Jehrico

Slightly OT, so please forgive me... Has anyone else had a problem getting blacked out of games they're not supposed to get blacked out of with direct tv? I had lots of problems with Bulls games early in the season. Today on Comcast Sports Net, I got the message that the Cubs Astros game was blacked out. I live in Georgia, my billing address on file with them is a Georgia Zip Code. My phone number is a Colorado number. I have absolutely no ties to any Illinois or Texas zip codes or anything else. Am I wrong in assuming that I shouldn't be getting blacked out of anything except for maybe when they are playing the Braves?

I thought DirectTV was the only one that ponied up the 100 mil for the extra innings? Or do they get exclusive access beginning next year or some other year?

That's funny until you try to visualize applying that mantra to Hillary. I had to go to the bathroom so I could gag.

And the Cubs are equally entitled to reconsider not blocking the view. No argument here. A handshake deal is legally non-binding. It's only valid as long as both parties say it is. I don't think that's true. Verbal agreements can still be enforced as contracts. The tricky part is if there's no witness and the sides claim different versions of the agreement. If the owner agreed to it verbally, and the other rooftop owners heard it (and would be willing to testify to that), the agreement could be enforcible. Just because an agreement isn't in writing doesn't mean it doesn't hold any weight legally. Two roommates and I successfully sued a fourth for not paying his share of the rent after he moved out without notice. He never signed any paper agreeing to a set rent on the open room in the house we were all splitting, but that didn't prevent our verbal agreement from sticking in court. The guy took off just before Christmas, and never came back. When we finally got him in court, the judge ordered him to pay rent from January through July, which was when our lease ended.

The only thing I could add to that is that I wonder what belief it really is that will be confirmed - the fact that he can't hit anywhere but leadoff, or the fact that if he can't hit as well in another spot in the lineup, that he must be incredibly mentally weak?

I'm still mad for the broken TV I endured after I threw my shoe at it when Gonzo fumbled that ball. I really don't want to rehash the end of that game anymore.

The Cubs didn't care until the rooftop owners began meddling and held up the building permit when they first started planning the bleacher expansion, as they were afraid the expansion would interfere with their views, and hence, their profits. The rooftop owners brought it on themselves. Exactly. Also, while thats the rooftop owner's property, Wrigley and what goes on inside it belongs to the Cubs and they have every right to block that view if they want to (barring any crazy Chicago zoning laws that I don't know about). It's like complaining about me putting up curtains in my house because I don't want nosy neighbors looking in. Yeah, I agree. The Cubs absolutely have the right to modify their property to block a view. However, if the Cubs choose NOT to block the view then the neighbors are still entitled to enjoy the view from the property as they see fit. Unless there is an agreement in place that they would pay. Depends on the legal status of the agreement. Was it just a handshake deal, or was there a legally binding contract? If so, were there penalties stipulated in the event of a breach of the terms? If it was only a handshake deal then people are entitled to reconsider it. It doesn't really depend on the legal status of the agreement. Let's say it was a handshake agreement. The Cubs aren't talking about legal recourses. If the owner doesn't want to pay up, that's fine. The Trib is exercising it's right in either case to erect an obstruction. Even if it was a verbal agreement (that the Cubs alter their bleacher plans and take down the shades in 2004 in exchange for 17%), and that rooftop owner was witnessed by others as agreeing to it, it can still be enforced in court as well. Let's say that the agreement was made by all of the rooftop owners but that one. The Trib obviously still has the right to block them if they want. Either way you look at it, the rooftop owner has no legitimate complaint whatsoever if his rooftops get blocked.

The only way I could justify taking playing time away from Pie for Lofton is if it realistically gave us a better shot at winning the WS. Any minor improvement that Lofton could possibly give us in very specific situations certainly wouldn't be enough to put us over that hump, and would be offset by any loss in defensive capability we would get at this point. Therefore, I'd say no. I wouldn't even platoon him, much less send Pie down in favor of him.

What more can he do/prove in the minors? Let him take his lumps and see if he can mke the turn to the bigs. That would be true if he were on the Royals or Nats, but 100 years later, we dont need a guy trying to prove himself. We need an established leadoff hitter. Sure, idealy, Theriot would be replaced, but there isnt anyone available that can play short and leadoff. I don't think the previous 99 seasons of failure should bear any weight on whether Pie is on the 25 man or 40 man roster.

The Cubs didn't care until the rooftop owners began meddling and held up the building permit when they first started planning the bleacher expansion, as they were afraid the expansion would interfere with their views, and hence, their profits. The rooftop owners brought it on themselves. Exactly. Also, while thats the rooftop owner's property, Wrigley and what goes on inside it belongs to the Cubs and they have every right to block that view if they want to (barring any crazy Chicago zoning laws that I don't know about). It's like complaining about me putting up curtains in my house because I don't want nosy neighbors looking in.

