Cubs Roll Nine Spot

Brad Snyder smacked a grand slam home run and Bobby Scales batted twice and drove in three runs with two singles to highlight a nine-run 7th, as the Cubs shutout the White Sox 13-0 before an all-time record crowd of 13,010 at Dwight Patterson Field at HoHoKam Park this afternoon in hot & sunny Mesa, Arizona.  

box score

 

The Cubs were held hitless through the first three innings, before they mounted a two-out rally in the bottom of the 4th against Sox right-hander Ehren Wassermann.

Mike Fontenot lined a single to center and Brad Snyder roped a single to right, before Koyie Hill slammed a double off the right field fence, driving in both runners and giving the Cubs a 2-0 lead. 

The Cubs scored twice more with one out in the bottom of the 5th off Octavio Dotel, as Aaron Miles bounced a "seeing-eye" 15-hopper through box into centerfield, and Derrek Lee lined a "knucleball" single in front of Jermaine Dye in right. Micah Hoffpauir followed with a line single to right that plated Miles and sent D-Lee to 3rd, and then Lee scored on a 5-4 FC RBI by Aramis Ramirez.

The Cubs finished their scoring in the 7th, as Sox right-hander Adam Russell had one of those Innings from Hell a pitcher can experience sometimes in a Spring Training game.

Jake Fox got the inning started, as he was hit by a pitch. Hoffpauir then roped a single to right, before Aramis Ramirez reached base on an E-6 by Sox shortstop Brent Lillibridge on what should have been a "room service" DP ball. Bobby Scales lined a bases-loaded single to left-center to score Fox, and then Brad Snyder crushed a grand slam to deep right-center, giving the Cubs a 9-0 lead. (There is a contest in the bottom of the 7th, where some lucky fan can win $500 from one of the local Indian casinos if a Cubs player hits a grand slam...). 

But the Cubs weren't done yet!

Welington Castillo drew a walk, and Sam Fuld and Doug Deeds singled to load the bases. Andres Blanco then singled to drive in two runs, and after Fox popped out and Steve Clevenger struck out, Luis Rivas drew a walk to reload the bases, and Scales followed with still another bases-loaded line-drive RBI single, this time driving in two runs. 

All of the scoring overshadowed a fine group performance by the Cubs Pitchers. 

Aaron Heilman got the start and was masterful, working two innings (22 pitches - 17 strikes - 2/0 GO/FO), allowing just one ground ball hit while striking out four and walking none. His sinker looked very good.

Kevin Gregg (19 pitches - 12 strikes 1/1 GO/FO) allowed a double while striking out one in his one inning of work, and Neal Cotts (20 pitches - 11 strikes - 0/3 GO/FO) labored a bit while allowing a hit (also a double) and a walk in his inning.

Rule 5 pick David Patton only threw nine pitches in the 5th, so Manager Lou Piniella sent him out for a second inning. Patton was (like Heilman) a strike machine today (26 pitches - 21 strikes), allowing just a harmless single while stiking out two 

Ken Kadokura nibbled his way through the 7th (27 pitches - only 14 strikes), allowing a hit and a walk, but Jason Waddell got through the 8th in about two minutes, throwing only six pitches (resulting in one ground out and two fly outs).

Esmailin Caridad worked a scoreles 9th (17 pitches - 12 strikes - 1/1 GO/FO), although his outing was extended a bit longer than it should have gone when he committed a throwing error on an easy comebacker to the mound. But Caridad has good stuff and works fast, and he looks like he could be ready to pitch in the big leagues right now.

On defense, Doug Deeds made a fine catch crashing into the wall in LF in the 8th.

The Cubs are now 4-0 in Cactus League play, and will travel to Peoria tomorrow to play the San Diego Padres.  

Return to Homepage

Comments

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1527

Cubs open to the Schilling idea...

“Why not?” one operative said.

...not exactly the news/source i was expecting.

Count me in the "open to Schilling" idea. I'm not a huge fan of his politics, but he is a winner, a gamer, and brings a knowledge of pitching I think benefits the young kids we have on staff.

