cubbieinexile

Got carried away with the S's. You know what this means? This means that Dusty Baker gets his dream come true. He'll get to ship Walker off to Washington in return for Soriano and then send Cedeno down and have Neifi play short. I'm sure Dusty is killing kittens as we speak.

And what lies has the SF chronicle printed? As for the book it isn't out yet so we have no idea what BOnds will or will not to it. Nor how they word what they have to say.

Thats basically what I would say gooney. Last year with Hairston and Walker over at second they got a .346/.442 production out of that spot. This year right now Baker and CO are leaning towards Perez getting playing time over at second. Probably more then 74 at bats, on top of that if Walker is the full time or majority player at second he is still going to be one year older and on the wrong side of 30. Granted right now the picture is murky. Do they send Cedeno down thus allowing Perez to play at SS? If so then yes second base is likely to get a bump. But at the same time SS is likely to go down a bit. Those rather putrid SS projections I have at the top are actually an improvement over last years numbers. Neifi Perez if he is the full time SS or if he again gets a huge chunk of time over at SS could very well do as poor as last years performance.

So who is Barry Bonds going to sue?

I've been looking around and so far it looks like a lot number crunchers are projecting the Cubs to win around 85 games as well. With Prior hurtin, I reserve the right to change my mind before opening day.

A reasonable look? So not seeing them at all and only hearing about them third hand and that being disputed itself is a reasonable look? Does anybody here actually know what it says on Anderson's computer and what is on the calendar?

When you talk about Conte and the 60 minutes interview are you talking about the 20/20 interview from several years ago? If so I don't recall Conte giving up Bonds like that. From what I remember he gave up Marion Jones and some track athletes but he says he personally never gave Bonds anything, that he gave Anderson steroids for his own personal use. Not saying its true but Conte to the best of my knowledge has never given up Bonds. In fact he even issued a statement saying he never has given up Bonds to the government. Perhaps I missed the 60 minutes interview, do you have a link?

What's wrong with wanting to see them? I already showed you two examples of where the media told us what we were supposed to see in the documents only to have that be false. On top of that media has said that Bonds confessed even though he didn't. If I am a juror I'll make the decision not the reporter sitting in the back.

Except we have no real idea what it says on Anderson's computer or on Conte's calendar. We have a blurb that is telling us what it means but we haven't even seen it or what it says on these things. It reminds of some of pete rose's "betting slips". Read the newspaper and they claim they have Pete Rose betting slips which is proof that he bet on baseball. Well the betting slip they hold up as proof is actually a slip of paper with his basketball bets on it. After Joe Jackson went before the grand jury in 1920 the media labeled it a confession and that Joe Jackson said this and that. When we finally got to look at the grand jury testimony it turns he didn't say those things. Again not saying that Bonds didn't use drugs nor that the calendars and computers don't explicitly state he did use drugs. What I am saying is that we don't know what it says on those things.

No Bonds claimed that his trainer applied a cream upon him. The was never confirmed to be "the cream", the one with steroids in it. Bonds said his trainer gave him what he believed was flaxseed oil, and again it was never confirmed to be "the clear". What did happen was a lot of suggesting and a lot of bait and switch. Bond said a cream was applied to him and he swallowed a clear substance. From there everybody just assumed he confessed to using "the cream" and "the clear", which he didn't. If I put aloe on my skin I used a cream that doesn't mean I used "the cream". But that is what everybody assumed as soon as they heard the word cream. I do not claim to know what Bonds has and has not said to the grand jury. It is those attacking Bonds that are claiming to know what he said to the grand jury. ALl I said was based on what we have read in the media Bonds has never confessed to using steroids. As for the government and BALCO/BOnds I disagree. The government and more particularly agents in that government want to get Bonds in the worst way. We know about BALCO because they wanted to get Bonds and other star athletes. Bonds isn't some pawn in this game he is the king.

Anderson was Bonds trainer it could be his work-out schedule. Not saying it was but the only option isn't just steroids for that calendar.

No they have a calendar with Bonds name on it and a bunch of letters on it. Like G under October 16th, H, W October 13th.

How is that a correction of something I said?

Bonds did not admit that at all, nor did the government prove that what he did take was steroids. Go back and look at the articles and show me where it says that Bonds did the substances known as the cream and the clear. Show me where Bonds knows either before or after he took them that there were steroids in them. So far up to this points Bonds has stated that there are no steroids in him nor has he ever taken them. He has never said that he unknowingly took them or knowingly took them. Nor has the government ever actually made a direct link of steroid and bonds. They have evidence for sure but there is no smoking gun. No Bonds purchased the drugs, no Anderson saying I saw Bonds take the drugs, nothing. What we have is BALCO selling drugs to Anderson and then the assumption that the drugs are for Bonds. It may very well be true but the government has not been able to make that connection yet. If they had then Bonds would be indicted by now, he has not been. Am I defending BOnds? No, I think he used steroids, I also don't care that he used steroids. But the point isn't what we think but what we "know" and what we can prove. This is about law and order. I wanted Barry BOnds to have the full protection of the law and rules that govern us. Because if somebody like him, somebody who everyone wants to "get" is protected from improper processing then that means I am protected as well, an innocent. Lynch mobs maybe expediate and may even solve a problem in the short run but when a society sets asides its laws and procedure for the sake of expediance then no one is safe in that society from the lynch mob.

