soccer10k

And that is where you are wrong. Criticizing somebody simply for voicing their opinion on something is hypocritical. As I said, you can criticize somebody for what their opinion is, but you are flat out wrong thinking you can criticize Wojo for saying what he wants to. He gets paid to write a column and got paid to write Cubs Nation. You can disagree with every word that comes out of his mouth but don't criticize him for doing his job. If you do that then I suggest you change your user name to HypocriteinNY.

No credible journalist would write "If stupid were a country George W Bush would be it's capitol" and expect to keep his/her job. What little I've watched of Rome I haven't like so I don't watch, nor do I listen. That is the thing, if you are a sportswriter you are also a journalist. If you want any credability you stick to what is on the field not what is between someone's ears. Here is what the Richard could have wrote: After Farnsworth was roughed up yet again during the failed run to the wild card he probably sealed his fate with the Cubs when he had to go on the DL becuase he kicked a fan. No not the ones who were swearing at him. The one who attempt to cool him down after failing on the field. It probably wasn't the smartest thing he ever dd and may have cost him a lot of money. No columnist may have said it exactly like that, but many have said something along those lines. Do you even remember the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and how often Bush was ripped for supposedly not responding quick enough? Have you ever heard of political cartoons? Sure they don't actually say Bush is an idiot in words, but they damn sure imply it. There is a thing in this country called freedom of speech. I don't have the freedom to call you an idiot on this board because I would get kicked off. But if I wrote a book, I could call you an idiot. That's what Wojo did. He wrote a book about the Cubs and his personal opinion about the Farnsworth injury was that Farnsworth was an idiot. If you don't like it, you don't have to read him. But don't criticize Wojo for writing what he feels in his book or in a column because he has earned the right to do so. He has earned nothing but his hack status. Sure he has the right to say whatever he wants and I have the right to criticize his writing. Freedom of speech works both ways, does it not? Yes freedom of speech does work both ways. But you can't criticize him for saying whatever he wants to. However, you can criticize his opinion. There is a difference between the two.

No credible journalist would write "If stupid were a country George W Bush would be it's capitol" and expect to keep his/her job. What little I've watched of Rome I haven't like so I don't watch, nor do I listen. That is the thing, if you are a sportswriter you are also a journalist. If you want any credability you stick to what is on the field not what is between someone's ears. Here is what the Richard could have wrote: After Farnsworth was roughed up yet again during the failed run to the wild card he probably sealed his fate with the Cubs when he had to go on the DL becuase he kicked a fan. No not the ones who were swearing at him. The one who attempt to cool him down after failing on the field. It probably wasn't the smartest thing he ever dd and may have cost him a lot of money. No columnist may have said it exactly like that, but many have said something along those lines. Do you even remember the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and how often Bush was ripped for supposedly not responding quick enough? Have you ever heard of political cartoons? Sure they don't actually say Bush is an idiot in words, but they damn sure imply it. There is a thing in this country called freedom of speech. I don't have the freedom to call you an idiot on this board because I would get kicked off. But if I wrote a book, I could call you an idiot. That's what Wojo did. He wrote a book about the Cubs and his personal opinion about the Farnsworth injury was that Farnsworth was an idiot. If you don't like it, you don't have to read him. But don't criticize Wojo for writing what he feels in his book or in a column because he has earned the right to do so.

He wrote it because Farnsworth is an idiot. He wrote it because Farnsworth got himself injured in the middle of the wild card race for kicking a fan. Farnsworth is an idiot because there is no reason to suffer a stupid injury like that late in the season. Completely uncalled for. I'm not trying to defend all of Wojciechowski's work, just this quote. No writer who is writing a book about baseball has the right to impune someone's intellignece that way. He could have written it any numbr of ways. Instead, he wrote what he wrote, because he thought it was funny and catchy. It was neither. Or he wrote it because Farnsworth refused to grant him permission to use his interviewws to sell his worthless book. I choose to believer the latter because the guy is a punk ass loser who can't string two thoughts together without trying to seem smart. How in the hell do you know that Farnsworth is stupid? Becuase he looks it? Becuase he kicked a fan after a poor outing? Becuase you gave him an IQ test. It was the same way with Patterson. It wasn't enugh that he was having a bad year. He also had to be lazy, uncoachable, and uncaring. This kind of crap has to stop. The sportswriters can get by with writing almost anything. That's the freedom that being a sports columnist gives you. Wojo can write whatever he wants. Do you get mad at Jim Rome when he rips people on national television? Because sports columnists rip players multiple times every single day. Do you get mad at people who rip our government and say George Bush is an idiot, because there is no difference in calling Bush an idiot and calling Farnsworth an idiot. None whatsoever. So don't single out sports columnists in this one. You have to point the finger at every single columnist, because they all do it.

