17 Seconds

Damn... he was my favorite. RIP

Hawks in 6

So far this season mlb.tv and mlb.com in general has been awful. Thanks for the Pat & Ron clip. I wanted to see that but couldn't because of the ridiculous lack of controls on the new player.

What's the big deal? He's hit pretty well in AAA over the last 2 seasons and has a .691 OPS so far. He's a back up catcher

I wrote them off before the season started. Is that ok? So between them and the Cards, you think the Cubs are just going to coast to an easy division title, without question? Yeah, really smart.

Writing off the Brewers at this point is pretty silly.

I think we should wait until Bradley actually starts hitting before we start to blow him. Walks are nice, but he's always drawn walks. He hasn't always hit.

oh look another free pass. forget the fact that lou's in game managing was brutal last year also. "oh but we won 97 games, so he was awesome!"

You can actually look at is really only having one bat outing though. In his first save he gave up a single to the leadoff hitter. Then Bradley messed up and cost Gregg a run. So in all honestly Gregg pitched just fine in his first save chance, and should have only gave up on single and no runs.Then in the next game he came in with two on and no out. He got a fly out, intentional walk, then gave up a very weak single that just found the hole. Those two games wasn't really bad pitching at all. Yesterdays 2 walks, double that allowed two runs was really just one bad outing. The whole point is it's early, and very small sample size of struggling. Kerry Wood wasn't a whole lot better at this point, and he was just fine. By the way Wood gave up 3 hits, and 1 walk in his 2 innings pitched. So when you factor in that one of the 4 hits Gregg gave up was a misjudged flyball that Bradley screwed up on, and one of his walks was intentional. There honestly hasn't been much of a difference between Gregg and Wood after four games. I know you don't like Gregg, but I think fans are being pretty picky with his performance so far and being way to hard on him. It's been three games, so anyone calling him horrible right now is flat out overreacting. You can argue the overreacing point, but once again you're trying to make excuses. Don't try to downplay the fact that Gregg has pitched poorly so far. On opening day the leadoff single was decently hit and the hit that Bradley should have caught was hard hit. If Bradley caught it that would have been him bailing out Gregg. In his second game he looked alright I guess, but couldn't miss a bat against crappy hitters when he needed it. Then yesterday he looked like crap. How the hell are you going to walk Chris Duffy in a 1 run game in the 9th? That's inexcusable. Then of course he gave up the rocket to Weeks to tie the game and then once again couldn't miss bats when he needed it. So yeah, you can tell us to give him a chance. That's fine, and I kind of agree. But don't act like he hasn't sucked so far.

No, the difference iis that Wood is a much better pitcher than Kevin Gregg. I think people wanted Gregg to be in the closer role just because it allowed Marmol to stay where he is. I don't think anybody was excited about the idea of Gregg closing games. Nobody is overreacting I don't think. Gregg just isn't a great pitcher. He's really not much better than Michael Wuertz. It reminds of when I went to a Marlins game in Miami last season. Gregg was trying to close out the Cubs and the Marlins fan in front of me was like "Gregg might get the save sometimes, but it's never pretty."

Yes. They're 9 games worse per year since we got rid of Dusty. I never even said anything about the division. I said they're always competetive.

Derrek Lee has been awful since last April. How is it too early? Would a 3 run home run by him tomorrow suddenly make him good again?

We should slap the next person who says this. It doesn't matter. It's not Theriot's fault. The game was over when that ball came off Braun's bat, barring a miracle one way or the other. There's a solid dozen things to be legitimately pissed about after this game. Theriot's defensive error early in the game, Soriano misplaying Weeks double in the 9th, every single move Lou made after pulling Harden... Theriot's decision to throw home in the ninth is not one of them. Actually it is Theriot's fault, but not for the decision (although he still had a better shot at turning 2). He's at fault because his range is so poor that he was in awful position when he picked that ball up. A shortstop with better range turns 2 on that.

So you think the Cubs offense scores runs according to the score and situation? Because that's the only way blowing a lead in the 7th is different from blowing it in the 9th- if you think the offense becomes better when they're trailing. In reality, you get at-bats in the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings regardless of score. And ultimately, 2 runs scoring in the 9th inning count exactly the same as 2 runs scored in the 7th inning.

Huh? Why would you bunt with an insurance run at 2rd base with only 1 out? You only do that with a pitcher, if at all.

the outfielder - soriano - got a bad jump on a routine fly ball. you're ripping a shortstop for not making a catch on a lazy fly ball to left field. it was the only play he had. you're letting your hatred for theriot distort your view of the game. trying to turn two on that play would have been a terrible decision. A decent shortstop turns that fairly easily, but even with the terrible position Theriot was in when he caught the ball, he still had a decent chance at 2. With his arm, he had no chance at Weeks. He made pretty much the best throw HE could have made and still didn't get him.

Yeah, not to mention the bullpen probably looked worse then than now. An excellent point. Woody blew his first save against the Brewers too. That wasn't a blown save

His lefty-righty obsession is a big problem.

Okay you're right. 86-76 in a stacked division isn't good.

Yeah and they lost Carpenter for the entire season and still almost matched that projection. Wahetever though, it's not really worth arguing if you're just going to pretend like they haven't been competitive.

Yeah, you'd have to go all the way back to 2007 to find them performing worse than expected, and didn't compete. Course, they didn't really compete last year either, but it's unlikely you'll admit that. Come on. Compared to expectations? The Cards were a surprise for most of the year last year. Sure they faded late, but they were supposed to fade early. I think LaRussa's done a nice job with what he's had to work with. I said they didn't compete last year, not that they didn't outperform expectations. I seriously want to know what it was the Cardinals "competed for" last year. Um, a playoff spot? They finished 4 games out of a wild card spot. And yeah, you definititly did imply that tha Cardinals weren't a good team last season, which is totally incorrect. If you win 86 games in a stacked division, you're good. I don't know how you can act like the Cardinals sucked last season. Pretty much everybody thought they wouldn't be very good. Then when Carpenter went down right away, everybody thought they would completely tank.

Yeah, you'd have to go all the way back to 2007 to find them performing worse than expected, and didn't compete. Course, they didn't really compete last year either, but it's unlikely you'll admit that. They performed worse than expected in 2007? I seem to remember the popular belief going into that season was that they were going to be pretty bad, yet they stayed close to .500 and were only a game out of first in September. And don't even try to act like they didn't compete last year. They didn't compete for the division, but before the season everyone (including me) was all "god the cards are going to be brutal this season"..... and then they won 86 games (and in a really good division). Winning 86 games means you were a competitive team, and nobody thought that team would be competitive and have a legit shot at the playoffs for most of the season.

"The only reason they managed to finish 4th and win 86 games is because they were lucky enough to have an unbelievable season." No no, silly. They won 86 games because they were good. They only finished in fourth because we were lucky enough to have an unbelievable season. Didn't you know? We're only good when we're lucky. They're good even when they finish 4th. nobody said anything close to that, but okay

"The only reason they managed to finish 4th and win 86 games is because they were lucky enough to have an unbelievable season." Huh? I don't understand what you're asking. I was just saying it's kind of dumb to use "they finished 4th" to imply that they were a bad team last season. They won 86 games. They weren't a bad team. As for the "they're the cardinals" part......are you denying that the Cardinals always seem to do better than expected and always compete?

having a bad spring training means you have to "get you career back on track"?