17 Seconds

absolutely disgusting. way to win it for red, boys! can't even beat the worst team in the conference. eff this team. i'm now actively rooting against them the rest of this way. vdn needs to go, and now.

I like Malkin, hes a better defender. Doesn't matter, Ovechkin is better than either by a mile. ovechkin is a better goal scorer

respect to dennis rader

mini poll- is malkin better than crosby? i think it's closer than a lot of people want to admit

toews!

Luckily we're not outplaying them, then. they are if you dont count the goalie as part of the team than I guess so 2 soft goals from a goalie don't mean the other team is outplaying the other

Luckily we're not outplaying them, then. they are

we better not outplay the other team for a 3rd straight game and lose all 3

we're gonna blow the 4th seed

wow huet gtfo of here

you mean he gave up a soft goal

after what happened yesterday, losing tonight (against the worst team in the east, no less) would be absolutely inexcusable

unless he puts up his career numbers. then he'll be like the 4th or 5th best hitter on the team. gtyty Read my post again. I never said I didn't expect him to be good, I just don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he'll be a great hitter. He's been a great hitter for about his last full season's worth of at-bats. Before then he wasn't great for a corner outfielder. His career OPS+ is 118, which would have been tied for 6th best on the Cubs last season.... hence my comment about him probably being like the 4th or 5th best hitter on the Cubs if he performed to his career averages. Like I said, I'm not expecting that. I'm expecting him to put up numbers similar to what Aramis put up last year.... rate-wise. oh okay so you were suggesting that he might perform close to his career averages, which are heavily weighed down by terrible years early in his career, but you're comparing his OPS+ to the OPS+ that current cubs put up just last year. why might he perform close to his career numbers but everyone else would perform close to last year? i guess we could talk about what it will be like if rich harden pitches 200 innings, or derrek lee reverts to his 2005 form, or ted lilly spikes his glove so hard that it bounces back up and hits him in the face and he suffers a detached retina and is out for the year, but doesn't it make more sense to discuss what is likely to happen, and not what could perhaps conceivably happen? also, i will again suggest that you use a statistic other than OPS+ to evaluate a player's worth. if two players have the same OPS+ and same clutch/late stats, but one has an OBP that's 40 points higher, that guy will be the significantly more valuable hitter. Yes, of course it makes more sense to discuss what's likely to happen, and I've already said what I think is likely. My point is that you declared that will hit if he's healthy. You never said he'll probably hit. Everybody just assumes that when he's healthy he's some hitting machine. That's only been true for like his last 650 ABs. Before then he wasn't great. Why are we so positive he's going to rake? It's not a sure thing at all, yet people ace like it is. As for the thing about him performing to his career and that being worse than 4-5 Cubs from last year....obviously that's skewed. My point was that it's not a foregone conclusion that he's going to crush the ball. Oh and the stuff about his career 118 OPS+ being weighed down by numbers early in his career is just flat out not true. He's rakes for his last 623 AB's. In 2006 he had a 114 OPS+. In 2005 is was 118. In 2004 it was 108. Ill say it again. He's been a great hitter for about the last full season's worth of PA. For the rest of his career he's just been okay. Like I said, I'm expecting him to be fine. I just don't know how we can be 100% sure that he's some stud hitter when he hasn't been for the majority of his career. Is it likely he'll be good? Probably, but it's far from a sure thing.

without manny the dodgers definitely are not "by far the frontrunners" in the division, and it's arguable whether they'd be the favorites at all. their offense looks very mediocre. the rotation has a lot of holes. they'd have lost lowe, manny, and saito this offseason. the dodgers are a below .500 team without manny i'd say.

Don't forget, his career was essentially ended by a series of suspensions for the use of PEDs... amphetamines rather than steroids, but still... it was adderall prescribed by his doctor for adhd

remember dodgerblues? that place is hilarious right now. apparently you can use racial slurs openly and nobody cares.

interesting i thought so. but unless i missed something (which i doubt, considering all the attention this story has got) the media didn't pick up on this. That's because reading anything into that statement at all is preposterous. not really. it would be kind of weird for him to compare an injection to tic tacs.

Aaron Miles 2/5 Mark DeRosa traded to Cleveland is the biggest Cubs blunder this offseason (even bigger than letting Wood walk), and is probably one of the 5 dumbest moves this offseason. Fontenot could do a similar job starting for a fraction of the cost. Fontenot can't play right field when Bradley is hurt.

i still think the giants would be the favorites in that division if they signed him

i'd put my money on manny not being on an opening day roster

yeah but the word blunder in itself was overkill

or people who don't trust bradley to stay healthy

Ryan Dempster that remains to be seen but it could definitely end up that way. at least he was legitmately good last season, So was Estaban Loaiza with the white sox in 2003. Then the rest of the time he's been legitmately terrible i never said dempster would or would not end up good or bad. just that you can't say yet whether or not that was an awful contract. it looks bad right now, but we don't know. desmpter could regress quite a bit from last season and still make the contract "okay". If he has like a 1.30 WHIP and a 3.90 ERA it wouldn't be that bad and those numbers aren't unrealistic

or just outright wrong Especially when it's only a 2y at 20m deal if he doesn't play 125 plus games. i still haven't seen where that is coming from. the only thing i've seen is that he only has to spend less than 90 days on the DL in 2009 to guarantee the 3rd year.

well closer contracts are always bad, but compared to other closers the k-rod and fuentes ones were normal