Brewers Defeat Cubs, Salvage One Game

Apparently thoroughly embarrassed by the parent club’s piss-poor performance versus the Cubs at Miller Park in Milwaukee over the weekend, the EXST Brewers played inspired Cactus League Extended Spring Training baseball this morning at Fitch Park Field #3 in Mesa, defeating the EXST Cubs 5-1. With the loss, the Cubs fall to 4-6-2 in Cactus League Extended Spring Training play.


There wasn’t much in the way of positives for the Cubs to take away from today’s game, the one exception being the fine performance by starting pitcher Tarlandus Mitchell (the Cubs 2008 22nd round draft pick out of Alto HS – Alto, TX). A 20-year old RHP, Mitchell probably threw the best baseball I’ve ever seen him throw, retiring the last nine men he faced after giving up a lead-off double in the top of the 1st inning. The stocky 5’8 195 might-mite throws in the mid-90’s, but usually has lots of trouble finding the strike zone. But he did a decent job throwing strikes today (48 pitches – 31 strikes), issuing no walks while striking out four.


Mitchell gave up a chance to play college football (he was an all-state cornerback in high school) to sign a pro baseball contract with the Cubs, and up until today it looked like he might have made a mistake. But seeing him throw his fastball over the plate the way he did this morning gives one hope for his future as a pitcher, at least as long as he continues to throw strikes.


19-year old LHP Austin Kirk (Cubs 2009 3rd round pick out of Owasso HS – Owasso, OK) followed Mitchell to the mound and had a disappointing outing, allowing three runs on four hits (two singles, a double, and a two-run HR, plus a walk) in two innings of work (39 pitches), as the EXST Brew Crew broke open what had been a scoreless tie through the first three innings.


The EXST Cubs offense was mostly non-existent today, although Pin-Chieh Chen did continue his hot hitting, smoking an opposite-field double into the LF corner leading off the bottom of the 4th (although he was left stranded). The speedy 18-year old lefty-swinging Taiwanese middle-infielder is hitting .421 through the EXST Cubs first 12 games.


While the Cubs were playing the Brewers on Field #3, RHP Marcus Hatley (2009 TJS rehab) and RHP Hector Mayora (a recent arrival from the Cubs Dominican Academy in Boca Chica) threw a simulated game on Field #2.


Even under the best of circumstances it is difficult for position players at Extended Spring Training to stay sharp, because each player usually plays in only half the team's games (the EXST Cubs position players are divided into two squads, with each squad playing in every-other game, while the squad not playing in a game that day has BP, fielding practice, and baserunning drills at Fitch Park). But the EXST Cubs had more time away from game action than usual last week, as they had a full-squad "Camp Day" on both Thursday and Saturday, and then had the day off yesterday (Extended Spring Training is closed on Sundays).


Here is today’s abridged box score (EXST Cubs players only):


LINEUP
1. Alvaro Ramirez, LF: 0-4 (4-3, 3-U, 4-3, 1-U, RBI)
2. Pin-Chieh Chen, 2B: 1-3 (4-1, 2B, 5-3)
3. Xavier Batista, RF: 0-3 (K, 1-3, K)
4. Charles Thomas, 3B: 1-3 (1B, K, 3-U, SB)
5. Arismendy Alcantara, SS: 0-3 (K, K, F-7)
6. Sergio Burruel, C: 1-2 (BB, K, 1B)
7. Blair Springfield, DH #1: 1-3 (1B, 4-3, 5-4 FC)
8. Rafael Disla, DH #2: 0-3 (5-3, F-9, 4-3)
9. Melvin Camarena, 1B: 1-2 (BB, 2B, K, R)
10. Kyung-Min Na, CF: 0-3 (K, K, 5-3)


PITCHERS:
1. Tarlandus Mitchell – 3.0 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 4 K, 3/2 GO/FO, 48 pitches (31 strikes)
2. Austin Kirk – 2.0 IP, 4 H, 3 R (3 ER), 1 BB, 1 K, 1 HR, 3/2 GO/FO, 39 pitches (26 strikes)
3. Drew Rundle – 1.0 IP, 2 H, 1 R (1 ER), 0 BB, 0 K, 1/2 GO/FO, 12 pitches (9 strikes)
4. Alvido Jimenez – 1.0 IP, 2 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 0 K, 2/0 GO/FO, 14 pitches (9 strikes)
5. Jadel Mendez – 1.0 IP, 1 H, 1 R (0 ER), 0 BB, 0 K, 2/1 GO/FO, 11 pitches (8 strikes)
6. Yohan Gonzalez – 1.0 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 1 K, 1/1 GO/FO, 9 pitches (7 strikes)


