Jehrico

If I had full faith the Cubs would do something smart with the other 20 mil, yeah, I would too. However, I'm fairly confident that Marquis will be better this year than Park, and I'm not convinced that extra money would have been better spent, so I'm not sure...

He should "conder" retirement...no one wants to see him break the record.

I was about to post "TLR has to retire someday..." but you beat me to the punch!

You can download games onto your computer? How? MLB Digital Downloads. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/video/dds_sell.jsp If you search around you can find the buying links for regular season games from last season. I just downloaded one of the Cubs september games a few weeks ago. The quality isnt great. 400x300, which really SUCKS because they are DRM protected, so i cant convert them to 320x240 and send them to my Zen Vision:M and since theyre DRM WMV's (which my Zen can play) but I need the 320x240 size at max. Maybe I could contact MLB.com and see if they can get a smaller resolution. WBC games last season from digital downloads were 320x240 and work fine. Id love to be able to watch some old Cubs gems during class :( http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=114916&highlight=fu4wm It's a long thread, but if you do a little reading there, it'll tell you how to get rid of the DRM. Once you get WMP11beta or WMP10 set up right, it's very easy and quick (usually 15-30 seconds for a 300mb file). This program accepts batch jobs too! Only caveat is you have to have the license first, then you can strip the DRM and do what you want with the file afterwards. It won't help you crack DRM for something you're not authorized to view. If you have a hard time finding a site that still hosts the file, send me a PM.

I think he'd have to be carried on the DL rather than released for insurance to cover it. That's why, several years ago, the Orioles kept Albert Belle on the DL rather than releasing him (or him retiring) even though it was known he couldn't play anymore.If that's the case, why would they release them? They could just transfer him to the 60 day DL and he doesn't count against the roster. Or does that only work once rosters have been set at the end of ST?

which is actually a top 7 which was actually written by Phil Rogers, which actually means the article wasn't worth reading.

I'd deal (in order of preference): Eyre, Dempster, Ohman or Cotts to make room for Wood. But I think Hendry would option Wuertz to Iowa. Of course either scenario assumes Miller is not also DL'd. Guzman impressing in ST and Wood, Miller & Prior all being healthy would defintely make things interesting. A good interesting and something I hope happens. I see you sent down Cedeno. Does Izturis play SS for 162 games or do you think Theriot can fill in? This position really worries me. Theriot at SS = Bad. 162 games of Izturis = Really bad. No matter what, we're screwed at SS this year.

I know, I'm still hoping the Colts pull this out. I think the Colts are the inferior team, so our chances of winning would be better. Nonetheless, I want to revenge our second loss (the game that Grossman basically gave away single-handedly). Plus, it'd be cool to cap this season off with a repeat of '85.

Whats the score? As this topic goes over 2000. 21-3. Still 9:00 left in the first half, but the Colts don't look good at all. Manning looks okay with the completions, despite the interception. Is the Colts defense not holding up? If the Colts defense was a spagetti strainer, the Pat's offense wouldn't be spagetti, it would be the water it was boiled in.

Buck was just being Buck.

I think we all need to agree to not call it a rematch. We need to call it a repeat. A repeat of Super Bowl XX. Repeat of the matchup, results and all. :D

Go Lovie! I wonder if that was Gene Wojechowski. Lovie called him "Gene" 'Cuz that tard's been dogging the Bears all year long. That would explain Lovie punking him out like that. Woj has been an ass to the Bears all year. Yeah, I think the exact quote was, "Yeah, Gene, you were on of them" And then the rest of the press went "Ooooohhhh" I was disappointed when they hired Lovie. I wanted someone with an offensive background instead of a defensive background. I was worried we were going to get another Wannstedt. He's proven me soooo wrong. That was an awesome quote. Gotta love throwing a little salt in the wound when you're already high after a win like that.

After watching Indy look pathetic against the run, shall we start prediciting a rematch of Super Bowl 20?

Nice to hear Lou actually cares about his pitchers and won't over abuse them again like a certain someone... Prior and Wood aside, I still remember last season when there was barely any time left in the season and we were obviously out of any race, and Dusty left Zambrano out there for like 130-140 the game after he was skipped because his back wasn't feeling right (By the way, Zam was at the Bulls game yesterday sporting dreads, and was alot slimmed down and said he worked hard this offseason to make sure the back or anything else wouldn't be a problem in 07). Sounds to me like Larry disclosed to Lou that Dusty never listened to him. I hope that's the case, as I want to give Rothschild the benefit of the doubt.