The Cubs didn't care until the rooftop owners began meddling and held up the building permit when they first started planning the bleacher expansion, as they were afraid the expansion would interfere with their views, and hence, their profits. The rooftop owners brought it on themselves.

It's been a progressive climb throughout the WGN era.

Nope. That to me might be the most egregious sin of that night. He just sat on his fat butt with that stupid toothpick in his mouth while the ship was sinking. i have absolutely no problem with dusty remaining calm. what would people have him do? stomp around and rant and rave? have a hippie freak out? go out and yell at the ump and ruin any kind of serenity that the players had to begin with? the manager was virtually powerless in that situation. he pulls prior then he gets second guessed when farnsworth comes in and is ineffective, which he was. the players blew it. the fielding percentage leader at ss muffed an easy double play and the whole world came down, period. the problem i have with dusty is leaving prior in so long during his previous start. the end of that game was all gonzalez. Agree for the most part. However, I would hope that serenity is the last word to describe the mindset of the players when they're 5 outs away from clinching a trip to the WS, and I'd hope that Dusty wouldn't be concerned with his players feeling serene in that instance. Adrenaline or fieriness would have been far more appropriate.

Knowing what Billy Beane's needs/wants are (ML ready guys whose clocks haven't started or have only recently started) and what he looks for in a prospect (patience, OBP), am I the only one who thinks that there really is no way for us to match up well with Beane? I don't think we could consummate a trade for Harden regardless of how much we would want to make the deal happen. We really don't have any surefire prospects that fit their organizations mold. Pie is the best we have, and he's not their type of player.

Carlos Marmol's worse at this than Kerry Wood. Really the only righty the Cubs have in the back end of the pen who doesn't have poor control is Bob Howry. Most relievers with outstanding stuff like Marmol are relievers because they can't throw strikes. For a flyball pitcher Kerry has never had problems with the long ball and has never given up many hits. Grooving pitches doesn't seem to be a problem if he falls behind. It never has been. He still has enough stuff to get away with it most of the time. Not really. Many relievers with good stuff are relievers because they don't have a good 3d pitch. With only two good pitches (and Marmol is a good example) to show hitters, they're easier to pick up the second and third time a lineup comes around, making them more suitable for relief than starting. If you can't throw strikes, you not only aren't a good starting candidate, but you're not a good candidate for relief either. To be a good reliever, you have to be able to come into the game with guys on and throw strikes in order to get out of jams. If you're a reliever because you can't consistantly throw strikes, the book will get out on you, and you'll be done for. That never happened to Marmol last year because that's not the case. Like any young flamethrower though, that doesn't mean he didn't have his days when his control wasn't as good as it was on other days.

The rooftop owners wouldn't have even had to come to an agreement with the Cubs if they hadn't meddled with the permit for the bleacher expansions a few years ago. The screens in 2004 and the ensuing agreement were products of their own making.

The article was written in 1985. Yeah, but the wikipedia reference (not the article itself) mentioned 103 as if it was still current and hadn't been matched again. Reading it again, I see it's not attempting to be current, just rehashing the '85 article.

You're an idiot. Again, this should help you out: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Sarcasm Based on his overreactions in the other thread I'm not so sure it was sarcasm. Well...then...I don't know what to tell you, but it obviously was. When people are posting the same types of things and actually meaning it, then it's hard to tell when someone is being sarcastic. He said we need a replacement for the entire infield except Theriot, and you're not sure that was sarcasm? I think we need to define sarchasm instead: Definition of sarchasm :. (sär'kăz'əm). 1. (n.) The abyss between the creator of witticisms and the intended recipient who does not find the humor in it.

168 was a bit too far over the top. If he had reported something more like 112, he might have had more people on the hook. As far as the record goes, I thought Z was clocked at 103 when he was overthrowing during the 2003 NLCS?

i hope that was sarcasm. Well...he hasn't... Wood also did not lose today. ;) Neither did Theriot (lose or blow a save).

That's easy for me. That was the last time I walked on Ice. I probably had my feet four feet in the air. Unfortunately, my head quickly went lower than that as I landed on my back. If my feet got 4' off of the ground, does that count for a verticle?

I'd do Theriot for Lopez straight up, maybe even throw in a token prospect. I hope they're not thinking of giving up any substantial prospects or anything like that for him.

Ooohhh...good point...especially if the thing that Bruce needs to work on most is his patience. Dusty would ruin him and his approach for the rest of his career considering he's so young.

I never really thought the Reds have a realistic shot at winning the division. Their pitching isn't good enough, and I say that without considering that Dusty is at the helm...