ERRORS (2):
3B Charles Thomas E-5 (throwing error past 1st base on infield single allowed batter to advance to 2nd base – did not score)
C Sergio Burruel E-2 (throwing error on stolen base attempt at 3rd base allowed runner to score unearned run)


CATCHERS DEFENSE:
Sergio Burruel: 1-2 CS, 1 E (see above)


ATTENDANCE: 10


WEATHER: Sunny, cloudless, & very warm, temperatures in the upper 80’s

Return to Homepage

Comments

4th Inning

1st out of the inning retired on pop fly to Alfonso Soriano

Who caught it without his characteristic hop.

He often omits the hop when there are runners on base, or at least that's my impression.

Z in to relieve in the 8th. Buzzing 94 mph fastballs (per Gameday) past Washington batters.

Are you freaking kidding me, Lou? Koyie Hill in to pinch bunt for Geovany Soto with the runner on first base in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game?

[Expletives deleted.]

Worst move of the season.

He put him in to bunt, he failed at that. Why he didn't use Dempster to bunt, no one will ever know.

Why would pinch bunt for a hitter with .517 OBP and .512 SLG who has been hitting the ball very well lately? That's like taking Albert Pujols or Barry Bonds out of the game so that you can have somebody try to lay down a sacrifice bunt. That question needs to be answered before we even get into the stupidity of using Hill to bunt instead of Dempster.

So the question is why did he bunt at all? I guess he watched baseball during 1968 and thinks that you need to bunt to score one run.

Hopefully the fact that he didn't get the runner into scoring position, while taking out his hottest hitter and leaving him with no back-up catcher in an extra inning game will help Lou learn the error of his ways.

I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you, though.

It looks like Lou sacrifice bunts more than average, but who knows? All I can find is the number of times it works. Last year the Cubs' 65 SH's was a bit above average (56). Does anyone keep a stat on the rate that a team is successful sacrifice bunting?

the NL average was 71 last year, can't compare with the AL that uses a DH.

#1 in SH last year? Dusty and the Reds...

so far this year Cubs are 2nd with 11 behind the Giants who have 14. my guess is that it's more of the cold weather and struggling offense than a new pattern, but we shall see...

possible that Bill James Online would keep track of that under manager stats, I recall him saying he wanted to keep track of that in one of his recent handbooks, but I don't have a subscription.

an even better example would be to subtract pitching sacrifice hits from the team totals and see how they rank since they would be heavily influenced by the quality of the 7 and 8 hitters.

What we really want to know is how many sacrifice attempts are being made by the regular hitters...

my guess is that it's more of the cold weather and struggling offense

We also have at least one pitcher who is really good at it. Didn't Dempster have 3 successful sac bunts in one game this season?

If memory serves, Dempster lead the league in it (or was really close) two years ago. I don't think Lou even realizes that Dempster is good at it.

Edit* Memory does serve, he had 19 in 2008 and is leading the league with 5 this year. How do we let Lou know this?

He still shouldn't remove Soto to sac bunt in that situation. But you're right that if he does, he should at least bring in somebody who is a very good bunter.

Maybe Colvin should take his golf clubs up to the plate next time. Nice shin-high strike call.

Thank you, Brian Bruney! Cubs Win!

That was mildly enjoyable.

Lou postgame: "We'll rest Z tomorrow. Will probably give him 4 appearances before we would consider using him back to back."

And other stammering through questions about Z.

Honestly, I don't understand the outrage. So they shook things up a little. Good for them.

Nice win, however I would have enjoyed an eat-off between Livan Hernandez - Tuesday's starter (who has our number anyway) and Silva.

I was hoping they would have faced each other, and set a record for the heaviest starters beginning a ball-game.

Castro went 0-4 yesterday, dropping his average to .361

Maybe we should trade him while his trade value is high.

How will we know if his trade value is high until we see who we can get in return?

~ducks~

AZ Phil,

Are the Cubs making sure their players from other countries and players who look like they could possibly be from other countries have all their papers with them at all times? Hate to lose a shortstop in the middle of an at bat because a cop decides he looks suspicious.