He, Harden, and Heilman as a #5 starter is fine by me.

you're not a fan of his politics?

why is this an issue?

Yeah--I'm not a fan of Chad's politics, for instance, but I'd want him on my team--as catcher, in hot pants, to throw the opposing batters off their game.

because he's one of the most vocal players in the game and takes over a lockerroom and the media when he shows up.

fwiw, most players don't mind and he keeps the politics away from the game.

also...your arguement there...you must have stopped reading everything as soon as you read the political thing...there's a "but" right after the statement.

I don't know if I agree with his politics or not, but I'm with Chad on this... who cares. You're not hiring a political advisor, you're hiring ball players.

"I'm not a huge fan of his politics, --> BUT <--- he is a winner, a gamer, and brings a knowledge of pitching I think benefits the young kids we have on staff."

nope. you ignore the point. who gives a flying F what his politics are? Freaking Zambrano is Venezuelan and would consider playing for his country in the WBC. You think I care? No.

To borrow a line (and mildly change) from my good friend Ferris:

I don't care if they're commies, doesn't change the fact that my team hasn't won a championship in 100 years.

In the end the comment was total bullsh!t. And you all know it.

The comment was not total bullshit. As crunch said, notice the BUT. All he was saying was "I don't really like the guy, but if he can help the team I am all for it." We all said the same thing about Edmonds. It wasn't politics, but instead past team affiliation, but it was the same point, we all felt it would be hard to root for him but of course were OK with the signing if he helped the Cubs win.

Also, don't confuse politics with love of country. I know many Venezuelans in the US who love their country and are deeply proud of being Venezuelan, but they hate the fact that it has been taken over a by a megalomaniac dictator.

My understanding of Chad's point is that if you say something like this: "Statement A --> BUT <-- statement B (which completely negates statement A)", then the whole comment is pretty irrelevant. Rhetorically, what you've just done is make one statement and pretended to disregard it, except that if the statement can be disregarded it was not much worth saying. So the point was probably to call the information in statement A to everyone's attention while creating a personal defense with statement B.

I should know. I do this all the time. By accident. Then I go back and think, why did I post that?

Of course, that's if you view this message board as a forum for argument/debate. If you view it as a discussion within a friendly community, then the original statement is not irrelevant—it is self-revelation and offers the rest of the community the opportunity to respond.

"Also, don't confuse politics with love of country."

Are you kidding about this? This isn't about being a republican and expecting a player to not play for the us because Obama is president. It's about playing for a country led by a dictator.

you still CHOOSE to ignore the "but" huh?

should we go pour through your delgado comments and demand you're saying something you're not?

the but doesn't change anything. please read charlie's post above (#16).

says you.

it was crystal clear to me. there's no hidden/sneaky message. it's very plain english.

i dont like this aspect, but the guy blah blah baseball relevant things.

i don't like jim edmonds because, but...

"negating statements" are for people looking for conspiracy. it's a lot easier to just read the statement as is...which says "i have a personal opinion about a guy, but he'll probably be good for the team so whatever"

there is NOTHING wrong or negating about the statement. it's a statement...not a competition.

i don't like jim edmonds because he blah blah blah, but he's an advantage to the cubs for his pay and cant hurt. i don't expect that to be followed by "BUT YOU HATE EDMONDS SO THE 2ND HALF OF THAT MEANS NOTHING AND I WON'T TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE ONLY 1/2 YOUR OPINION COUNTS EVEN THOUGH YOU WENT THROUGH THE TROUBLE TO PUT A QUALIFIER IN!"

less conspiracy, more face value...

you know what stop being a pussy and forget the qualifier.

say what you mean and mean what you say.

regardless, what the fuck do you know anyway? This wasn't your post I was talking about and you have no business being in this trying to defend him. He's a partisan cub fan and doesn't like the fact that Schilling is a republican. Until he says differently, i"m taking him on what he wrote.

this isn't a fight big boy...i'm just pointing out things that are plain and easy to understand if you don't have an agenda to push.

it's been explained to you by him, me, and others...but you choose to point to none of that, only to the 1 comment that backs up your view.

for some reason you want to believe other than what's fully explained to you.

