ZoomSlowik

Can we lay off the "oh s***, we can't hit good pitchers" stuff? We've put up runs against guys this season and won some pitching duels, and it's not like the postseason is full of nothing but Mark Priors. Baltimore has no real starters that are a threat; Boston's pitching in general has been a disappointment (Clement the only one doing well. Wells, Arroyo, Wakefield, and Arroyo suck along with their pen. Even assuming Schilling gets back to 100%, we're going to get at least one scrub, and we've seen Clement implode in the past.); the Yankees are struggling mightily with their starters and only Randy is shutdown type guy if he gets his s*** together; Anaheim is fairly effective, but none of their guys are shutdown pitchers and all are hittable (we all know Colon, and Washburn and Lackey have WHIP's over 1.40. Escobar has good stuff but isn't healthy); Texas' best pitcher is Kenny Rogers, I rest my case. Every once in a while good pitchers are going to shut you down. Our guys have done it more than anyone. Buehrle, Garcia, and Garland have done it many times and are pitching well, and we've seen that Contreras can dominate when he's on. We'll live.

I used to play for play money all the time on poker room. I was just sitting there in my dorm room with nothing better to do on the average weeknight. I built up a solid bankroll and just got sick of it. I was in no threat of busting out, and I didn't really care if I won. I thought about playing for real money, but I have to many friends that keep telling me about their ridiculous beats. Online poker just isn't my thing. There are too many weak players that will play and do anything on a given hand. You just can't get a feel for their playing style most of the time. I just keep dominating weak players or catching bad beats, there's very few in between hands. I have much more fun playing with friends or guys I know, not just because of better poker, but also because I can actually talk with people and have some fun.

Amare an above average defender? I'm surprised by that one. The guy doesn't know where he needs to be most of the time and compensates with his incredible athleticism. Take a look at what the other team's top post players did against him in the playoffs. Gasol hit 28 twice, Dirk had 34 once and 28 twice, and Duncan had 28, 30, 33, and 31 in their wins. All of those guys put up good numbers and shot high percentages, and that didn't just happen in the playoffs. Amare has the athletic ability to be a stud and putting another real post defender in there istead of Marion will help, but he's nowhere near being a top post defender right now. Honestly, for a guy with his size and athleticism, his shot blocking ability is a disappointment.

I definitely don't see Iowa going undefeated, and I don't think they'll win the Big Ten either. The games against Michigan and at OSU and Purdue are all very tough games. I personally think that Michigan is the best of the group. Their offense is in great shape, and their D still has a decent number of playmakers. Iowa has some good players, but they need to replace their entire D-line and really need to find a RB. Purdue also may be a sleeper. They return all of a pretty good defense and most of their offense, plus they don't play Michigan or Ohio State.

Theoretically he should be back shortly after the break. The move definitely works. Giving up a bench player for a guy that can make a major impact in the second half is a great move. Even if he isn't 100%, Schilling is still better than a lot of guys.

Isiah continues to amaze me with his total lack of competent moves. They're going to need to put another ball on the floor with Marbury, Crawford, and Q. I can't believed he traded his one credible post player instead of someone from his plethora of 2 guards (Marbury might as well be one with his style). They might have been passable if he kept Thomas, drafted someone like Frye, and traded someone from the Marbury/Crawford/Houston trio for another credible post player. The payroll is through the roof and they have no chance to compete. Why does he still have a job? I still don't know what to think about Phoenix. they definitely needed another big man; they just couldn't stop anybody with Amare at the center spot and Marion at PF. I think they might be okay if they can find some bench players (with a focus on D and rebounding. Nash, Amare, Johnson, and Marion give you plenty on offense). Marion is already a solid defender, Johnson is okay, and Amare, while currently pretty bad, has enough athletic ability to dominate. I think Thomas will help in both areas. They already were a better team than virtually everyone in the league, they just need to find a way to stop Duncan, the two Wallaces, and Shaq to have a real chance to win it all. I don't think this deal solves it, but they'll be better than they were in that area.

It's really hard to judge. It's all going to depend on the owner that has Barry. I'd personally say that you need to give up someone that has some talent that is either struggling or hurt, like Berkman, Wood, or Schmidt. However, the owner might just be looking to dump him, or he could be thinking he'll be back soon and demand a top player. The only persepective I can give you is in my money league in about week 2, Bonds was traded for Prior. I protested the deal using the logic that Prior would be back the next week and no one knew when Bonds would be back. However, it was upheld by the experts, my guess is because Prior could suffer a setback or Bonds could be back sooner than expected. I still think it sucked, but life goes on.