Pretty much whenever you travel abroad you should have a copy of your passport and your visa stamp in your wallet, especially if you're not fluent in the local language.

"Papers" is a common misconception. It's typically just a stamp or a pasted card on one page of your passport.

I said papers because the new law in Arizona is being referred to as the "Papers, please" law by those who find it repugnant. Of course you lose the full effect of the "Papers, please," when it's written without an actor in a black and white movie saying it with a German accent.

Submitted by tbone on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 8:58am.
I said papers because the new law in Arizona is being referred to as the "Papers, please" law by those who find it repugnant. Of course you lose the full effect of the "Papers, please," when it's written without an actor in a black and white movie saying it with a German accent.

================================================

T-BONE: Which is why all Arizona peace officers are now required to speak with a German accent.

And of course Cubs players from Latin America and Asia don't have to worry about getting arrested by the Mesa cops. They have been instructed to say the secret password ("Naples") whenever they get stopped.

"They have been instructed to say the secret password ("Naples") whenever they get stopped."

bwhahahah.

Which, if I'm interpreting the new Arizona law correctly, each player will now have to carry with him at all times. In addition to that, guys like Aramis Ramirez will need to carry documentation with them if they drive to the Diamondbacks game. And God forbid you are some hispanic kid who forgot to bring your documentation to the game.

This would be a good time for the Cubs to announce their move to Naples. I love AZ Phil's reports, but not more than I despise this new law.

I've been attending spring training games for several years -- it's become a tradition, but I'm done now.

Agreed. Not to mention that D-Backs owner Jerry Colangelo is a major major financial contributor to the fringe folks who bring you this law. If you don't like the law and live in Arizona, you can cast a vote this summer by staying away from D-Back games. Less money to Colangelo - less money to this wrongheaded "cause."

Submitted by tbone on Tue, 04/27/2010 - 9:06am.
Agreed. Not to mention that D-Backs owner Jerry Colangelo is a major major financial contributor to the fringe folks who bring you this law. If you don't like the law and live in Arizona, you can cast a vote this summer by staying away from D-Back games. Less money to Colangelo - less money to this wrongheaded "cause."

================================================

T-BONE: The real culprit here is Janet Napolitano, who resigned as governor to take the position of Secretary of Homeland Security, allowing the Republican Secretary of State (Jan Brewer) to become governor. Couple that with a Republican state legislature, and this is what you get.

Another thing about Arizona is that it was a de facto "Jim Crow" state pre-Civil Rights movement, and was sympathetic to the Confederacy during the Civil War (the Arizona Territory was a big-time cotton producer). There was a battle (more of a skirmish) at Picacho Pass (located about halfway between Phoenix and Tucson) during the Civil War, where a unit of the Union Army fought Confederate militia. So although there is a libertarian element here (the Barry Goldwater contingent), there is also some really hard-core racism, too.

For example, we had a governor named Ev Mecham back in the 1980's, who immediately rescinded the MLK holiday after taking office, and used the word "pickaninny" to describe African American children. He eventually got impeached, but he damaged the tourism industry here for a few years.

I was at ASU during the Mecham/MLK debacle. U2 came to town for a big arena show and Public Enemy was the opening act. I lucked out for a preshow party at a sky box when I nearly dropped my beer when I saw klansmen on the stage. It was Public Enemy's stage show!! They did one song and left.
Very surreal.

I agree with being against this law. However, I might feel differently if I lived in Arizona. Apparently there is quite a problem there with illegal immigrants. What about checking law breakers for citizenship? Is that too far?

What about the problems they're having near the Mexican border in Texas?

What an ugly situation..

Well, I just saw that Nate Silver has pointed out that it is already federal law that documentation be carried by legal immigrants (http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1304.html). But ya, it's still a pretty ugly law.

I live in Texas and yes, there are problems that are spilling into El Paso but that doesn't excuse laws like this. And the same thing could happen here.

The only reason I even bring this up, because I don't really like talking about politics on a sports forum, is that it has a direct impact on my willingness to go to Spring Training next year in Mesa. I just can't support an economy in a state that allows this kind of thing to take place. It's a personal decision, and not one I expect others to follow.

I don't really get it. Can someone provide a link about why this law is so offensive? Is it the finger-printing? I used to work at a bank - they finger printed everyone - are people going to stop using banks in protest?

