Sosa21MVP

Or do you mean "How far did it fly?" I always figured only Steve Stone knew that answer. :? :lol:

Even assuming the balls were "juiced" how much difference does it really make? Which is to say, how much farther does the ball really fly?

The last time the Bears wore all-blue uniforms against Green Bay for a night game.....well, it was just as ugly. Time to drink more heavily and find some hot blonde to get with.

I'm sick and tired of everyone talking the Bears down. Whether it's national media or some Chicago area shows or certain fan forums, I swear on my copy of the Super Bowl Shuffle that I've never heard a more negative attitude towards a 13-2 team in my life. And the "experts" talking about how half the AFC would beat the Bears, I don't even want to get started on that one. Look I'm a huge Bears fan and of course a bit of a homer at heart but c'mon, it seems like A LOT of people are determined to not give the Bears much respect. I don't care who they have played, you can only play the teams on your schedule and beat them. That is true of any team in the NFL and last I checked, the Bears are doing as good a job of beating the teams put in front of them as anyone else in the league. This isn't the freaking BCS or the college basketball where strength of schedule affects your seeding etc. Then again, being overlooked makes every win that much sweeter. 8-)

The Bears game has been flexed. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2708334

I really don't want to have to change my username to Marquis21MVP. :oops: :lol:

ESPNEWS is reporting it is 3 years, $21 million.

LOL. Are you taking a list of posters who don't like the Marquis signing, then(should Marquis actually pitch decent in 2007) call them out in every thread like this: "OMG Dude, you send Marquis would suck in Dec, but now he is good man! Dude you have to eat some major crow man! just eat the crow " Yep! And me too! I'm doing the same for Soriano, Hill, Derosa, Izturis, Lilly, and many other players posters are tossing aside as garbage. Please add me to your list for Marquis. I'm pretty optimistic most times but I too must toss Jason on the garbage heap for now. :wink:

I never blamed Bartman, not even when that play happened. Trust me, it would have been easy seeing as how I had a Cardinals fan chirping about it right next to me. My cousin was actually rooting for the Cubs in that game too BTW. I just shrugged it off. The game was still under control at that point. The unraveling that happened after that play, that is all on the men wearing the Cubbies blue between the lines. AGonz pulled a Buckner and got a free pass on it. But I still hold positive memories of the whole experience. It was an exciting and unexpected run by the Cubs. That team was 51-53 after 104 games.

I'd rather have the media hating a bit on the Bears than smothering them with affection. It does seem like Rex is getting a pretty rough deal from some of these talking heads lately. So be it, pile on fellas. It's been said already, every game that was supposed to mean something about the Bears gets downgraded after the fact. Minnesota, Seattle, NY Giants, NY Jets - all big games and tests until the Bears actually won, then the excuse train comes barrelling down the tracks. I halfway expect that should the Bears win later today that the media shall inform us all that the Patriots as a team valiantly played through a terrible strain of 24 hour malaria and Tom Brady was declared clinically dead 15 minutes before kickoff.

I never thought I would have somone tell me a 40/40 guy is not very good. Priceless. I'm with you on this one. It's amazing.

If Sammy wants to come back and give it a try, can't blame him. The way he went out was sad. Now of course he could come back and do even worse but....it's his call and I'd respect his decision either way. If he comes back I'll be rooting for him to do well.

From what I've read on the subject, the Wrigley's weren't such a bad ownership deal until Phil Wrigley obtained control from the elders and then it went straight downhill b/c Phil cared more about the gum business and actually had a strong hand in developing the "Friendly Confines" image where people would show up for the experience of the stadium rather than the product on the field. Cubs history has always intrigued me, I became a fan in 1986 with no prior knowledge of club history and it was an interesting exercise to research team history and see how much success the early Cubs teams had. Forget jinxes, all my readings result in the conclusion of poor front office and/or ownership since Phil Wrigley took over.

