17 Seconds

Plus cubsfan26 never said derosa wasn't going to be good. he said he's likely to drop off from 2008, which he is. his 2006 and 2007 numbers were solid but they are clearly a dropoff from 2008

wait, you're really a cowboys fan?

lol stoops is about to off himself

oh god thom is about to explode after that penalty

well at least i get to laugh at another stoops team choking

i'm sitting here in the booth telling you i've met this young man and you just can't say quite enough about how fantastic this kid tastes

i think tebow just cured cancer

holy hell. how is the puck not going in the net right now? that last minute was insane

hawks should have at least 3-4 goals right now

What you need to realize is that we don't even need all those injuries to make the loss of DeRosa. The only one that has to happen is Bradley, and it's pretty much a sure thing with him. That's when losing DeRosa will hurt. You would have essentially been replacing Bradley with Fontenot in the lineup (with DeRosa moving to right) when Bradley was out. Now you're giving those at-bats to Johnson against RHP, Fukudome against LHP, Gathright, Miles, or maybe Hoffpauir. That's a pretty big downgrade

Bruce Miles http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1203

Only a .450 IsoP...meh that's not everything. he had a .609 OBP that season and had the highest OPS of his career. 232 walks is insane to me. i was obviously kidding...we retired green font i still should have caught that

Only a .450 IsoP...meh that's not everything. he had a .609 OBP that season and had the highest OPS of his career. 232 walks is insane to me.

This. Normally, I'd agree with this line of thinking, but if you add Sheets, that's 3 potential injuries waiting to happen in the rotation (Harden and sadly Zambrano are the others). Also you have to consider the amount of innings Dempster threw last year vs. the previous 3. While it seems great to say we have Marshall if one goes down if 2-3 of them go down, we are all the sudden looking much less formidable. Also, you'd have to think that if hes coming on a somewhat cheap deal, he'd just stay with the Brewers. They are still in on him and would probably match anything we'd offer. Brewers fans seem to think bridges have been burned between Sheets and the Brewers

Hampton is a Houston Astro. and sucks i'm not sure how you can determine a guy sucks from his pitching 12 games in 3 years. i guess it sucks to get hurt all the time though. well he sucked last year when he was "healthy", and 36 year old pitchers who have been injured for the majority of the previous 4 seasons (and were never really very good to begin with anyways) don't usually end up being very good

i still think 2004 was his best and most astonishing season. he walked 242 times and still hit 45 bombs. will any player ever get the treatment to walk 242 times again in one season? albert pujols is as close as it gets to bonds right now and he still isn't even close to getting that kind of treatment.

Hampton is a Houston Astro. and sucks

this thread would have been a lot more conclusive if the choices were just a,b,c,d, and f

Too bad the unit signed with the giants. When we first heard about the Cubs having interest in him during the Peavy stuff, we were all amped out about Peavy so he didn't sound that great. He seems like he would have been a pretty good option now

Sean Gallagher is a table scrap? Considering what you usually have to give up to get an ace caliber pitcher via trade, yes. You mean considering what you have to give up to get an ace caliber pitcher who is constantly hurt. It's notl ike we traded for Sabathia. Anyways, it doesn't matter. The player you're trading for doesn't change what a player is. Gallagher is a not a "table scrap" in any situation. Just to be clea,r I liked the trade. I'm just saying Gallagher is not a table scrap. So you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I like Gallagher, too, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't have a future with the Cubs so by giving him up we didn't give up any value. He was, for all intents and purposes, one of three spare parts we gave up for an outstanding young pitcher. With all due respect to his Dad or whatever, I reiterate, table scraps. Wait, so Gallagher didn't have any value when we traded him? There's one very big flaw of what you're saying. Just because Gallagher doesn't fit into our future in your mind, that doesn't mean we "didn't give up any value". Think aobut it. That really makes no sense. Of course he has value, and the fact that we got Harden with him is pretty much proof of that. He has value through trades. If we didn't trade him for Harden, we could have traded him for somebody else. That's his value. Plus he'd be a decent option as our number 5 starter right now, so I don't know how you can say he didn't have a future with the Cubs. It's not like he was a catcher being blocked by Soto. He was a starting pitcher. You always have a future with a any team. Again, I liked the trade, but it's obvious we had to give up something good to get Harden. This is expected. Gallagher was our best pitching prospect at the time and basically the noyl good one we had left. How can you say that he had no value?

Sean Gallagher is a table scrap? Considering what you usually have to give up to get an ace caliber pitcher via trade, yes. You mean considering what you have to give up to get an ace caliber pitcher who is constantly hurt. It's notl ike we traded for Sabathia. Anyways, it doesn't matter. The player you're trading for doesn't change what a player is. Gallagher is a not a "table scrap" in any situation. Just to be clea,r I liked the trade. I'm just saying Gallagher is not a table scrap. So you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I like Gallagher, too, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't have a future with the Cubs so by giving him up we didn't give up any value. He was, for all intents and purposes, one of three spare parts we gave up for an outstanding young pitcher. With all due respect to his Dad or whatever, I reiterate, table scraps. You shouldn't worry. Everyone with a IQ higher than a argumentative 6th grader looking for attention understood what you meant. Either that or you're just trying t start problems again. So let me get this strait, I'm taking things out of context and just trying to start a fight based on semantics? Gere is what he said How can you even say that's an accurate statement? Obviously he is saying Hendry got Harden without giving uo anything of value. Is that not what "table scraps" means? Hendry got a good deal, but he also gave up a good starting pitching prospect. To imply that he got him for "table scraps" when Gallagher was a well above average pospect just doesn't make sense. Yet I'm doing it to start a fight? okay.

I don't think we can expect him to put up the numbers he did as a Ranger. I'd be really happy if he could put up like a high .800's OPS. I think the best case scenario owuld be a low to mid .900's, but I'd be really surprised if that happened.

So if "people get hurt by twisting (their) legs up all the time," then what the heck is the problem here? That proves what happened to Bradley could've happened to any athlete: fragile, normal, durable, or Ripkenesque. The problem is that there is a pattern of injuries with Bradley. This is just one of many.

Yes but who has ever heard of somebody hurting themself be sneezing? People get hurt by twisting your legs up all the time. If you want to get technical about it, you're right, maybe it wasn't a freak injury when Sosa hurt himself sneezing (and I think I mentioned that it could go either way) that's kind of borderline, depending on which way you interpret it. What did he actually hurt? A ribcage muscle? If it's something that could have been hurting lifting weights or something like that, maybe not. He I think in the context of this discussion, which is talking about a player being fragile, you're right. I shouldn't have said said that was a freak injury, because that injury could have happened while doing something else, and ultimately, his body made that happen. he could suffer that same injury doing something normal like lifting weights, just like Bradley could easily have twisted his legs doing something normal/ We're talking about whether or not a certain injury should go against a player in his "is he fragile or not" debate. Bradley's torn ACL could easily be because he's fragile, just like all his other injuries. Same could be said for Sosa at the time. Prior getting hit by a line drive had nothing to do with his fragile body. It was a freak occurance that will never happen again.

so he destroyed him? i wasn't watching but I'll check hockeyfights.com for it later