Whatever. Please continue to avoid the point.

If you think this has nothing to do with partisian politics then you are either stupid or a liar.

and your mom wears combat boots.

Are you kidding about this? Do you know anything about Venezeulan politics at all? Why is this scenario any different? You don't like who is in charge of the country, but you play anyway.

Do you have any basis for calling Chavez a dictator or are you just parroting the rhetoric of the right? Is it a player's fault that Chavez in charge of the country he is from? Hell, the player may like Chavez. How the hell do you think he stays in power? He uses oil revenue to give people shit. People like free gas, free healthcare, state jobs, etc. It's not a mystery. In the latest referendum on Chavez's new constitution two weeks ago, he wins 55% of the vote. This means that about half of the people like him and about half don't. Why if you are a player do you punish the entire population by not participating in a team that they will surely follow and root for? Simply because you don't like the fact that Chavez is in charge, a feeling about half of your fellow citizens share? What is the point? There is no logic behind this.

Well damn. You know Saddam used it get 98% in the public voting. So I guess that means he wasn't a dictator either.

What horseshit.

Would it be ok if a German wanted to go back to Germany to participate in the Olympics in '32?

You know, I am not an expert on pretty much anything talked about on here. But considering I am just finishing a PhD in Political Science (with a focus in authoritarianism and Latin American Politics no less) I have to tell you that you are flat out wrong on this. It's not as simple as calling a leader a dictator or not. What is your definition? Scholars have been debating it for years. These aren't binaries. Many would argue that the steps Bush took to erode civil liberties made him a dictator. I also never said that vote totals had anything to do with defining a regime as a dictatorship. You do realize that there are HUGE differences between Saddam and Chavez right? And that Chavez actually LOST the last vote on the referendum last year? Meaning that elections are a fair representation of how the general public feels on issues.

And again, why the fuck would someone from Venezuela not want to represent the 26 million people of the country and the society they grew up in simply because Chad doesn't like Chavez?

To merge our threads. I am guessing that Shilling dislikes Obama more than many of the Venezuelan players dislike Chavez. The idea that either would abstain from representing their countries is stupid.

yep, you're a communist too.

would you have been ok with a German athlete going back to Hitler's Germany (an elected official, as you know) to compete in the '32 olympics?

seen the unreleased Bush memos this morning yet?

should the US players be leaving now or is it okay now that the people behind those memos are gone?

No, I don't know that Hitler is an elected official. Probably because he isn't. He was appointed Chancellor in 1933 (not 1932 FYI), despite the Nazi party only having ever achieved 37% of the vote in the Reichstag (and his party had just LOST 34 seats in the previous election). He then used the Reichstag fire and other events to push through the Enabling Act which let him govern without the constitution.

Also, I have to say the "what about Hitler" argument is so played. By comparing everything to Hitler you can make a lot of stuff seem ridiculous. Chavez isn't Hitler and you know it. It's a dumb point to try to make.

But to your question. If there was say German sprinter training in the United States in 1932, and he decides wants to run for his country - Germany - in the Los Angeles Olympics in 1932, I have ABSOLUTELY NO problem with this.

Why would you? Hell, Hitler is not even in power yet. WWII is still 7 years away. Human rights violations at this point are not extensive. Etc. But even if you were correct and this was the case in 1932, I still don't see how that makes all Germans somehow ashamed to be German. Why do they stop having pride in their country? Just because they don't like the leadership? Why wouldn't they want to represent the German people?

While it doesn't hold true all the time, the idea behind international sporting events like the Olympics and WBC is that sports can rise above politics. I think it is great that the Cubans can participate despite US animosity toward the Castro regime. Likewise with Venezuela. I think it is great that China can host the Olympics. When politics does come into these things - like with the 1980 Boycott - they usually have no effect and are heavily criticized.

So again, I don't see your point at all. Henry Blanco doesn't think his participation in the WBC is a referendum on Chavez's politics. He sees it as playing for the pride of being Venezeulan, something that has its roots long before Chavez came to power and will remain long after he is gone. It's as simple as that.