Really not trying to start an argument, I just don't understand the objections.

Here in suburban Chicago...

I've been stopped by police twice in the past five years as I walked down the street and asked for my i.d. Late in the afternoon once. Just after sunset the other time.

I'm about as plain non-threatening looking white male as you could find.

I chalked it up to the police not wanting their stats to seem like they racial profiled.

the idea of racial profiling is what has most people upset, the idea that an American-born Latino could be taking a late night walk without his drivers license and be harassed by the cops, which this law apparently gives them the right to do now.

illegal immigration is a serious problem for most of the Southwest states, a lot of broke local governments having to pay for services for people not paying taxes. Just not sure if this is the best way to handle it. On the other hand, I can't tell you what is the best way to handle it.

Someone more educated on the subject can explain to me why they just don't make the legal resident standards easier, since they certainly aren't going away.

aside from all that states can't set immigration law.

it ranks up there with the attourney generals sueing the federal goverment over this health care thing...political posturing and ultimately a waste of money.

but it makes people happy...usually those in favor of government not wasting money, oddly.

Are you saying that states cannot interpret and enforce federal legislation or that states cannot sue? Because they can and will do both. The state of Texas can even seceed from the union.

you can sue for anything, but a waste of money is a waste of money.

the states can't pretend the federal government's right of taxation doesn't apply to the things they don't think they should pay for.

on the immigration tip, GA has a similar law passed years ago, but it's un-enforced window dressing because it's almost impossible to not break a person's civil rights (federally) to enforce the law's gist.

it makes people feel good that they think something new is being done. words...

If Texas were to secede from the union, they'd probably end up on the Axis of Evil list pretty quick.

texas produces 1/2 the amount of revenue as is given to them from the federal government.

even without the paying federal taxes they couldn't even cover 1/3rd of what the feds provide them.

their growth relies heavily on federal dollars.

but hey, acting like a cowboy and talking about doing things on your own sells down there even if it's not even close to a reality.

Do you just make this stuff up, or is someone feeding you the info?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22...

i think you have what is commonly called "the wrong end of the stick"

you need to compare revenue sources and revenue growth.

the less state tax revenue they're taking in the more federal spending they're doing. every state does it and most every state is dependent upon it.

crunch, you've lost me. Where are you going with this. Texas perennially ranks near or at the bottom in dollars received from the Feds. As TRN's link shows, In 2005 it was 49th. And even in Prez Obama's USA where there are 57 states, that's very very low.

i'm talking about revenue streams and that's where things are getting lost evidently.

i'm not going into an economics thing here, but if you just want to play with that chart just note that they recieve more federal money than they pay out for a start.

then move on to where their tax revenue comes from.

then compare the revenue streams.

then notice how much more the federal inputs are becoming more important the past 10 years to texas.

succeeding from the US would cut their major revenue stream and that could only be made up by extreme state taxation. fun times. texas is far from independence.

Again - according to the new law, that American-born Latino would have to be breaking a law before the officer could ask for his identification. And, he would have to have reason BEYOND race/ethnecity/language before he could do so.

according to the new law, that American-born Latino would have to be breaking a law before the officer could ask for his identification.

where did you read that? pretty sure the text of the law is that the officer just has to have a reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal immigrant, not breaking some other law. Because you already had to prove your legal if stopped for something else...

And, he would have to have reason BEYOND race/ethnecity/language before he could do so.
this is true, but as tbone noted below, gives a lot of authority to cops. There's a lot of good cops, but it just takes a few bad ones.

The random pulling of people over is the part that bothers me personally.

Police have more than enough power as is. Why mandate that Arizona become a non-habe corp state?

I lived in Arizona for over 20 years, most of it on the Arizona border, in Douglas, Arizona. I last lived there about 7 years ago and the problem was pretty bad, i have been told since then, especially the last couple years its gotten way worse.

I applaud the new law in Arizona, its long over due, and Arizona citizens agree as nearly 70% approve of it. I am guessing the 30% who oppose are the illegals.

If they're illegals they wouldn't be citizens, but they're probably left wing or descended from more recent immigrants (or naturalized). I gather there used to be a sentiment from legal immigrants that they didn't want the illegals because they competed for jobs, not sure if that is still the case, but I suspect it may be.

There's a reason profiling is done - because it's effective. Whether we want to live in a country where people get profiled is a separate matter.

