javy knows my name

ok, better than sex

Marquette definitely looks like a tournament team right now. This is as poised as I've ever seen us look on the road.

70 wins?

I would really like the 1 seeds to be Texas, Pitt, OSU and Kansas. But you know Duke will get one, hopefully they bump OSU Just random musing - the Big East could have a 1, 2, two 3s, three 4s and three 5-7s. That's crazy

I can't get excited about pitchers and catchers reporting because we're still in the middle of damn February and I don't have the means to get to Mesa. Right now we're in the middle of the sports purgatory that happens between the Superbowl and tournament week. Wake me up the second week of March, please

I really want Baylor to win this one, just to [expletive] everything up incredibly

Syracuse-Georgetown is the only other one that's a real rivalry and those were shown back-to-back. Rivalry day?

Holy God, Sullinger is inching up to my top-5 most punchable people. What a whiny, entitled, flopping piece of [expletive]

What a stupid trend. A bunch of James Murphy ball washers walking around Williamsburg wearing jerseys of players they don't even know. What?! I've never seen a hipster wear a sports jersey. Pics or it's not true

This does not need to branch in to a Colvin conversation but Colvin's power seemed pretty real, do you just think he cannot make enough contact? Just curious because If he is given 450+ AB's i see 25 homers as something he can reach. Well, I'm thinking (hoping) he doesn't get ample playing time to do it. And yes, contact is a definite concern, and as someone said earlier, I think pitchers figure out the holes in his swing better this year. Now, if he develops some plate discipline, all bets are off. Except for the one about me running on the field naked. That's still on.

If Colvin hits 23 HR this year, I'll run onto the field naked

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have much "taste" when it comes to postings on the internets, but that was still pretty tasteless.

http://www.galesburg.com/newsnow/x1111634859/Report-NCAA-tourney-to-get-full-TV-coverage [expletive] [expletive] [expletive] [expletive] yes

This is probably true, but I still hate hate hate it

um, yay

I want the Cubs to get Pujols for no other reason than so your [expletive] uncle can call you stupid some more. Absolutely this

Snood, you forgot to PLEEEEEAAADDDD us to believe that you couldnt care less what we think!

Yeah, you give that [expletive] all the put-downs he can handle. U-S-A!!!!!

edited my post above - hopefully that answers your question. It does. So it really comes down to athleticism and conditioning, which can be predicted based on what types of things the player does well on the field.

I agree with you. But the old player skills/young player skills argument doesn't. Doesn't Crawford have young player skills? Avg/contact, speed, defense. Now, I would think that speed and defense are the first to go in old age - so then why are they more valuable and projectable? Jim Edmonds had old player skills - OBP, power, lumbery. Yet, we was able to stick into his late 30s. Can someone please give me a run-down of this argument before I go cross-eyed? he was not lumbery. maybe he became lumbery in his later years but he was a very good fielder for a long time. plus he always hit around .300. the traditional "old player skills" guy is like adam dunn, where most of their value is tied up in a good batting eye and power. Ok, that's true, he became lumbery. What I don't understand, then, is why the quintessential "old player-skilled" Adam Dunn is some sort of lock to not age well when the first things that go, BA and speed, were never a part of his game to begin with. One would think that having a good eye and good power would have more longevity in baseball than the former.

That doesn't make any sense. I think he was being sarcastic

I agree with you. But the old player skills/young player skills argument doesn't. Doesn't Crawford have young player skills? Avg/contact, speed, defense. Now, I would think that speed and defense are the first to go in old age - so then why are they more valuable and projectable? Jim Edmonds had old player skills - OBP, power, lumbery. Yet, we was able to stick into his late 30s. Can someone please give me a run-down of this argument before I go cross-eyed? Beertown, I'm not sure what you're asking. We're in agreeance on Crawford having young player skills. That's why I brought him up: I think it's a risk to give him that type of contract at his age. Him and Cliff Lee were brought up to show that other teams spent bigtime money on players other than just the Nats. (granted, I also think the Red Sox have the luxury of this, because they develop enough cheap guys to put around their expenditures) But I do think his contract will be a hindrance the last couple of years of it. And I think someone like Pujols who's strengths are clearly not based on speed or even playing a premium defensive position. You're buying his OBP and his SLG. And those skills in a player his size should hold up better than what speed typically does in a guy hiting his mid 30's for instance. You and I agree, but there is a school of thought (to which I alluded) that disagrees. I was inviting someone to defend it. I think the thought is that people who only have old player skills in their primes typically have bad conditioning and won't age well. So even though players with young player skills will lose a step as they age, they still will be in good condition with their bodies and will age better than the pure power hitter who once their natural skills start to erode they really can't make up for it. A guy like Edmonds had plenty of both types of skills which helped him age gracefully. Pujols should be the same way. That's actually an angle I've nver heard before. That makes some sense

I agree with you. But the old player skills/young player skills argument doesn't. Doesn't Crawford have young player skills? Avg/contact, speed, defense. Now, I would think that speed and defense are the first to go in old age - so then why are they more valuable and projectable? Jim Edmonds had old player skills - OBP, power, lumbery. Yet, we was able to stick into his late 30s. Can someone please give me a run-down of this argument before I go cross-eyed? Beertown, I'm not sure what you're asking. We're in agreeance on Crawford having young player skills. That's why I brought him up: I think it's a risk to give him that type of contract at his age. Him and Cliff Lee were brought up to show that other teams spent bigtime money on players other than just the Nats. (granted, I also think the Red Sox have the luxury of this, because they develop enough cheap guys to put around their expenditures) But I do think his contract will be a hindrance the last couple of years of it. And I think someone like Pujols who's strengths are clearly not based on speed or even playing a premium defensive position. You're buying his OBP and his SLG. And those skills in a player his size should hold up better than what speed typically does in a guy hiting his mid 30's for instance. You and I agree, but there is a school of thought (to which I alluded) that disagrees. I was inviting someone to defend it.

The Darth Vader commercial was the best, with "Detroit's back" just behind at #2. All the Dorritos commercials were pretty mediocre. I actually groaned at the housesitting one. No good Bud Light commercials, either, for the second straight year. And where the [expletive] was Mayhem?!

I agree with you. But the old player skills/young player skills argument doesn't. Doesn't Crawford have young player skills? Avg/contact, speed, defense. Now, I would think that speed and defense are the first to go in old age - so then why are they more valuable and projectable? Jim Edmonds had old player skills - OBP, power, lumbery. Yet, we was able to stick into his late 30s. Can someone please give me a run-down of this argument before I go cross-eyed?