champaignchris

This has been speculated on for a long time. The Cubs weren't the first to do it either.

He and Chip Caray were let go for being too critical of the team. I think it was a situation where the contracts were not renewed. At least that is how I remember it. Am I wrong? According to wikipedia Stone refused to renew his contract after the 2004 season during which he was confronted by several players who thought he was overly critical. My bad. I think it was Chip Caray whose contact was not renewed. If I recall correctly, Stone's refusal to renew was in part because he thought that Chip was getting a raw deal.

So what happens if a live ball hits a batter who hasn't hit the ball into play? A more likely situation than the Verlander incident would be if there's a wild throw on a pick-off attempt and a baserunner tries to score. Let's say there's another wild throw home that hits the batter as he's furiously trying to get out of the way. What happens then? Is it a dead ball situation and the runner has to stay at the base he's at, or is it a live ball and the runner can keep going?

It's not just power-hitting outfielders. Between Girardi debuting during the tail end of 1989 and Soto playing a game in 2005, who was the best position player to come up through the Cubs' system to actually play for the Cubs? Doug Glanville? Corey Patterson? Ryan Theriot?

Classic, from the confused looks in the A's dugout to the Tigers' Catcher trying not to laugh.

Good. Nothing should mitigate the Ryan Braun hate around here. Yes. Now, we can all go back to full-on believing Braun is the douchiest douche to ever douche a douche-hole.

Other than Jeff Samardzija - who seems to have cured his inability to miss bats by simply not throwing the ball anywhere near the plate - the bullpen has been pretty good through the first nine games. If the bullpen has a collective 3.70 ERA at the end of the season, we'll consider it a team strength.

To his credit, in 6 games he already has 4 walks. He only had 41 last season. Of course, he's posting identical BA and SLG.

I was really hoping that Musial article was going to have some substance to it, because I'm always down for some Cardinal idol bashing, but instead, we get this: 1. Some Black baseball players were refused seating at his restaurant by the maitre'de back in 1963, and by third-hand account Musial may have had something to do with it. 2. Musial may have suggested a protest against Jackie Robinson coming into the league despite the fact that a number of other sources say that Musial was not among the racists with the Cardinals at the time of integration, that he was generally friendly with his Black teammates and opponents, and that they doubt Musial would have had anything to do with the protest. 3. Musial, an established star in the Majors, decided not to join a fledgling Mexican baseball league. 4. Musial may have leaned towards the owners instead of players in some pension negotiations. Is this what he's arguing? Because nothing in that article makes me think that Musial was anything worse than a fairly typical White American of his generation, and may have actually been quite a bit more tolerant than your typical White American of his generation. Also, the most recent alleged incident listed in the article occurred in 1963, and Stan Musial has lived a very long life since then. If a smear article can't find anything to smear a guy with that's occurred in the last 48 years, what does that say?

Bench him. When he has an 0-4 four game after not starting for 10 days, send him to anger management therapy.

Barring a major injury this year, I'd be willing to bet that A-Ram is our starting 3B in 2012.

That's the one that stood out to me. His ERA has gone down in each of the last three seasons (as have his IP) and their projected ERA would be almost a full run more than he gave up last year. I know ERA is flawed - but still, a jump of that magnitude...

If Quenneville of the Blackhawks is the Q-stache, does that make Quade the Q-ball? Will I get any credit for that when it's all over 670 The Score and the Trib next summer?

That would be awesome! Pat: "Shouldn't they be getting you up in the bullpen about now." Kerry: "Naw, this guy kills me. I suspect they'll bring in a lefty this inning, and I'll go in the 8th." Kerry: "That'll have to be it for me today, folks. Just got the call from the dugout. Gotta go start warming up. See ya tomorrow, Pat." Pat: "Since blowing the lead and sending us into extra-innings, Kerry will be re-joining us as soon as he's had a chance to take a shower..."

I just don't understand the Jack Morris thing. The following HoF eligible pitchers were all as good or better than Morris: Vida Blue Kevin Brown David Cone Dwight Gooden Ron Guidry Orel Hershiser Tommy John Jim Kaat Dennis Marinez Rick Reuschel Bret Saberhagen Dave Stieb Frank Tanana Louis Tiant Frank Viola Note: I do not believe any of the above deserve to be in the HoF either.

The guy's had two good seasons, six years apart. How can you throw all those years at him?

But then, there's a two game difference in WAR over 19 and 20 season careers in one case and a nearly 50 game difference in WAR in the other.