First off, I'd like to say that I highly doubt that the new draft rule affects more than about 5 guys in a given year, whereas the NFL rule affects tons. The NBA rule doesn't really go far enough, they really need to set it at 20 if the want to make a difference. That being said, the NFL would be the same as the NBA draft had they not started with an age limit. As I said, teams are always going to take the player that they think will help the team the most. If their choice is between a guy that's going to a mediocre starter at best and a guy that probably is only going to help on special teams for a year or two but looks like he might be a star, they'll take the latter. The difference is that the age limit has been around so long that they are used to it and all of the top players from the current Junior, Sophmore, Freshmen, and High School senior classes are still there. If there was no age limit, many of these players probably would have declared, sapping the talent and forcing them to go younger. Guys like Reggie Bush or Adrian Peterson would be gone by now instead of being draft eligible after this season, meaning you'd have to probably look at a high schooler or a little used college freshmen to find someone that has the kind of tools you look for in a top level player. It would actually probably be easier for NFL teams to handle this because their roster is deeper, but on the other hand the physical pounding is much worse.

Some things just work a lot better when there is an age limit. I would say that the NFL has no complaints with their rule that no one can enter the NFL until 3 years after their graduation. I know this isn't a great comparison, but you can't drive before you're 16, you can't serve in the army before you're 18, you can't drink before you're 21 (at least legally ). If the NBA feels that they need to put in an age limit in order to keep the quality of the game up, then that's there perrogative. It's their right to do that since it is their organization. Playing in the NBA is a great privelege, not a god given right. If they feel that in general most 18 in 19 year olds aren't ready, then why shouldn't they make a rule saying you must be a certain age to enter? There have been about 5 guys in the history of the NBA that have any kind of impact that are under 20. I'm sure there are people that are physically able to drive well or that can handle their liquor (actually I know that one from experience) that are under age, but in general it does more harm than good to allow such things. Every year there are at least 5 (probably more like ten, but I know this one for sure) guys with real pro potential that just need some more seasoning before they can stick in the league, but they go ahead and declare for the draft anyways because the money blinds them or they get some bad advice. Then they are stuck in basketball purgatory, playing on NBDL teams trying desperately for some NBA team to give them a shot. Then they are simply done with basketball in about 5 years, having missed out on the big money because they were to eagar. Then they are stuck in a real job unless they feel like having a bunch of student loan payments to make to get that education that they could have had for free. An age limit would do a lot more to help guys like Marcus Taylor or Omar Cooke than it would to hurt the rare Lebron or Amare.

There are very few high schoolers that were very good players in their first year. Lebron obviously was a freak, and Garnett, Stoudamire, and Howard were pretty good. Everyone else was a role player at best. If you take out Kobe, who was pretty good his second year, everyone else took 3 years to really make a difference. This is pretty much true for the younger European players too, who are another major group that is affected that many here aren't mentioning. Most of these guys are even less prepared than our high schoolers because they either play against weak competition or get no playing time for their club. These guys would still be there in two years, you just wouldn't have to put up with those years riding the bench as much as guys like Milicic or Ebi. Because of that, not only would those players come in more ready to contribute, but the roster spot that the youngster was eating up can be used on a veteran player that can actually add something to the team. In the end, an age limit doesn't really hurt a whole lot, and if a 20 year limit were used, it should improve the level of play in the league, and prevent a lot of young guys that aren't ready for the league from throwing away their careers when/if they don't get drafted (or get cut when they go in the second round). College players (at least upperclassmen) aren't getting drafted as much because by the time their junior or senior year rolls around, at least the top 10 players are gone, often more. Because of that, the guys who had less talent to start with are the only guys left. If a real age limit were put in place, the young talented guys would be there for at least two years. Teams would still be drafting on potential. of course. Why would a team take a guy who's not going to do anything for their team over a guy who might be a major player down the road? Loading up on talentless slugs won't win you anything. But the "potential" guys would be a lot closer to being able to do something. Also, there's a big difference between getting practice time and being involved in game situations. There are a large number of things you can only gain from real playing time. There are plenty of guys that look good in workouts and can run some drills well, but can't translate any of the skills they've learned into a game setting. The intensity level is usually much higher, and there is a diversity of different types of players you can compete against. Also, many pro coaches spend their time on strategy, not skill development. Frankly, that is something that NBA coaches shouldn't have to worry about. Their time would be much better served trying to teach and implement their offensive plan than teaching a bench warmer how to perform some post moves. That's the kind of thing college guys usually do more effectively. I find it hard to believe that Darko Milicic or Ndudi Ebi is developing as much as they would have had they gone to college.