Oh, and good one, calling me a Communist. I mean, wow, I don't have a comeback for that one.

is it even worth mentioning that these people making huge money in VEN are the ones not benefiting from chavez's politics?

it's probably also worth mentioning for those that may think VEN is a 3rd world country that it's actually pretty modern in the urban areas...US-style modern.

yeah, their slums surrounding the cities may be those "3rd world style" views we're used to seeing, but the country isn't hunkered in mud huts with no shot at life except what the govt. provides them.

...this is rant continuation, btw...just adding along...

Sure MLB players are not benefiting from his policies. The point is that they are not likely to refrain from playing baseball for Venezuela for that reason - nor should they be ashamed if they do not as Chad seems to think.

Also, no, Venezuela is not dirt poor. It's much like the rest of it's neighbors in the region. It's developing and the urban areas look very much like the US or Europe, but the rural areas and urban slums are pretty bad. Income inequality is high.

But Venezuela is not a mass police state either. Freedom House ranks all countries based on political rights and civil liberties. In its latest (2008) rankings it has about 80 countries as bad or worse than the Venezuela. So the idea that Venezuela today is somehow like living in Nazi Germany or in Burma today is ridiculous.

would you have been ok with a German athlete going back to Hitler's Germany (an elected official, as you know) to compete in the '32 olympics

Yea... because somehow Hitler and Chavez are alike.

that wasn't he point at hand.

the point was he said that politics and representing your country in an athletic event were separate. I said they weren't.

Okay, understood. I guess I didn't see why it was relevant, but I'll concede the point.

How about the bigger question...

Can dude still pitch?

Christ, the point isn't that I normally care about a player's politics, its that Schilling is very outspoken, even joining candidates on the campaign trail:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/03/sc...
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7869223.html

Lord knows the Cubs have enough distractions with the "The Chicago Cubs, having not won a World Series in 100 years..." starting off every freaking mention of the team in sports universe. I wouldn't want this scrap-heap signing to bring along hefty baggage...

I guess I'm more concerned with how often he injects himself into the political realm while serving as very public sports figure, and less about which party he ascribes to.

"I guess I'm more concerned with how often he injects himself into the political realm while serving as very public sports figure, and less about which party he ascribes to."

Again just more bullshit. Admit that you have a problem rooting for a republican. Your original statement was an indictment of his beliefs and not his actions.

I highly doubt you would care if he had done the same things but only while campaigning for Obama.

Classic Chad here. Glad it's baseball season again.

hey, as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't care if the Cubs signed Rahm Emanuel as long as he could help this team win.

Chad,

Please utilize whatever semblance of reading comprehension skills you might have. You can either A) Take my post at face value and stop being a complete douche about it, or B) Color it through your own misguided world-view complete with fatalistic, always-the-victim, deep-rooted insecurities.

See, how does it feel to have someone baselessly misconstrue and over-analyze your words which were meant to be straightforward?

If the Cubs signed fucking Rahm Emanuel, I'd hope the dude would eschew partisan politics while having a solid .300 .400 .950 year w/ 40 HR and 125 RBI....but I can only dream, cant I?

comprehend this:

it's obvious the idea of an outspoken conservative is a problem for you and you can't separate that from his being a ball player on your fav team.

I for one, don't care about his politics or anyone else's.

Chad,

It is only obvious to you. Schilling is the ONLY active player who has campaigned for a presidential candidate in both of the last two cycles. I'm commenting on the fact that most players choose to remain inactive in major politics while actively playing baseball.

Chad, are you sure you're not from St Louis?

"it's obvious"

ah...oh you.

do you honestly feel that post would have been made if he was an outspoken supporter of Obama?

No. If you say yes, you are a fucking liar.

Chad --

I'm glad you're a part of this community. I think you're a good guy.

Relax.

i appreciate the nice words but kindly don't tell me to relax. I will chose the posts to get riled up by and the ones I won't. And if i want to fly off the handle and lose my mind, it's my decision to make. I've been round these parts for a long time, I'll be fine.

This tangent you're on has nothing to do with what you're supposed to be ranting about, but you think it does so there's really nothing more to be done with it...at least from me, anyway.