Bonds never admitted to knowingly or unknowingly taking steroids. Nowhere in his testimony does he acknowledge that there were/are steroids in his system or that he knew he was taking steroids. Nowhere in his grand jury testimony does the government make a real connection between what he used and known steroids. The reporters writing about the testimony and the government imply it, but no where in there do they hold up a can of clear with bonds name on it loaded with steroids. Taking the 5th is a constitutioanl right, when you take it in a criminal trial nothing shifts. Not wanting to talk about a subject is not a proponderance of evidence. Also one can take the 5th in a civil trial. For instance say you have a civil trial involving landlord and tennant. The landlord is suing because the house recieved damage and the tennant will not pay for them. The tennant is a drug dealer. Plaintiff's lawyer asks him do you sell drugs. The defendant can take the 5th because his answer will incriminate him. He does not have to say yes I'm a drug dealer. Any testimony in any trial that can cause one to criminally incriminate oneself is protected under the 5th amendment. Now then if the defendant simply let the bathtub run over causing damage and the plaintiff's lawyer asks did you let the water run over in the bath tub? The defendant cannot plead the 5th since his answer would not criminally incriminate oneself.

No it doesn't because I never asked people how they can continue to remain cub fans after leaving town.

I'm going out of town that weekend and unfortunately I already bought the tickets. On April 3rd the Brewers will be having their home opener against the Pirates. I have two tickets for Loge Diamond Box seats in sec 222, seats 1 and 2. Section 222 is on the thirdbase side of home plate and is perpindicular to the first base foul line. I put them up for sale on ebay so if you're interested give it a bid.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not saying you become a fan of a new team when you move. But you become a fan of the team that you grew up on. The team you had no choice in the matter of picking it. It was the local team it was the team you could see and follow. How many born and raised Chicagoans become Angels fans? How many become Cubs or Sox fans? Do you think its pure luck that the vast majority of them become Cubs and Sox fans? Do you think there is no correlation to proximity of team and fandom? This has nothing to do with moving and picking a new team or religion.

You must live in a very specialized area of the country because most people are of the religion that their parents were. So I'm not very wrong but very right. This really even isn't a matter of opinion but a matter of facts.

Where were you born and raised? Do you think you would be a Cubs fan if you were born and raised in Seattle? How and when did you become a Cubs fan?

Not even sure of what this means. I guess you are saying that Baseball is as important as religion. Or that by moving to India one should change religions, which isn't my point. My point is the exact opposite. You are a christian because you were born in America to a chritian family. you didn't choose to become christian, somebody else did that for you. Most people are Cub fans because of their family or geography. Without contacting gallup I would say that is a fact. If one does a study of fandom one would see a huge concentration of fans in and around Chicago with outposts throughout the midwest. If you lived in say Iowa and liked baseball you were going to be a Cubs fan the majority of the time. If you were born in and around Chicago you were going to be either a Cubs fan or a Sox fan. If your dad, favorite relative, or person who left the strongest mark on you was a Cubs fan then chances are you will be a Cubs fan. Most fans do not actually make conscious fully formed decision on which team they will root for for the rest of their life. You choose a team when you are 6 and thats your team for the rest of your life. Kind of odd to me, I mean how many of us would be firemen or failed astronauts if we had to stick with every decision we made when we were 6?

Good post! I'm a Cubs fan for life no matter what! I hear about these quiters every year as a Cubs fan and I pay them no attention because these aren't true Cubs fans. I'm a Cubs fan and proud of it! When we do win it all I'd rather be with the true fans who stuck by them and party it up with them, then these bandwagon jumper fans. Cubs are in my blood! Can't do anything about it. BASEBALL IS LIFE! No matter what? So if they move to Vegas are you a Vegas Cub fan? What have the Cubs done to earn your lifelong devotion? I'm betting it isn't anything they have done but something either your family has done or geography has done. Nor would I think you would be allowed to party up with "them" when it came time to celebrate. Sure you could bask in their glow but you would be on outside looking in..