I need someone to explain to me why Larkin got 38% more votes than Trammell. They had nearly identical careers. Player A 20 years, 8288 AB, 2365 hits, 185 HR, 1003 RBI, .285/.352/.415, 66.9 WAR, 4 GG Player B 19 years, 7937 AB, 2340 hits, 198 HR, 960 RBI, .295/.371/.444, 68.9 WAR, 3 GG Played the same position. They even played in about the same era - 11 of their seasons overlap. One got an MVP, the other a runner up. Both were on one WS winning team. Which is Trammell? Which is Larkin? Why is one so much better than the other? How does Kevin Brown fall off on the first ballot? How did John Franco get more votes than he did? I don't think that he deserves to be in, but he was as good a pitcher as there was in the game from about 1996 to 2001. His career numbers compare favorably to Smoltz and Schilling, two guys you know will get a lot more consideration. Raines and Bagwell are criminally under appreciated players. Palmeiro at 11%. 3000 hits and 500 HRs. Clearly, the writers aren't over the whole steroid thing yet. (A is Trammell, B is Larkin.)

DeWitt and Baker should platoon righty/lefty. I think the Cubs are smart enough to make that happen. Colvin and Byrd should also platoon righty/lefty, with Fukudome shifting to center for games when Colvin is playing. Not sure the Cubs will figure that one out.

The guy's rate stats are of course fantastic. But consider his aggregate stats and the fact that he missed all but 9 games of his 23, 24, 25, and 26 year old seasons in the War. Feller probably lost about 90 wins and more than 900 strike outs to the service. That would put him at 356 wins and close to 3,500 strike outs. Much the same can be said of Ted Williams, Hank Greenberg, Stan Musial and others, of course.

After joining the Cardinals, didn't Theriot say something to the effect of the Cubs' clubhouse being bad because the guys didn't hang out together? So with regard to Soriano, which is it? Or is it that they're hanging out together in a bad way? Is that what "bad party habits" means? Are there good party habits Soriano is failing to pass on to our younger players? Stuff like, "Tip your server, use a designated driver," and that sort of thing? I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who thinks the biggest difference between Aramis Ramirez and Scott Rolen is where they were born. (Baseball reference, most similar player to Ram through age 32: Scott Rolen (926).) If I were demoted to the bullpen after one bad start and a 9-year career ERA+ of 127, I'd probably need anger management, too.

I'm not adverse to trading Z, but I think the Cubs need to get a ton for him. He doesn't turn 30 until midway through this season. His worse ERA+ of his career as a regular player is 111. He gets you innings as long as you don't do anything stupid like put him in the bullpen or force him to take anger management classes. He walks too many guys, but otherwise his measurables are in the elite or near-elite range. He's slightly overpaid, but his contract is nowhere near the albatross some make it out to be. The guy can still pitch and pitch quite well. And most importantly, other than maybe Zach Greinke, a team like the Yankees or Angels will not find a better available option.

Just speculation on my part, but I figure the prospect of joining a 5th different team in three years simply wasn't something Lee wanted to do. When talking about the amount of money being thrown around here, what's the loss of a few million in exchange for being someplace where you know you're comfortable? That Phillies team is by and large the same team he was on two years ago, with the same manager. He just must have enjoyed his time there. This must feel like a real slap in the face to Texas. Lee certainly had a right to sign wherever he wanted and didn't at all engage in any sort of Lebron-esque dickery. Still, Texas has to be wondering, "Why them and not us?" The answer is probably which team has the easiest path back to the W.S. The Phillies were probably the NL favorite before Lee signed with them. Even with Lee, Texas may not have been the favorite to win its division. There was some fluky-ness to the Angels' down year (injury to Pineiro, Kazmir career worst year, etc.) and Texas' great year (Vlad's comeback year, C.J. Wilson suddenly a starter at age 30, etc.).

Portland has been brought up many times as a possible destination for a MLB team, but does it have the population to support a team? All they have are the Blazers in terms of professional sports. According to 2009 estimates, Portland and Sacramento are the largest metro areas without a baseball team. (Unless you count the Riverside-San Bernardino "Inland Empire" as a metro area separate from L.A. which the census bureau does.) Both have over two million and have grown in the 15-20% range in population over the last 10 years. Larger than Cleveland, K.C. and Milwaukee, and not a whole bunch smaller than Tampa-St. Pete. EDIT: I don't think baseball would actually want T.B. to move. Demographically speaking, you'd eventually have to move a team right back there. EDITx2: From the pure perspective of available eyeballs on TV sets and rear ends to be put in seats, a National League team in Boston might make more sense than all of the above.

I think the Portland Rays will be fine. They should be good for many years to come.