All I can do is laugh. :lol: And take some hope away from these past three years. If the Red Sox and White Sox can break their historic title droughts, the Cubs can do it. If the Cardinals can play like garbage all season long but win a lousy division with 83 wins and catch fire in the playoffs, the Cubs can do that too. I remember Atlanta fans running some smack on the Cubs in 2003 when they had 103 wins and the Cubs only 88. Well, we saw how that went. 1987 Twins....hey we've got new blood in the dugout and it doesn't take much to win our division. Let's get it done in 2007. And I haven't even had a sip of booze tonight, shows you how blue tinted my glasses are. :wink:

Relative to what he had to work with in terms of inexperience, I'm not sure how you cannot see an accomplishment. Managing what amounted to a Class AAAA team into playoff contention after a horrible start is worth consideration. That was a very talented team. It wasn't a AAAA team, it was just a very young major league team. They also had benefit of one of the most talented hitters in the game. I'm not saying Girardi didn't do anything with them, but I don't think he's distinguished himself either. Now if the team tanks under Gonzalez, then maybe we'll have more info to deal with. And just because Girardi was good with a bunch of rookies, doesn't mean he'll succeed in Chicago with a veteran-laden team. The situations aren't comparable. You make some good points. In hindsight, sure you can say the talent was there. But at the beginning of the season the Marlins were pretty much a AAAA team. You had a roster loaded with minor league kids getting a shot. And the team started horribly, competing with the Royals for worst record in MLB for at least a couple months. But Florida turned it around and while you have to spread credit around I can't see not giving Girardi his fair share. Good lord, imagine Dusty managing that team. Where I take a bit of offense and feel strongly on the matter is when people say some Cubs fans are only in favor of Girardi because of his background as an ex-Cub and ex-Yankee. I don't get that. Guy spends his first year as the manager on that Florida team and when it is all said and done, he did a good job IMO. If the Marlins tanked 100% this year and lost 90-100 games, I don't think you'd see nearly as many Cubs fans jockeying for Joe. The response to all this is some people saying "hey hire Lloyd McClendon he has Cubs ties, etc". That is patently ridiculous. The support for Girardi extends beyond his being an ex-Cub. You are dead wrong if you think there aren't SOME people enamored with Girardi because he's a former Cub. I remember before he was hired by Florida some Cub fans saying, "Hire Girardi he's a former Cub" while he was still a bench coach with the Yankees. I have failed to read any post that said that EVERY or the majority of people like him only because he's a former Cub. But there are definitely some. True but I'm not arguing for those people. Obviously we all have our opinions and standards. I guess in the end the tone I was sensing here was that a good number of people thought that was the only reason for the support for Girardi. Hey I can't fight other people's battles. I guess in the end I'm just clarifying my own thoughts on the matter. That is all.

:roll: Good come back. I agree. Based on what you posted, it's not worth wasting my time to go any further. Yeah, whatever. Your opinion that just because Girardi managed a young team with a low payroll to an almost .500 record (when this was one of the worst NL years) is as bad as those who swore Dusty Baker was a good manager just because he won 3 Manager of the Year titles. Tell me Girardi's philosophy on baseball if you will. Okay, name for me the managers who have managed young teams with a $15 payroll into playoff contention. Dusty always had A LOT more to work with than that during his Manager of the Year seasons. It's not a valid comparison. Evidently Girardi's philosophy on baseball is quite a bit superior to Dusty's when the guy gets more results with $80 million less on the payroll. That's neither here nor there because the Cubs are not a young team with a 15-million payroll. And our goal isn't to have a below 500 record. I'd rather get a manager who can manage a 90-million payroll team to the playoffs with a 90-win season. If the guy can manage a $15 million team of kids to playoff contention, then I'd say give him more to work with and see what happens. If the guy can manage the $15 million payroll to playoff contention how does that conflict with the idea of Girardi being able to do more with more resources? I'm just not seeing the logic of these arguments. So you are saying the fact a guy can only manage a $15 million team to a near .500 record means if the guy had a $90 million team he would do no better? A manager/coach is ultimately limited by what he has to work with. There is a ceiling in place. Hell, who in their right mind figured this Florida team would even be relevant in the playoff hunt in September? Everything else held equal, if a manager's team ends up getting more out the team than expected then that is the mark of a good manager. Again, sure you give the players some credit and so forth. But regardless of the sport, if the head man can show the ability to get more than expected out of his team then to me that is a good coach/manager. With all that being said, sure Girardi isn't a sure thing. Nothing is a sure thing. But I'd take my chances with him getting above average results at a minimum.