You will find the answers to everything if you just read everything. Your conspiracy is off-mark, but you refuse to move off it even in the face of explanations.

There's not much more to be done with that.

just keep dodging my question crunch.

your questions have nothing to do with your original tangent you got on.

rather than accepting explainations you choose to reject them then ask questions based off your assumption.

this is what's going on here and why i'm not playing. this got stupid long ago and for some reason you really really really don't want to believe people are telling the truth explaining things to you.

this whole political-love polarizing thing is gonna give you a heart attack.

no crunch, you created the tangent.

My original point is that post was only created because Schilling was a republican. If he wasn't, Jordan wouldn't care. Plain and simple.

well to be fair, Republicans destroyed the country...

(pulls pin, throws grenade)

┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐

I don't say this often... but Chad is right on this one.

The "I don't like his politics" was pretty clearly talking about his ideologies more than his actions.

With that said, I have no problem with the original comment - it is valid. I too don't like Schilling's politics, but I too would be interested in having him pitch for the Cubs... if he can still pitch.

There were many athletes campaigning for Obama in this last election cycle, but I don't hear many people complaining about their politics.

Re: Post # 42

OK. Fair enough.

FWIW, I'd hate for you to lose your essential Chad-ness. Carry on.

I just read all of this and it is completely stupid. Jordan admits that he is not "a huge fan of his politics." Who cares if this means because he is a Republican or because he is political in general? Why does it matter? Because he immediately follows it up with, "but he can help the team so I would be ok with it."

So who cares?

But if Jordan is not saying it, I will: I have a fucking problem with Schilling being a Republican. I'd rather root for players that I like personally. In my ideal world, every player on the Cubs would not be racist, sexist, or discriminate against gays, and would try to help the environment, give to charity, support education, and in just in general share my liberal views. But my first preference is to see the Cubs win, and if they need 25 former convicts to pull it off, then I will wear orange jumpsuits in their honor all season long.

here's a tip, don't bring up an issue then immediately ask us to forget you said it. If it's a non-issue then don't bring it up.

And i love how you try to parallel being a republican with being "racist, sexist, or discriminate against gays" and then try to paint them as people who would not "try to help the environment, give to charity, support education, and in just in general share my liberal views"

this politics stuff consumes you.

it's not a sport...it doesn't need a class war or a verbal beatdown to prove anything.

your general attitude in this whole post is pretty disgusting and verbally violent toward others. you're gonna have a f'n heart attack defending an idealology that no one's attacking.

this is about schilling, not any of us...no matter how much you wanna tie it in.

person A has an issue with someone (MUCH LIKE YOURS WITH DELGADO AND EVIDENTLY VEN. PLAYERS) and then says he can look past that if it helps the team. you choose to concentrate on the fact that a person can have an opinion yet you can look past the core of the statement, the meaning of the statement, and the entire gist of the statement.

what the hell is your problem with this? it's cut/dry and sane thinking only you don't like it because it dares to touch on the Grand Ol' Party.

you're gonna drop dead of a heart attack over this crap in between calling everyone a bunch of stupid names.

And I highly doubt you would've cared what the comment was about Schilling if you disagreed with his politics.

that comment wouldn't have happened if Schilling was a democrat. Ask any republican on this board if we would have made that comment? i will be money that no one would.

We, for the most part, have an easier time accepting people on the other side. Yeah, sounds weird, doesn't it. Don't believe me? Then ask us how we stomach the entertainment industry.

FYI, my hero is Alec Baldwin. I'm a HUGE fan of his and will watch anything that he's in.

The point is, if Schilling were a Democrat and someone mentioned they didn't like his politics, you wouldn't have had an issue with it, I'm guessing. Whether the comment would actually be uttered isn't the issue.

the very fact the comment would or would not be made is the point.

Only a democrat makes that point. Republicans don't. And if one did, i would tell him to shut up. I don't care if Derrek Lee spoke at the DNC. I don't care if Ted Lilly has a I <3 Hilary tatoo on his ass. makes no difference to me.

you really suck at conspiracy.