While it's a nice idea, teams aren't just going to flat out avoid high school players simply because they're high school players. The way the draft has gone the last few years, if you want a potential superstar, you have to take a high schooler. Most of the guys that would have been top college players that can start dominating immediately have already been taken in previous years. If the best talent that's available is a high school player, then that's who they'll take, and that will usually be the case since the high schoolers going pro are the top handful of players in their class. The only way to have more prepared players is to not let the real youngsters enter. Teams aren't really controlling their own destiny, since you can only take the guys who are there. After the few solid college players are gone, you're virtually going to have to take a high schooler or a young foreigner to have a real shot to help your team. The rule doesn't really hurt the players that much. First off, as some have said, by the time the draft rolls around many of them will be 19 already. Second, that one year that they are waiting doesn't really hurt them financially. The vast majority of the players are still going to get the same amount of money a year later, and have the potential to make more by improving their draft stock. Also, the potential for a serious injury is not as high as in other sports. A guy tearing an ACL isn't out quite as long as in football (in fact, they're back on the court in decent shape by the start of the next year), and there is nothing like a Tommy John surgery where you are out two years. Even assuming something like a broken leg happens, you just stay in college one more year. That's not exactly the end of the world. Also, if you're a real draft prospect, you can get insurance that would protect you in the event of a career ending injury. So even in the unlikely event of a career ending injury, you'd be able to collect a large sum of money (I believe many of the top college players have multi-million dollar policies). A 19 year old age limit just really doesn't change things all that much. Even if you kick it to a 20 year limit, the only guys it affects are those that can't get the grades, and they can still go to Europe or sit out a year and practice with the team while prepping for a good pre-draft season.

I still fail to see why Houston would trade a 27 year old who won 20 games last year and is pitching very well right now while he still has a year left on his deal. Trading Oswalt would be about the dumbest thing that the Astros could do. They don't need money, and trading their ace is one way to quickly slow down a rebuilding plan. Going into a complete rebuilding mode wouldn't make much sense anyways because they would still have Pettitte, Berkman, and Bagwell eating up a ton of salary, and there isn't that much they could do about that. Those guys greatly limit their financial flexibility in a rebuilding mode, which wouldn't make much sense. The only reason Clemens is even being considered as trade bait is because he's an old man with a massive contract and special privledges. The ONLY reason he would be dealt is if he demands it. Even if they suck the rest of the year, their attendance has a monster spike whenever he pitches. Even assuming Clemens does get dealt, odds are he wouldn't come to Chicago, much like the Randy Johnson situation. Getting either of these guys is a pipe-dream, so I don't see the point in speculating about it.

Cool. Hope that draft works out better for me. I signed up for one and due to a bad connection or something I didn't get there until the 5th round. I can't complain getting McGahee and Lewis in the first two, but no way I would have taken Gates in the 3rd, and I don't think I'd have taken a QB (even if it was Favre) in the 4th.

I just joined the league (Mean Machine, courtesy of The Longest Yard), and it appears that I took the last spot. Let me know if someone that responded earlier needs it, I'll drop out. Also, I'll run a second league if we need it.

Also, I'd rather not mess with Cotts at this point. He has been very effective in the pen as of late. Plus because he's been a reliever all year he probably wouldn't go more than 5 innings for a while until he got stretched out. That seems grossly counter productive, and I doubt too many lefties with an ERA around two will be readily available. You'd probably be adding a less effective reliever, taking one of the most reliable guys we have out of the pen, and putting more pressure on that pen in what will probably be a shorter start.