I really don't blame Bartman, though I'm not happy with him. I don't think the anybody would have done that is a good defense. I've seen plenty of fans do the exact opposite on plays like that and as a fan of the home team he should have had his head in the game. On top of that if I recall correctly he already caught a foul ball earlier in the game so it wasn't even like it was a once in a lifetime moment for him. Anyway enough about Bartman he wasn't what I wanted to talk about. I blame AGon for his miscue, but again he is a minor guy in this. The guy I blame the most is Dusty Baker. Having Prior pitch 7 innings and throw a ton of pitches when his team is winning 12-2 was stupid. Staying with Wood in the 7th game when he clearly didn't have it the whole game, and Kat is right Dusty sitting their and doing virtually nothing in the 8th when it was all unraveling. If I remember right Dusty had every intention of letting Prior play right on through the 8th. He let him hit in the bottom half of the 7th. Again if I memory is right I think it was looking like Prior was running on empty that inning from the beginning, and that to escape that inning would really be a matter of luck. Of course the Cubs almost got that luck but instead it went the other way.

I jsut can't get interested in minor league baseball. To much risk involved, too much having to rely on organizations words, and reporters biases. You follow a guy for a couple of years in the newspaper or journals or even on the internet. think he is going to be something, get frustrated when they don't give him a chance or when he never develops, and then what? What was it all for? As for the players, I don't really like them either. Around about 2000 I got a Cubs Jersey and I couldn't figure out whose name and number to put on the back. Sammy was a good player but I could never embrace to the point where I would actually put his name on my back. Didn't want grace either. Finally I decided to get an away jersey and put Sandberg's name on it, that way if anybody asked I'd say I got it in 1997. To this day I still can't think of any active players name I want to wear on my back. I've been a big critic of this team ever since they went and got Baylor, and that didn't change when they got Baker. For the most part I liked what they did before 2004, except for getting Goodwin. And it gave me hope, but then the season started and they were just so unlikeable. Its one of the reasons why I hang out much much less at Cubs forums now then I used too. I want to enjoy talking about baseball not b.itch and moan about things I do not enjoy. But that is what the Cubs have become for me, so instead I hang out in more general baseball sites where I can talk about things that I enjoy.

Around about 1990 or 1991 I walked away from baseball. Hurt my arm, got busy being a teenager and so forth. Then went away to school and traveled the country for awhile so I never really had time or the ability to follow the Cubs or baseball. Then somewhere around May or June of 1998 I became a baseball fan again, and more importantly to this forum a Cubs follower again. I was finally settled down, though it was in a far off city, so following the Cubs over the internet was like having a little piece of home with me in this new city. I came back to Chicago on vacation and took my Dad to see a game, Sammy hit his 56th homer that day and tied Hack Wilson for team homer record. The Cubs collapsed in the end and had to play one game playoff. My apartment building didn't have cable so I had to go to a bar to watch the game. Unbelievably they were watching wheel of fortune and didn't even know the game was on, some sports bar. Anyway watched what was perhaps the most boring potential no hitter in the history of baseball and big games (Steve Trachsel will do that to you). I watched the game surrounded by Larry Anderson and a bunch young September pitcher call ups, who interestingly enough were more interested in watching young sensation Charlie Batch make his first Monday Night football debut. After that season I was hooked on baseball and the Cubs again, and even though the Cubs were horrid the next couple of years I was able to maintain my interest in baseball and the Cubs through a new recreation I had just discovered, fantasy baseball. I played through 1999 and 2000 and won both times. The next year the Cubs seemed to have righted the ship and seemed to justify my faith in them. Of course the Cubs collapsed again at the end of the season but again it was alright because once again I found another interest to keep me occupied. That interest was online forums and more specifically the forum on Cubs.com. Plus I had another outlet as well, I had the Philadelphia Phillies with a young exciting core and team from 2001 was winning. Tickets were cheap and the stadium close, so it was ok when the Cubs took a walk in the wilderness. Then along comes 2003. What a roller-coaster. I think I wrote that team off at least 5 times that year. They make it to the playoffs by the skin of their teeth and even beat the Braves to finally advance a round. Of course we all know what happened next, I don't think I am alone in saying that I was on the verge of crying when the 9th rolled around in game 7. But it was ok because for the first time we had a future we could honestly say we'll get them next year. But then 2004 and 2005 happened. Now here we sit on the verge of 2006 season starting and suddenly Mark Prior's shoulder feels sore. What a complete surprise to the Cubs organization. I am disgusted and dejected with the Cubs. I do not wish to root for them anymore. I almost want to start to follow the Brewers, but I just can't. I don't live in that city, and it was owned by the Seligs at one point so its hard to do it. Though lately the Brewers are doing more and more to make me change my mind. They got an owner who so far looks like he is actually thinking about the fan and what he wants. And I'm not just talking about the players on the field, but how they go about treating their fans. Anyway I not going to say this do or die time or this is the last straw. But I will say I'm beginning to care less and less about the Cubs. Who i replace them with and even if I replace I do not know.