like them as players? You might not like their price tag, but they certainly help the bullpen. They don't certainly do anything. They're journeymen relievers, and journeyman relievers are not consistent, and guarantee you nothing. They should make the bullpen better, but neither is a lockdown reliever, or anything special, or a right fielder with solid production numbers (the Cubs real #1 need this offseason). Seems to me that the bullpen is crap shoot, look at Cardinals the last two seasons. They've had the NL's best bullpen and what wasn't journeymen about King, Taverez, Calero, Flores, et al? Sometimes it just works, let's hope it works for the Cubs this season. Sometimes a couple of your relievers happen to have career year one year and then all of a sudden you have the best bullpen in the league. After the closer (and even that can be unpredictable) I agree that setting up a good bullpen is mostly luck.

I second that.

I don't think the travel will wear on them and I don't think Dusty is asking too much by wanting them back in Spring Training on off days considering how close they will be to Mesa.

Not necessarily. The Cubs would have a good chance to win the division but the only team that has a chance to 'run away' with the division in 2006 is the Cardinals. Look at their resume -they won the division last year -they have a 1-2 starting punch that is as good as any in the league with Carpenter and Mulder -they have a solid closer with Isringhausen -Scott Rolen only played 56 games last year, and stunk it up when he was playing -they still have Pujols and Edmonds as well I'm not saying the Cardinals will win the division, and I do think the Cubs have a chance. But there is no way that the Cubs run away with the NL Central in 2006