Mark Priors Calves

What if that second rookie is better than Rusch?

I'd definitely take a look at him, but as Raw said, he's probably useless anywhere but 1B. He's only one season removed from an .810 OPS year. Not stellar, but not terrible either. If he could play LF/RF, I'd take him.

Group 1: Alex Rodriguez Group 2: Albert Pujols, Mark Teixeira Group 3: Chase Utley, Jason Bay, Chad Tracy Group 4: Todd Helton, Nomar Garciaparra, Justin Morneau, Nick Swisher Joe Mauer

A massive bust. And all because he decided he didn't need to be coached anymore. Good luck with the rest of your life, Corey. or maybe his coaches didn't do a good job. That question will be answered by his play with Baltimore. Looks like the verdict is in: .255/.288/.364 It was Corey. Time to move on. He'll be lucky if he plays in 50 games this year. I have my doubts that Patterson will ever be able to put it all together but I don't looking at his spring training numbers this so far this spring shows that much.

When I post it. I haven't had much time lately. If you'd like to volunteer to help out with the scoring system, that would be great. :D I'd be happy to help out, let me know what to do.

When is this thing getting started? We're running out of time.

Bumping this bad boy because another excerpt is being released. Gary Sheffield injected testesterone and HGH according to the book, "Game of Shadows". More info about Jason Giambi is included as well.

What???? Wow. That's crazy. I guess all those injuries are taking a toll on his body.

go braves.

I'm guessing, based upon everything Smith and Angelo have said, that Grossman is and will be the starting QB this season. I think this is a good move overall for the Bears. I don't know if there are many better options out there to be a back up QB. Orton has proved that he can be a 2nd QB if necessary. I feel comfortable heading into the season with Grossman, Griese, and Orton as the Bears 3 QB's.

me too. I'm pretty pumped.

Ok, thanks guys.

Do we already know which teams are playing on Thurs/Fri and what times?

excuse my ignorance, but what exatcly is valley fever. Must be rare if I have never heard of it. its people rooting for Bradley and Wichita State.

BU is in the Sweet Sixteen. I'd never thought I'd see it. Campus is gonna be crazy this week, Sweetpete.

Santo does the same thing.

Congrats SweetPete, I hope you are enjoying this victory. As a Bradley alum, I've never really had a big reason to be excited about my school, except for the girl I knew who was on Average Joe. Now that's change, bring on Pitt.

I think what happened is that when I posted that I was tied for first was before the results of the Kansas game were posted. We both picked Kansas, and the leader picked Bradley, so that moved him one game ahead. I'm the leader and the sole moronic reason I picked Bradley, is I'm an alum. Go Hershey Hopkins.

They can help take the strain off of an overworked bullpen, which is what happened to the Cubs last year. That doesn't change the fact that almost anybody can do it. Hill could do what Rusch does (suck for 5-6 innings at a time), and do it cheaper. Maybe you should check the stats, because Hill actually performed considerably worse than Rusch last year with a 9.13 ERA. Among the other #5 starters Koronka had a 7.47 ERA and Mitre had a 5.37 ERA. So if your argument is that Rusch and his 4.50 ERA is garbage, your argument is utterly ridiculous as well as uninformed. Based on some of your argument regarding "innings eaters" and how little value they had, I looked up some of the pitching staffs in the NL Central. Suprisingly, compared to NL central staffs Rusch is was actually better than or equivalent to every other teams #5 starters (except the Cardinals Marquis 4.13 ERA). Also, Rusch's ERA was better than most NL central teams #4 starters. I know it may be popular to criticize Rusch, due to the fact that his stuff is not the greatest or that he is not the flashiest pitcher, but if you would like to make the argument that he is a worthless pitcher or worthless to the Cubs please back your statement up with some actual facts or substance. Rich Hill threw 24.2 innings in 2005. He only started 4 of the 10 games he appeared in. Simply saying that Rusch was better because of Hill's misuage and ineffectiveness last year is not correct. Hill was far was good last year but the extremely small sample size and use of the bullpen has as much do to with that as anything. Do you suggest a measure of how effective a pitcher was beside performance? His statement that Hill could be as effective as Rusch has been for the Cubs is not substantiated by anything other than his "opinion." All I'm asking is that if someone makes a broad statement or tries to criticize the use of a term "innings eater", etc have something to back it up. Obviously, performance is the best measure of the effectiveness of the pitcher. But if that performance is based upon only a handful of appearance and even less in the appropriate role of the player (as a starting pitcher), then I don't think, in this case, its an adequate measure.

They can help take the strain off of an overworked bullpen, which is what happened to the Cubs last year. That doesn't change the fact that almost anybody can do it. Hill could do what Rusch does (suck for 5-6 innings at a time), and do it cheaper. Maybe you should check the stats, because Hill actually performed considerably worse than Rusch last year with a 9.13 ERA. Among the other #5 starters Koronka had a 7.47 ERA and Mitre had a 5.37 ERA. So if your argument is that Rusch and his 4.50 ERA is garbage, your argument is utterly ridiculous as well as uninformed. Based on some of your argument regarding "innings eaters" and how little value they had, I looked up some of the pitching staffs in the NL Central. Suprisingly, compared to NL central staffs Rusch is was actually better than or equivalent to every other teams #5 starters (except the Cardinals Marquis 4.13 ERA). Also, Rusch's ERA was better than most NL central teams #4 starters. I know it may be popular to criticize Rusch, due to the fact that his stuff is not the greatest or that he is not the flashiest pitcher, but if you would like to make the argument that he is a worthless pitcher or worthless to the Cubs please back your statement up with some actual facts or substance. Rich Hill threw 24.2 innings in 2005. He only started 4 of the 10 games he appeared in. Simply saying that Rusch was better because of Hill's misuage and ineffectiveness last year is not correct. Hill was far was good last year but the extremely small sample size and use of the bullpen has as much do to with that as anything.

good call.

I'm disappointed with the overall lack of Cub spring training games on Comcast/WGN. The White Sox are on all the time and the Cubs can't be found.

If the Sod Father on the case, all will be well.

I'm still shocked that he's back with the Cubs this year. It looked for certain that he was heading Detroit to be with Leland.

Maybe in the CBA the players give up that right. Interesting. Maybe the MLBPA has the same rule.