It doesn't matter if they would've made the point or not. (Which is a crock of shit, actually, but again, not the point.) And speaking of points, it's pointless to go on. So I'm out.

but it does matter because conservatives don't think that way. I don't care about any players politics or what they do with their free time. I am more than happy to have a Cub team full of liberals. The thought would never cross my mind. But for liberals, they can't stand the thought of rooting for a conservative.

the fact you actually believe what you just typed makes me wonder what planet chad is like.

that 1st sentence says a lot...a whole lot.

and no, i don't need an explanation on why it's "the truth" because...well, i'm not going to explain myself and believe me, i don't want to know why it's "the truth"...absolutely 0 interest.

i'll just say that 1st and last sentence says a lot and there's no arguing with someone who believes that flat-earth logic.

i live in planet hollywood.

here conservatives hide and don't tell people that they are republicans. i live it everyday.

you won't get jobs in this town if people know you're a republican. you'll get berated at work. it's not pretty. and believe me, it happens/happened to me as I was outed a couple of years ago.

But go ahead and think that it doesn't happen.

it's true, we lynched a Republican at our office last week....

You're . . . doing . . . God's . . . work?

Too far? Too far.

no, it's fine now that the nazi commie socialist tax and spend america hating liberals are in charge.

but if you DARE say "black" insted of "african american person of darker pigmentation color" your ass is gonna spend time in jail.

we live in a VERY scary world now...buy guns and 10' fencing.

you're mocking aside, i have been berated in more than one office. and i know people who have been too. make fun all you want but it's very real.

Dennis Prager talks about it all the time. He theorizes that if a conservative group set up a booth on campus as did a liberal group set up a booth in a very conservative area, taht the liberal group would be treated very well while the conservative group would be harassed.

I totally agree with him

Ahh... Dennis Prager. A man without bias, and a completely credible source of opinion on the difference between conservatives and liberals.

Oh wait...

No matter Dave. Bias or not, I totally agree with him. Liberal speakers don't get shouted down and forced off stage. This is a regular event for conservative speakers. Conservatives treat liberals much better than liberal treat conservatives.

{removed} Nevermind, I just realized I don't want to get involved in this.

that's right. cause your a communist. you probably masturbate too!

No and yes.

What world do you live in? I've lived in a conservative Catholic town in Iowa and liberal Madison. The pro-gay rights group had batteries thrown at them in Iowa. The same shit happens in both places. It's just that liberal groups chose, for the most part, not to have talks and protests in stupid places where they have no support. Conservative often do this on purpose, as strategy, to get on TV and attempt to get people to feel sympathetic for them. It's calculated. It's why the ID groups love to be turned down for opportunities for talks, because they can then talk about how unfair the world is that their "science" is not included with the others.

Yes, conservatives are well known for their tolerance of others.

Yes, conservatives are well known for their tolerance of others.

they are far more civil than liberals. Conservatives don't start riots.

While they have been and will continue to be transgression from conservative sources, the vast majority comes from liberals.

Can we get some support for this claim?

Maybe someone would also like to define who is liberal, who is conservative, and whether we are talking about people with political views that lie on the extreme ends of the spectrum or something else.

Good luck with the definition part...

I consider myself more middle of the road than most, and would say I'm fiscally more of a Republican and socially more of a Democrat. This is a tough one to argue, because people at both ends of the spectrum are so skewed in their beliefs that they can't tolerate any viewpoint besides their own.

I just try to be consistent with what I believe. I'm not sure how someone can be for the death penalty and dead-set against abortions (I am for both, by the way). That one always blows my mind...

Let's get back to arguing baseball and leave the political banter to the "experts" like Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher. Nothing good can come of people discussing politics, except feelings getting hurt and respect being lost, and the common bond we share here is Cubs baseball, anyways. Hard to believe a discussion started to talk about the possibility of a guy like Schilling playing for the Cubs turned into a 100-post detour into political history and arguing over the more evil party in America.

Can we get some support for this claim?

Sure... Dennis Prager said so.

yup lots and lots of conservative groups stage sit ins and start riots.

all the time.

yup lots and lots of conservative groups stage sit ins and start riots.