I really don't think making a move for another starting pitcher is the right answer. The guys that are likely to be available are mostly mediocre (think Kris Benson types) and will cost a lot more than they should. Very few top level pitchers get dealt at the deadline, and I doubt that this year will be any different. Even assuming the Astros start dealing guys, I don't see why they'd deal Oswalt or Lidge. Both are still pretty cheap and are effective, and I find it highly unlikely that they would get decent value for them. I also have a hard time seeing Pettitte moving because of his massive contract. As for Clemens, it seems like the only way he goes anywhere is if he demands to be traded. This team isn't exactly strapped for cash, so I doubt they'd make too many moves. They just signed large deals for Pettitte and Berkman, plus they will get a lot of relief once Clemens and Bagwell come off the books. Zito might be another story, but he's probably the best guy that will be available (Beane said he wouldn't trade him, but we can't really say that for sure). Another intriguing name is Jason Schmidt. It's conceivable that he could be moved since the Giants are pretty bad, he's struggling, and his contract is huge. But again, San Fran isn't a cash strapped mid-market team. All of the teams that are definitely out of it and would likely to make moves are relatively pitching strapped, which is the main reason they are out of it in the first place. Because of that, trying to find a dependable bullpen arm would make more sense, perhaps someone with starting experience that fill in for El Duque on occasion.

For all of you ripping on B-Mac, take a look at Sandy Koufax's stats for his first few years, or Schilling, or Sheets, or The Big Unit, or Schmidt. Then relax.

QUOTE(deezpac @ Jun 20, 2005 -> 08:49 PM) if the sox go .500 the rest of the way they will finish with 93 wins. DJ made the same mistake during tonights telecast, the sox are 46-22 with 94 games left. A .500 record from now on would give them 47 more wins, 46+47 = 93. i think the indians are a good team, i could see them finishing second in this division and making a run at the wildcard. Duh, my bad. That's where I got it from too. I kind of figured someone in the research department would have given him the right number. Thought it sounded high.

I made a statement previously before I did the math. If the Sox go .500 the rest of the way (47-47), they will have 103 wins. It's not hard to imagine the Sox doing that, but it is certainly difficult to see the Twins much less the Indians winning that many games.

I usually like somewhere in the mid-80's to the 90's. Anything lower and I start to get frustrated with poor offensive execution. Any higher than that and I get frustrated with the complete lack of defense.

I'm saying this mini-streak is the best they can do. I don't think they can put it together for more than about two weeks. I'll be very shocked if they're still more than 2 or 3 over .500 at the break because their schedule gets tougher, which is exactly what I said about the Cubs a couple of weeks ago when everyone was s***ting their pants over a couple of wins against crappy teams. As I said, I don't see them being much better than .500 because you don't know what you are going to get from anyone in their rotation other than somewhere around a 4 ERA from Sabathia, and their offense is full of mostly mediocre players who had career years last year. Plus, I don't think Westbrook is underperforming. Take a look at his career numbers; last year looks a lot more out of place than this year. All of the players in whom I have any faith in their hitting ability are hitting right about where I think they should. Plus I personally doubt that Wickman stays this effective, although I don't think that'll hurt their pen too much. I stand by my 85 wins.

Sorry guys, but thus far I have failed our beloved Sox. Something is screwy with the site for me, I can't even get to the damn page to try to flood it. I'll keep trying, but I'm computer illiterate, so who knows.

Someone PM me, I've got a lot of spare time on my hands and nothing better to do.

So us Chicago fans are biased because we said the Celtics were more talented and had an easier time winning their titles? If we were so Chicago biased, wouldn't we be saying that the Bulls were the greatest team ever and that our little sister could have coached Jordan and Pippen to 5 titles?

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jun 20, 2005 -> 04:32 PM) None of it's sewn up and I think everyone knows that. As I've said my opinion isn't bases on how far back Cleveland is because we still do play them 11 times but it's based on my opinion that the Indians are just an average baseball team. I've said all year I believe the Sox and Twins are the two best teams in the American League so the Twins are still a threat in my mind but Cleveland isn't. Well said. I feel like Cleveland isn't a threat to pass us unless we fall apart. I really don't think they are capable of getting 90 wins, which is a number we can easily reach even with a major fall off in our pace. The Twins are another story. I feel that they have the talent and are capable of putting together a solid half a season, whereas I think this is about the best the Indians are going to do. It has nothing to do with their record or how many games back they are (Boston and New York have similar records, and I have more faith in them).