I do not oppose the deportation of illegal immigrants.

Its the illegal search and seizure aspect that bothers me about the whole thing.

And the very real possibility that the Police will use this as a blanket justification to harass regular everyday folks.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/stop-d...

the problem with that poll and most polls, they ask the wrong question...

Do you favor or oppose legislation that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant?

of course people want that...

but when asked about the concern if "efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will also end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizen" 58% were concerned or very concerned.

and on it goes...

anyway Fox News told me to ignore the polls

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/stewart-blasts-me...

(about 9:20 in to the end)

If you are interested in the legal issues here, James Doty has a good summary: http://www.salon.com/news/immigration/index.h...

Basically, his main point is:

"The Law requires that police officers determine the immigration status of a person "where reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is in the country illegally.

As many have noted, the most obvious (and provocative) question raised by this provision is, "What do illegal immigrants look like?" They're probably Hispanic, but so are 30 percent of Arizona's residents. So unless the law authorizes the stopping and questioning of any person who looks darker than the average Caucasian, there needs to be some other criteria that set apart illegal aliens from lawful residents.

But so far, no one has come up with any. When asked what other factors an officer might use to single out an unlawful resident, Brewer replied, "We have to trust our law enforcement."

That's not a constitutionally acceptable answer. For one thing, the Constitution's equal protection clause forbids the government from differentiating between anyone in the United States -- including illegal aliens -- on the basis of race. The new law, on its face, doesn't make racial distinctions, but its supporters haven't articulated any other grounds for suspecting that someone is an unlawful resident.

The failure to adequately define "reasonable suspicion" also subjects the law to what might be called the "Papers, please" line of attack. Under the Fourth Amendment, police officers can't simply stop people on the street and force them to answer questions. Instead, policemen can generally detain people only if there are specific and objective facts that suggest criminal activity is afoot.

But unlawful presence in the United States is a crime of status. Short of seeing someone sneak over the border, what specific, objective facts would suggest to an officer that a person is in the country unlawfully?

The law seems to require that officers demand documentation from suspected aliens based on mere hunches -- a clear violation of the Constitution."

Well, the SC has since interpreted the 4th ammendment to allow police to do things like road blocks, so it can be reasonably assumed it can be carried forward to foot traffice blocks.

The question is what is "evidence". If a police officer says "How are you today?" and you don't answer him, is it a evidince that you don't speak the language and therefor may be there illegally? I would think so. I would hope that the police officer does, then, give you some ability to produce the documentation - a drive to your house etc, before hauling you off to jail.

The SC ruled that roadblocks were OK when the magnitude of the problem they were trying to solve was high and the intrusion in personal privacy was low, and when conducted without racial, etc. profiling. So yes, for example, you can set up a roadblock and stop every driver quickly to check that they have their license (required by law to drive anyway) and see if they are sober. SC says not a big deal.

So they could set up an immigration roadblock, if they checked EVERYONE who came through. But I am not required to carry my driver’s license or social security card with me every time I go for a stroll. So that means if me - 28-year old midwest white guy - walked up to this roadblock, they would HAVE to stop me, and then detain me until I could prove citizenship. This would be legal. But do you actually see this happening? No, of course not. Too many people would be pissed at the inconvenience.

Arizona is asserting that the presence of illegal immigrants is a dangerous threat to the state. This itself could be challenged in court. Second, Arizona is asserting that it can carry out this law without racial, etc. profiling and with minimal intrusion of privacy. But it has provided no stipulations for the evidence its police officers would use to decide who to ask. Either they have to stop EVERYONE, or they have to have evidence that you committed a crime. Not wanting to talk back to an officer or not speaking English or looking Hispanic, etc. are not evidence of criminal activity. Even if some characteristics - like not speaking English well - are highly correlated with illegal immigrants, they won't stand up in court as strong enough evidence. Again, you either need to do everyone or select based on evidence of criminal activity.

I see the controversial parts of this law being struck down fairly easily after a court challenge.

Reasonable suspicion is what a reasonable person would think is an illegal alien. All the cop has to do in his report is clarify why he thought this person was illegal and question him?

Like dirty clothing, wearing three pairs of jeans, appears lost, doesn't speak english, hanging around a known smuggling route or location. No one single thing can be used as reasonable suspicion, its a whole host of things.