FWIW, you are changing the conversation from lack of tolerance to civil disobedience.

Two very different things.

no i'm not dave. i am not calling the conservatives "tolerant". I am saying that the act more civilly overall.

i would gladly put this to the test. i'll set up a college republican station in the middle of UCLA and you can put up a ACLU booth in a very conservative area. we videotape the results. I will bet you that you would get ignored while i would be repeatedly harassed.

That wouldn't really be a fair comparison.

Chances are you would be harassed because you are Chad, and have a mullet, rather than you being conservative.

And I still that civil disobedience (i.e. sit-ins) have little/nothing to do with this conversation.

so let's just keep it to the comment that started this:

a booth set up at UCLA's campus for a College Republican's group would be harassed and worse (i would bet money that the booth would be destroyed)

while a ACLU booth in a very conservative area would be untouched and the people at the booth would be treated much better.

Again, I said better.

That was fun

I <3 this thread.

Me too :)

So... I still haven't heard an opinion... Can the man still pitch? All this talk about how his political opinions are secondary to his abilities, yet people are ignoring the question.

I guess it doesn't really matter if WE think he can still pitch or not anyways, but I thought it might be rad to discuss it.

This thread in a word cloud.

Yay!

heard it on XM: Nats GM Bowden resigns...says he's innocent but his position is compromised and he's become a distraction

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9280134/Nationa...

Boof Bonser isn't happy that the Twins' doctors failed to diagnose his torn rotator cuff and labrum until spring training. He's out for the year.
-----
hmmm. Didn't know the Twins had a team vet.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whit...

Well played, sir.

"Didn't know the Twins had a team vet."

I just spit crumbs all over my keyboard. Damn you.

Trib says Fontenot will start at 3B today vs Padres

Sam Fuld on BA's all-winter-league team.

Johan Santana flying to NYC to have his pitching elbow examined by Dr. Altchek, I'd expect he will get an MRI too.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090301&c...

----------
Dr Altchek performed the elbow surgery (repair of chronic tennis elbow) on Aaron Heilman in Oct 2006 (as well as Carlos Delgado)

http://www.thecubreporter.com/2009/01/29/jim-hendr....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-01-cubs-w...

-----

"The game was the first of five exhibitions between the crosstown rivals, including two Wednesday and Thursday in Las Vegas. The real deal begins in June with series at Wrigley and U.S. Cellular Field, and it should be more heated after Piniella inadvertently hung up on Guillen last week.

"Evidently he was a little upset because he wanted to use the DH today, and I couldn't hear who it was so I hung up on him," Piniella said with a laugh.

Guillen tried to call back, and Piniella hung up on him again. Afterward, Guillen told friends it was easier for him to reach President Barack Obama than Piniella. But the two finally connected a couple of days ago.

"I told Ozzie when I left a message, 'Whatever you want, we'll accommodate you,' " Piniella said. "So today he told me, 'Can I have a couple of your players?' "

Great story.

Not sure if this is old news or not...

Orioles' Hill scratched with elbow stiffness

"FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP)—Baltimore Orioles left-hander Rich Hill was scratched from Sunday’s spring training start with elbow stiffness, an annoying setback for a pitcher eager to restart his stalled major league career.

Hill was scheduled to face the Washington Nationals in Viera, Fla., but was left at Baltimore’s camp after developing stiffness in his left elbow Saturday. The injury is not perceived as serious, but the Orioles—and Hill—aren’t taking chances."

Full Story

{ removed }

"{ removed }"

Best comment in this thread.

But Chad is right, btw.

This word cloud effectively describes my feelings toward this whole Schilling/politics argument:

http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh

Conservative groups stage anti-gay protests, which I would think would disturb you.

i didn't say that conservative groups never do. i said the the vast majority of this sort of behavior is left of center.

Quantification anyone?

Also, riots and sit-ins are not the only disruptive political strategies.

none of which are in the conservative playbook.

I'll be so disappointed if this thread ever dies...

Dear God, please let it end...

X
  • Sign in with Twitter