The first 600 characters of the last 16 comments, click "View" to see rest of comment.
g.torres (BOI) goes 4-5 (3 singles, triple)
t.ihrig had another good, yet unspectacular start for kane county (6ip 5h 2bb 3k, 1r/er). it'll be interesting to see him in AA next year (though he'll probably start in A+ and have to earn his way to AA).
yet pete ricketts has spent about 15+ million running for office (and counting) on a few occasions...the elder ricketts spent 10 million+ (that's known of) in anti-obama attack ads as well as his millions-of-dollars superPAC...and this is just an isolated political example from the ownership group.
everyone has "hobbies"...some people invest in one hobby over another. some people can afford to have multiple hobbies, pump whatever they want into it, and it still doesn't effect their quality of life or impose a risk upon their wealth.
I'm impressed with how Theo put this thing together. In hindsight, it's a simple formula- for the past two years, he would pick up cheap free agent guys who he knew would be useful to a team in a pennant race, not because they were particularly useful to the Cubs (I'm talking Bonifacio, for instance) and then, mid-year trade them for a prospect or two.
the fact the front office is talking about squirreling away money last season that will help out this season when the owners are billionaires, the team is in the 3rd largest US market, and the team has coast-to-coast national appeal is a bit "are you fucking kidding me?"
I think his point is 1. annoyance with the Ricketts' connections to some unfortunate politics- mm, okay, maybe that plays in Omaha, but in Chicago, where the people live, it's looked at as backwards and I share crunch's chagrin with the politics of the Ricketts and it's too bad the Cubs have this connection.
I'm not sure I'm getting your point unless you believe that because the Ricketts family are upper '1%rs' that their money should supplement the Cubs payroll budget. The Wrigley family never did that; the Tribune never did that (until the Cubs were up for sale); and if I wanted to take the time to research the other 29 MLB teams, I could probably come up with 5-10 more examples.
Actually, if anything, I'd say that if Baez was higher up the food chain he'd have given Castro a few words about watching that hit. If he is a successful player, I think he'll be the kind that will give players shit for that kind of move. He can't now, obviously. I base that a lot on some of what AZ Phil said about Baez when he saw him play, and also his demeanor on the field.
Daytona won last night and appear to have fought off a strong challenge from the Tampa Yankees, who had won six in a row before blowing a 9th-inning lead last night and falling 9-7 in 11. The Cubs now lead Tampa by three games with three to play in their bid for the playoffs.
The Yankees actually have four games left. I guess that's life in the rainy FSL.
In any event, the Tampa website says they have to win all four games to advance to the playoffs. Three are in Daytona.
Not trying to be unfair to Baez, in real time I thought that Hamilton made it look like he had a chance to catch it which in turn made Baez stay close to second base in case of tag up. Watching the replay just now my interpretation looks iffy. When I watched it live it looked like when Hamilton faced the infield it have the impression he had a chance when he ultimately did not.
I also think Hamilton faked out Baez pretty good. Those two characters . . .
Wait a minute. Baez had to tag from second if the ball was caught. Did Castro have to stay close to home for some reason? And Castro was the tying run.
You'll have to cite an instance of Baez not having his head in the game before you sic Bobby Valentine on him. Swinging at bad pitches doesn't count. There's a lot of guesswork in hitting, but not so much in knowing whether to hustle.