Relative to what he had to work with in terms of inexperience, I'm not sure how you cannot see an accomplishment. Managing what amounted to a Class AAAA team into playoff contention after a horrible start is worth consideration. That was a very talented team. It wasn't a AAAA team, it was just a very young major league team. They also had benefit of one of the most talented hitters in the game. I'm not saying Girardi didn't do anything with them, but I don't think he's distinguished himself either. Now if the team tanks under Gonzalez, then maybe we'll have more info to deal with. And just because Girardi was good with a bunch of rookies, doesn't mean he'll succeed in Chicago with a veteran-laden team. The situations aren't comparable. You make some good points. In hindsight, sure you can say the talent was there. But at the beginning of the season the Marlins were pretty much a AAAA team. You had a roster loaded with minor league kids getting a shot. And the team started horribly, competing with the Royals for worst record in MLB for at least a couple months. But Florida turned it around and while you have to spread credit around I can't see not giving Girardi his fair share. Good lord, imagine Dusty managing that team. Where I take a bit of offense and feel strongly on the matter is when people say some Cubs fans are only in favor of Girardi because of his background as an ex-Cub and ex-Yankee. I don't get that. Guy spends his first year as the manager on that Florida team and when it is all said and done, he did a good job IMO. If the Marlins tanked 100% this year and lost 90-100 games, I don't think you'd see nearly as many Cubs fans jockeying for Joe. The response to all this is some people saying "hey hire Lloyd McClendon he has Cubs ties, etc". That is patently ridiculous. The support for Girardi extends beyond his being an ex-Cub.

:roll: Good come back. I agree. Based on what you posted, it's not worth wasting my time to go any further. Yeah, whatever. Your opinion that just because Girardi managed a young team with a low payroll to an almost .500 record (when this was one of the worst NL years) is as bad as those who swore Dusty Baker was a good manager just because he won 3 Manager of the Year titles. Tell me Girardi's philosophy on baseball if you will. Okay, name for me the managers who have managed young teams with a $15 payroll into playoff contention. Dusty always had A LOT more to work with than that during his Manager of the Year seasons. It's not a valid comparison. Evidently Girardi's philosophy on baseball is quite a bit superior to Dusty's when the guy gets more results with $80 million less on the payroll.

Why? In some cases, it pretty much sums up the issue rather well.

Relative to what he had to work with in terms of inexperience, I'm not sure how you cannot see an accomplishment. Managing what amounted to a Class AAAA team into playoff contention after a horrible start is worth consideration.

:roll: Good come back. I agree. Based on what you posted, it's not worth wasting my time to go any further.

:roll:

Forget all that. He managed a team with a $15 million payroll and a roster loaded with inexperience. Team started awful and by the end of the season was seriously contending for a wild card berth. So the owner has thin skin and held a grudge against him resulting in Girardi being fired after a managerial performance worthy of MLB Manager of the Year. What does your first two points have to do with anything? Absolutely nothing. Your 3rd point holds some water as Girardi's experience in New York certainly had to be helpful. The guy learned up close and personal how championship teams operate. If you can't understand the interest in Girardi then you really have not put much effort into your analysis.

I hate Houston too but seeing the Redbirds choke in such magnificent manner is too much to pass up. I'm whole-heartedly cheering on the collapse. :D

Paging New York Knicks, paging New York Knicks... The Knicks? At least they won a couple of titles in the 70's and made the finals a few times in the 90's. The Knicks only made the Finals once in the 90's. 1994 Finals when they lost in 7 games to the Rockets in a series that took a backseat to OJ fleeing cops at 30mph on the LA freeway. :wink: They lost to the Spurs also, in 98 or 99, in the strike-shortened season. Meh, I tried to forget that season. The Pacers were favored to win it all and gagged against the 6th seeded Knicks in the ECF. :oops: