CuseCubFan69

If Weaver didn't get enough innings to qualify I'll take him.

Just thank the Gods Dusty isn't here anymore.

Make sure you all pack your mittens and snowpants because it's going to be cold!

I think Jones is slightly better for the short-term, but I actually think Church is a better fit for the Cubs, then Jones, because of his ability to reach base consistantly. If you think Jones is slightly better for the short-term but Church is better because of his ability to reach base constantly, then are you saying that Jones' slugging advantage over Church slightly outweighs Church's OBP advantage? Because in a much worse hitting environment Church has outslugged Jones the past two years. Church has put up OPS+ of 120 and 128. Jones hasnt come close to that since his break out year in 2002. The only valid concern about Church is that he hasn't been a full time player, but I think that is more a reflection of an organization that just gave Nook Logan the starting CF job. I believe Bruce Miles stated before Christmas that the Cubs have no interest in Ryan Church. No, he said that the Cubs had interest, but that Washington was asking for way too much for him to make a deal at that time. No way was Hendry going to give up Perez and Rusch just to get Church.

I thought Clinton got rid of that with NAFTA?

That's funny considering LT has played 5 of his 97 career games in a dome. And I don't even understand the hash marks comment. Gale Sayers= Joe Morgan. Honestly, Gale Sayers is a horrible commentator. I am going to be trying to ticketmaster thing all day. So far, all I have found is the $350ish tickets. A little too rich for my blood, unfortunantly. 350....wow. How much are they normally?

I think Jones is slightly better for the short-term, but I actually think Church is a better fit for the Cubs, then Jones, because of his ability to reach base consistantly. If you think Jones is slightly better for the short-term but Church is better because of his ability to reach base constantly, then are you saying that Jones' slugging advantage over Church slightly outweighs Church's OBP advantage? Because in a much worse hitting environment Church has outslugged Jones the past two years. Church has put up OPS+ of 120 and 128. Jones hasnt come close to that since his break out year in 2002. The only valid concern about Church is that he hasn't been a full time player, but I think that is more a reflection of an organization that just gave Nook Logan the starting CF job. I believe Bruce Miles stated before Christmas that the Cubs have no interest in Ryan Church. Because he's too expensive player cost wise, too young and in Pies way or just not interested in him as a player?

Mike Jones is going to transfer from Syracuse to South Carolina and will be able to play in January 2008. Nice pick up for USC.

a 16 team conference is really, really dumb and i can't believe anyone approved it. You know your conference is too big when a) not everyone can play each other and b) the bottom 4 teams can't even participate in the conference tourney Everyone could play each other, but for whatever reason, the Big East decided to have each team play three teams twice and three teams not at all each year. It'd make sense if they were doing that to preserve rivalries, but no, the teams are randomly selected each year. I have no idea what the Big East thinks it's doing, but it pumps up ND's SOS each year so whatever. They are changing the scheduling problem in the future, as soon as next year I've heard. Will that scheduling plan include having all 16 teams in the conference tournament? Not that I heard of. When Syracuse played their 4th game in a row in the BE Champ Game I think that is as many games as you can play. They were toast by the time it came to the NCAA's and I don't see the BE wanting the top teams to play 3 to 4 games before the Maddness.

My predictions AFC: Baltimore 16 Indy 13 NE 27 SD 24 NFC: Chicago 17 Seattle 10 NO 31 Phil 20

a 16 team conference is really, really dumb and i can't believe anyone approved it. You know your conference is too big when a) not everyone can play each other and b) the bottom 4 teams can't even participate in the conference tourney Everyone could play each other, but for whatever reason, the Big East decided to have each team play three teams twice and three teams not at all each year. It'd make sense if they were doing that to preserve rivalries, but no, the teams are randomly selected each year. I have no idea what the Big East thinks it's doing, but it pumps up ND's SOS each year so whatever. They are changing the scheduling problem in the future, as soon as next year I've heard.

That never happened! I have my fingers in my ears, my eyes are closed and I'm humming real loud right now! Imagine if that happened today? I like the way rock thinks....you have to have your priorities straight!

This would have been a lot easier if baseball-reference.com allowed people to easily export into Excel. Through the end of the '98 season, he was averaging: .290/.411./556 and 32 homers per season Since '98: .320/.508/.729 and 40 homers per season The popular theory is that he started taking steroids after the 1998 season. If that is true, then he didn't really start reaping the benefits until 2001. His 1999 and 2000 seasons weren't anything above and beyond what he had done before in his career. His 49 home runs in 2000 may have been a career high, but it was only three more than his previous career high set in 1993. Also, his 2000 OPS was lower than his 1993 OPS. Those are some serious gains at an than peak older age. I wonder if he always took amphetemines the whole time? His Godfather definately could show him the way. Here's an interesting comparison. Tony Gwynn from 1982-1992 (ages 22-32): Averaged .327/.381/.433 per season Tony Gwynn from 1993-2001 (ages 33-41): Averaged .356/.400/.500 per season Those are also some serious gains, especially in AVG and SLG Interesting points. Some would say it's because Gwynn is such a student of the game and that is why he got better with age. Maybe Tony had some extra vision help too. Thanks to the no testing we will never know about these guys and baseball has only itself to blame.

Up to 98, in just 11 seasons, he hit 374 homers, 1750 hits, had a .315 lifetime BA, stole 417 bases, and had an OBP of .442. Pretty extraordinary. No doubt he is one of the top players in history and I'm curious if he ever did illegal drugs like uppers before the BALCO stuff.

This would have been a lot easier if baseball-reference.com allowed people to easily export into Excel. Through the end of the '98 season, he was averaging: .290/.411./556 and 32 homers per season Since '98: .320/.508/.729 and 40 homers per season The popular theory is that he started taking steroids after the 1998 season. If that is true, then he didn't really start reaping the benefits until 2001. His 1999 and 2000 seasons weren't anything above and beyond what he had done before in his career. His 49 home runs in 2000 may have been a career high, but it was only three more than his previous career high set in 1993. Also, his 2000 OPS was lower than his 1993 OPS. Those are some serious gains at an than peak older age. I wonder if he always took amphetemines the whole time? His Godfather definately could show him the way.

What were Bonds batting, HR, OBP averages per year before 98?

They might be solid. It's hardly a given. I'm not sure what he can do either, but he's the one that brought them to this point. I'm not about to accept what he's done as the best option given circumstances when he's the one that brought about the circumstances. Yeah, I agree. I am curious on how much of an effect MacPhail had on the past transactions though, especially the major ones like passing on Beltran.

Maybe I'm crazy but I'm ok with this team the way it is right now. The OF is solid and the infield is too if they bat Izturis 8th or 9th I see them as doing fine postion wise. Not sure how crazy you are, but I'm not fine with this team the way it is right now, because I'm not happy with them just "doing fine". I want them to do great. I would, however, prefer the team as is, rather than minus Jones and plus Erstad/Finley/Williams. I understand the fine thing but the lineup is solid 1-7 which is something I haven't seen in a while and Izturis has the potential to hit 300 to hide his lack of isod. I'm not sure what Hendry can do at this point to make them great gooney unless he pulls of a major trade or finds a way to get +1 value for Jones and/or Eyre.

So, in retrospect the Cubs are paying about $500K more for en equal crappy pitcher? People get stuck in the W/L being the value of a pitcher's worth, but looking at those stats, and then look at their career numbers, Mulder has be more lucky then Marquis. Ahh yes but a crappy pitcher that has had his magic flaw found by Rothschild in the bottle of Jack Daniels.

Maybe I'm crazy but I'm ok with this team the way it is right now. The OF is solid and the infield is too if they bat Izturis 8th or 9th I see them as doing fine postion wise.

Does he ever talk out of anything else?

You get a free pass with the first test failure in MLB. for all drugs or just greenies? According to SI.com: Interesting, thanks grass.

for the amphetamine use or the subsequent excuse? I think Bonds is a well rounded scumbag. Agreed, but testing positive for greenies has nothing to do with it. It just gives him something in common with nearly every other baseball player, ever. And he probably had some old school training. I'm curious how many other MLB'ers tested positive for amphetaminess?

Duke is not very good right now. Tech turned it over 28 times and still won going away. Until Duke can figure out how to score some points, they are going to have a very hard time in this ACC. Much of the league can score at will. Paulus was benched and they started Henderson instead. I wonder if he'll go to the sport he is actually good at.

for the amphetamine use or the subsequent excuse? I think Bonds is a well rounded scumbag.