I see this law as a spin off of "Terry Stops" as officers must identify himself or herself as a police officer and may make reasonable inquiries.

It could be as simple as high I am Officer Sanchez how are you doing this morning? The suspected illegal doesn't understand what is being said, so Officer Sanchez switches to Spanish and asks the same question. Then will ask what appears to be off the cuff question about what are you up to today? Where you headed? Any reasonable person could answer this question easily but an illegal trying to hide from law enforcement really doesn't have a clue where he is at, or where he is going. The individual may even say he lives on the next street over and the officer will say ohhh Myrtle Street (the officer knows this street doesn't exist)and if the suspect corrects the officer then reasonable suspicion will go down.

And maybe if the person doesn't have clue where he is, the officer can offer to look at his ID to see if he can point him in the right direction. No ID, suspicion goes up.

But if Joe Blow is clueless to the world, now your approaching probable cause for an arrest as the individual is not aware of the surroundings he is currently at.

But at any point the individual can say he isn't answering anymore questions and can walk away. An ethical police officer must let the matter go, the game is over. You can not arrest now.

Thats one scenerio of how an officer can build from reasonable suspicion to probable cause for an arrest over what appeared to be an officer who was just bored and doing small talk.

Just to answer TRN's question specifically, here is what the law provides:

_ Makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally by specifically requiring immigrants to have proof of their immigration status. Violations are a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. Repeat offenses would be a felony.

this part is already covered by federal law pretty much -- maybe the fines and punishment are steeper in AZ now. But federal law does mandate that immigrants have documentation on their person

_ Requires police officers to "make a reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of a person if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that he or she is an illegal immigrant. Race, color or national origin may not be the only things considered in implementation. Exceptions can be made if the attempt would hinder an investigation.

This part is open for interpretation by law enforcement agencies. Some law enforcement agencies in AZ will surely abuse this

_ Allow lawsuits against local or state government agencies that have policies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws. Would impose daily civil fines of $1,000-$5,000. There is pending follow-up legislation to halve the minimum to $500.

This is the really crazy clause. Now, hard right wing groups have a legal mechanism to really go on the attack.

_ Targets hiring of illegal immigrants as day laborers by prohibiting people from stopping a vehicle on a road to offer employment and by prohibiting a person from getting into a stopped vehicle on a street to be hired for work if it impedes traffic.

No more Home Depot labor help!

AZ PHIL: I know that AZ is always on the cutting edge of racial politics in the country. I spent some time in Kingman years back doing research on the militia and white power movements. Now there's a hotbed of nuttiness. Yikes! I know it's mentioned in the song Route 66 and believe me, Kingman is definitely a place you can get your kicks on Route 66 (mostly to the groin and head if you don't hold your tongue when the wacko talk starts - although it rarely stops)

Start a conversation about the weather in a dive bar in Kingman and within two minutes you'll be hearing about how the government is coming to confiscate your guns and give your money away to non-white people. The financing for the project I was going to write fell through and it's probably best. It was quickly becoming depressing being with these people.

I also that another reason for this is that with AZ facing a massive deficit, it always behooves the politicians to direct the public's attention in another direction. It is fun seeing McCain trying to justify his "support" for the bill which is about 180 degrees from where he was on this a couple of years ago. Of course, he wasn't being challenged by the fringe then.

i'm continuously amazed by how people can find something to worry about that either doesn't exist or isn't a major issue. NO ONE is going to take away someone's damn guns. It's political suicide everywhere but the biggest cities. It sure as hell isn't something rolled out on the federal or state level by anyone who would like to keep a job. The votes just aren't there and probably never will be. Most gun owners aren't out there being irresponsible and most of the people in the nation know it.

also, ARZ's state taxes are too low for a state who's mining industry has dried up so much.

they're closing state parks out there...amongst other quality-of-life things.

They can't even keep their highway rest stops open. Should be interesting to watch in the years ahead. No one wants to pay taxes but no one wants to give up any of their perks, either.

As for the gun thing, yeah, I agree, no one's coming for their guns but they live in a constant paranoid state over people coming to take their guns. It's like a large-scale mental illness.

Navigator was awaiting the next Milton Bradley fix from us? I'd still rather post on how KW is doing.

Paul Sullivan just won't let it go either...