If that's your lineup, your manager should be sent to the firing line. I didn't realize you guys had a Dusty Disciple filling out your lineup card. Duffy, Paulino, Freddy, LaRoche, Bay, Nady for the first six with the pitcher, Wilson, and Castillo sharing the final three slots in any order makes alot more sense IMO. Wilson has a career OBP of .306, and should be a #8 hitter on most teams, maybe #7 on some. There's no excuse for him to ever sniff the number two spot on any team.

I'm sure we will, just as soon as the Phillies release him. I'm thinking that will be somewhere right around 2020. fixed. Pick up a 40ish player off of the scrap heap hoping for a return to his prime years. Sounds about right.

i'm not saying veres can do it but doug jones had a pretty good career as a closer throwing 80 mph sinkers & a palm ball. location & movement are much more critical than just raw velocity - just ask greg maddux. and then ask the thousands upon thousands of other guys who couldn't make it because they lacked velocity. people don't seem to understand that maddux is the exception, not the rule. there are not many successful pitchers throwing 84. Also, re Veres, he didn't have impeccable control or outstanding movement before missing two seasons and undergoing surgery, so it's highly doubtful he'd have good enough of control or movement to compensate for his lack of velocity.

Anyone hopeful that Haggerty can ever get far enough along after the TJS and become a viable prospect again?

Sanders and $2.5 or $3 mil for a B level pitching prospect or PTBNL? I think that would be worth a flier.

Where in the desert are you going to? I'm in East Baghdad right now, just outside of Sadr City.

MLB had rules against using illegal drugs. Guys had been suspended for using illegal drugs. That's what I was wondering. MLB had rules on it, and MLB took action on it. MLB, however, had no such policy on steroids prior to a few years ago. They didn't test for drugs, but, as much as they were illegal drugs, steroids fit into the category of drugs that could get you in trouble if you were caught with them by the law. OK, let's assume they, by nature of being illegal drugs, fit under the policy as you're saying. That's fine, but it raises another question. How can you prove, though, simply by means of a positive test, that anything illegal actually occured? Illegal possession itself would have to be proven, wouldn't it? A test proves that the person in question used the drug, but it doesn't really prove that the player possessed/used the drug illegaly. I guess what I'm asking is, without some sort of evidence that the players who tested positive actually had the drugs in their possession within the jurisdiction of this country, can the government really go after the player? I would imagine that the positive test could be used as supporting evidence against a player when a legit case is already made against him (i.e. proof of possession, paraphernalia, etc.), but I don't see how testing positive, alone, is enough. I don't understand why any real baseball fan would be trying to give any players a pass for steroid use. This isn't a criminal trial, so I don't see why we would be putting them to the test of whether or not there is a shadow of a doubt that they broke a law. I really don't care either. There are more standards that apply to the judgement of behavior than what is written in the law. Call me prudish, but I believe standards, ethics, and morals hold an important place in baseball. Here is what I do know. Some players either flat out broke the law, or skirted the law (by going to Mexico in your hypothetical) in order to gain an unfair advantage. They knew they were doing something unfair. That's why so many of them will not speak up on their own, because deep down inside they knew what they were doing was wrong. Getting paid millions of dollars to play baseball and be a celebrity is a privilege, not a right, and those afforded that privilege should be held to a higher level of ethics and morals in their conduct of the game in order to preserve the integrity of the game. Anyone who intentionally worked around the law (whether it's federal or not, doesn't matter) in order to gain an unfair advantage deserves what they have coming to them. I don't care if you could justify on a technicality that what they did wasn't a chargeable offense under the law or under baseball rules.

Everything I've read so far just indicates that they were tested for "performance enhancing drugs." I only have one qualm about this list being released. They didn't know how to test for HGH (not sure they do today even), some players may be artificially "vindicated" if they're not on this list while others will get roasted (as they rightfully should). Bonds is a perfect example. He shouldn't show up because Balco was all about HGH if I recall correctly.

In other words, he thinks like a HoF voter "never won a ring..."

Someone please point me out if I'm wrong, but I don't think other drugs will show up on this. I think it was just 'roids. I know what sparked this test back in '03 was because of all of the rumors of 'roid usage. We test quite abit in the military, and I know that there isn't one test that catches all drugs. Each sample usually gets tested several times for certain groups of drugs (i.e. one test reveals opiates, etc...). The more tests you run on each sample the more money the labs will charge you. I don't believe MLB was testing for pot or other similar drugs. I don't know if they were also targeting cocaine or any of the other harder drugs.

The Dodgers are the Organization of the year? HA! ROFLMFAO...