He wrote it because Farnsworth is an idiot. He wrote it because Farnsworth got himself injured in the middle of the wild card race for kicking a fan. Farnsworth is an idiot because there is no reason to suffer a stupid injury like that late in the season. Completely uncalled for. I'm not trying to defend all of Wojciechowski's work, just this quote.

haha. i bet he does. i would like to see c.c. sabathia's also. i bet his is off center also.

He wouldn't have gone from sub 40 to 73 that's for sure. I am talking about over the course of his career. He may not have hit 73 but he probably could have averaged 40/yr. Look how many at-bats he has missed since the 73 and how many HR he missed because he was hurt. We do not know how much steroids contributed to his injuries but there is a good chance that it was substantial. And he might still be going strong had he not taken steriods. So what would the asterick mean by his name - that he hit more HR than he should have or that he hit less HR than he should have? I think that argument is absurd. Who's to say he would even still be in baseball today if it weren't for roids. It's not like he missed that much, the only significant time he missed was part of '99 and last season. Who is also to say that him missing last season was a result of complications from quitting steroids after the scandal broke and testing began? It's well known that if you do Steroids and then quit later, it's hard on your body. It's also well known that for the most part, the negative aspects to steroid abuse are mostly long term. If he started using when he was 34-35, it could have prevented him from breaking down when he was 36 or 37 and just delayed it until he was 39. There's no reason whatsoever to be apologizing for Bonds actions. To speculate he's hit less because of roids is pretty outrageous. And that is the key point of the Bonds argument. Bonds was a surefire HOFer anyway. But steroids most likely prolonged his career for a couple more years. Bonds would have hit 500 HR's and would have had a decent chance at 600 without steroids. But there is no chance that his body would have held up long enough to reach the 700 plateau. It just wouldn't have happened.

If only the Cubs' injuries were more like Edmonds': http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/22E597C2E97C1B688625713B0016A1D4?OpenDocument BTW, Edmonds spring stats; 26 AB, 13 H, 4 2B, 1 HR, 4 RBI, .500 BA, .552 OBP, .769 SLG, 1.321 OPS A Cub with an inflamed elbow means at least half the season on the DL. Jim Edmonds with an inflamed elbow means a .500 ST batting average. Some things are just unfair.

Hilarious.

Whatever gets us to the postseason. If that means playing the young guys, so be it.

I agree completely. I think the NL Central could look a lot like the NL East from last year, with the exception of the Reds. I could easily see the first and fifth place teams finishing within 10 games of each other. No team stands out ahead of the rest, like the Cardinals the last couple years, and the Brewers and Pirates are improved. I wouldn't call them the favorites, but in 2003 everybody said the Cubs were a year away but then they won the division. I think the NL Central will be the most competative division in the league.

I can't express how happy I was when the Cubs signed both Eyre and Howry. We have always had bullpen problems. And I think that is what is being overlooked by many Cubs fans. I don't think our lineup is significantly better or worse than in previous years and we have the same injured starters. I guarantee that if we had a couple decent relievers we would have made the playoffs in 2004. Obviously injuries are going to happen, but I think the Cubs have a decent chance to make the postseason this year. On the other hand, there is also a good chance of a repeat performance of last season if the right things go wrong. We'll see. I'm hoping for the postseason.

I think it's Aardsma

Who is pitching for the Cubs?

At first I was going to say no way this happens but then I looked up the NL East from last year and all 5 teams finished within 9 games of each other and no team finished with a sub-.500 record (Washington was 81-81). I guess it's possible, but still it's unlikely.

$70000 a year is a lot of money and a family of two can easily get by on that. I don't think Randy should have to pay any more because he agreed to make the payments and has done so. The mother has no right to ask for more money.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2388844 HAHAHAHA. Wow, I didn't see this one coming.

Well, that solves that problem. Rusch pitched five and two thirds of an inning and Williamson only pitched a third not one and a third.

Really? 5.7 + 1.3 + 0.7 + 0.3 + 1.0 + 1.0 = 10.0 innings not 9.0 I beg to differ.

So Williamson only pitched to 1 batter? That's not a good sign... He pitched one and a third innings, if I'm not mistaken. That's what I'm not sure about. If you look up the box score posted on this site, the Cubs pitchers combined for 10 innings.

So Williamson only pitched to 1 batter? That's not a good sign... But he did pitch nonetheless.

And for the bullpen giving up just 1 hit and an unearned run. Also, according to the pitching stats that were posted, the game went 10 innings. Either Rusch only pitched 4.7 innings or Williamson only pitched 0.3 innings. Just thought I would put that out there.

I like the late inning comeback.

I love Michael Barrett, in a completely platonic way of course.

Solid work once again so far from our bullpen this spring. I still have trouble saying soild work from our bullpen. For once, at least right now, I'm not going to shudder to think who Baker will bring in from the bullpen. Hopefully we'll be able to rely on them all year.