PWSullivan: After conveniently missing series in Chicago, Milton continues his talking tour of the Unites States. http://bit.ly/biVzpI

""If I had been able to be healthier ... If I had cheated and then come back and apologized and say, 'I cheated, I'm sorry, forgive me but my numbers have always been good.' Then maybe all that would be washed away," Bradley said."

oh snaaaaaaap. hahah.

Too bad they couldn't have traded Milton to the Diamondbacks. Heck, if I was the law there I'd ask him for papers just for fun.

Zaun can't return the baseball to the pitcher, apparently.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_s...

...and thank god there's video.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=...

Beautiful... lol.

Yeah, maybe it's me, but Zaun looks half asleep in the video.

nothing worse than a case of the yips, at least he got over it

Chuck Knoblauch still can't play a game of catch with his kids without breaking a few windows in the backyard

Mackey Sasser(love that name) had that problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackey_Sasser

Dale Murphy is probably the most famous guy. Steve Sax had it for a while as well.

Hmm, 3 in a row, maybe Uecker was on to something. Maybe he just was daring him to try to steal 3rd.

good for your offensive numbers...

Cubs move up to 5th in BB's in NL, 7th in Runs, 6th in BA, 6th in SLG and 5th in OBP

6 regulars batting .295 or higher, 2 batting below .250 that happen to bat 3rd and 4th(or 5th) right now (Lee and Ramirez)

Lee does have a .360 OBP though

Not as good as Pirates pitching is for the Brewers' numbers.

flaming piece of shit human being alert...screw you MLB establishment...screw you sportswriters not taking MLB or the clubs to task...

---

“You don't really know what you miss, what you love, until you're away from it for a long time,'' McGwire said. “And it's nine years away. I'm happy to be back.

“The biggest thing is how much I really love the game. When you're a player, you don't really know what's going on around you. You're always just taking care of yourself. I was like a horse with blinders on all the time.

“When you get a chance to come back and see things, see everything around you here, you realize, wow, this game is a great game. I'm glad I got a chance to come back to it.''

When you get a chance to come back and see things...
---
does this mean the world does look different when your testicles are shrunken compared to when they go back to normal size?

Aaron Miles signs with St. Louis.

https://twitter.com/JohnSheaHey/status/129627...

Are they trying to hand us the division?

The Cubs are now paying the Cardinals for that privilege, or sabotage, depending on how it goes.

He'll probably end up with about a .450 OBP for the rat bastards.

Was he ever NOT playing for the Cardinals?

+1

back to the usual Lineup: Theriot, Fuku, DLee, Byrd, ARam, Soriano, Fontenot, Soto, Gorz

Going to freeze my ass off tonight at the game.

First steak sandwich of the year at Bernies though!!!

I am not expecting a W tonight with the conditions and Hernandez.

But tomorrow should be better.

with the conditions and Hernandez...
---
bunt, do not punt.

He can't bend over and touch his toes anymore.

Why are we still batting Fontenot in front of Soto? Take advantage of the big man while he's hitting. Fontenot's left-handedness is not more valuable than .350 difference in OPS.

You don't interpet the law correctly.

The law specifically says that police can not ask for proof of status unless both of the following are true:

1. The person has come into contact with the police for other than immigration questions, and

2. The officer has specific reasons to suspect the individuals BEYOND the race/ethnicity, language of the individual.

Ramirez should be all right, especially if he has a valid drivers license.

The problem with a law like this is the broad powers it gives each cop. Like any profession, some police are good, others terrible. I knew some African guys in France who were all there legally. France has a similar law and these guys, who were totally legal, were harassed constantly. One guy's wife was pregnant and was having a baby. He went out to fill a prescription and forgot his ID. Cop stopped him for a burnt out tail light, he was arrested for not having papers and was sent back to Senegal the next morning. His baby was born three weeks later and he didn't see it for nearly a year.

Another was in the U.S. on a student visa, and, upon returning to France, forgot one of the essential pieces of ID in his checked bag. A French immigration cop grabbed him at the airport in Paris and, even though the guy could see his bag on the carrousel twenty feet away, and asked if he could be led in handcuffs over to the bag to retrieve his ID, he was held until officials came to complete his deportation. Only at the last second, when one half-way intelligent agent allowed a cleaning woman to walk over and bring them the guy's bag, was he able to produce his ID and stay in the country.

Laws like these are an incredibly slippery slope.

X
  • Sign in with Twitter