CanOfCorn

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jun 23, 2010 -> 03:43 PM) I would disagree with "slightly above" because he is an above average catcher. But otherwise I see your reason for concern. My problem is the thinking that Flowers is going to come up and not be a black hole. Catcher IMO is the most important position on the field other than pitcher and there's a lot that goes into it. Catchers as a rule aren't terrific offensive players for that reason, so to find a guy who can hit plus block some balls plus call a game plus handle a veteran staff in general while helping young pitchers grow - well, a lot of teams don't have that. We didn't have that for a long time. And I don't see how Flowers is going to give us that. And for that reason, I don't want to see us get rid of AJ until it is apparent that we have to, and I don't see us being at that point. AJ is raking this month. My guess would be Flowers would come up, struggle mightily at the plate, and then probably take those plate struggles back behind the plate with him. Or vice versa. I would much rather acquire a veteran who is younger if we have to go that route than go with a prospect of Flowers' ilk. He's a very nice prospect in all honesty, but I'm not convinced. Much better post than calling him a 'roid monster...or whatever it was you called him.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jun 22, 2010 -> 04:59 PM) Here's the latest on the Hawks, via numerous sources: Seven players are absolutely untouchable: Toews, Kane, Hossa, Bolland, Keith, Searbrook, and Sharp. Bowman has alerted teams that the price for Byfuglien is a 1st round pick and a prospect. Vertseeg is apparently the guy that most teams want (yes please). Ladd is openly being shopped with, ironically, Vancouver being very interested. If the hawks move, let's say, Big Buf and Versteeg...would they be more likely to be able to keep Ladd? Or do they basically all have to go?

A well-made mojito is the absolute best summer drink. A caipirihna is a close second.

It was a deplorable call...but you know what...don't go down 2-0 in the first half.

People will always need plumbers...but I will never shake your hand.

Pac-12 is official with the addition of Utah.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jun 11, 2010 -> 04:06 PM) Looks like the Big 12 is dead. NewsOK saying Oklahoma to the Pac 10. By themselves?

QUOTE (SexiAlexei @ Jun 11, 2010 -> 01:13 PM) Can you expand on this? How is it not about any of those things? No. I'm too happy to get into it on a message board today.

This is why I love hockey. It isn't about money or fame or endorsements it's about a 38 pound oversized cup with your name engraved on it.

Keep your day job Steeger!

Love the heavyweight belt!

Why are strength and conditioning coaches all short?

Martin LaPointe is a scout? Is it the same Martin LaPointe?

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ Jun 11, 2010 -> 11:39 AM) The time zone difference would be negligible in most cases. The reason Texas, A&M, Tech, Okie State, and OU are sticking together is not only for the rivalries but also for the traveling distance. Texas would play OU, Okie State, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Colorado, Arizona, and Arizona State every year. I'm just not sure whether each "East" team would play one, or three "West" teams each season. Playing 7 against your division, and 3 against the other division would leave only two OOC games. The East teams would only have to play in the PST timezone once or twice a year because of home and away switching each season. The East would play in Mountain time zone once a year in Arizona and once in Pacific time zone. Not bad at all. True...in football. But other big sports (at least in Texas) baseball and basketball, it is a big deal. Rivalries don't mean as much anymore except Texas and A&M. Remember, Texas-Arkansas and Nebraska-OU were bigger rivalries than Texas-OU when there was still a Southwest Conference and Big 8. Finally...as for travel...I think more people will want to watch Texas-Penn State (longest travel distance for both teams) vs. Texas-Washington. Complete speculation on my part.... Not to mention more population on the East Coast than the West Coast taht would be interested in UT-PSU.

Here's a big factor AGAINST the Pac-10 for any current Big 12 team. Pacific Time Zone. It may be the same distance to Seattle as it is to Happy Valley, but Texas doesn't want to be playing 10 pm EST start times. That would be a killer for a school with a huge fan base and huge alumni association. And to add my two cents about academics...even the guy who was last in his class in medical school is still a doctor. The AAU is a strong positive factor for induction into the Big Ten. There are 63 institutions on it ranging from Canadian colleges to Ivy league. That cuts out about 15 schools. Add in the schools that are lodged firmly in other conferences (Duke, USC, UNC) and small schools (Johns Hopkins, U of C, Wash U.) and your list dwindles. Nebraska doesn't bring much more to the table academically than is already in the Big Ten. What it does bring is football tradition, knowledgable fans that travel and fun, exciting new matchups. Finally, and I know I'm kinda looping back on myself but, for all this talk of travel...the teams that are talked about the most for travel have the biggest coffers. Texas and Notre Dame. Would it suck for the non-revenue sports? Probably, but at the same time, the football teams are going to make that back. And speaking of non-revenue...Texas and Notre Dame would add or create credibility in sports like baseball, softball, swimming, lacrosse and volleyball.

PS...Andrew Ladd played the final 3 games of the Finals with a fractured shoulder and torn ligaments. Wow.

Big Ten...if it goes to 16, will add Nebraska, Missouri, Notre Dame, Rutgers and one of Maryland/Ga Tech/Syracuse/Connecticut. IMHO.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 10, 2010 -> 09:53 AM) In fact, I was thinking... look at the 5 remainder schools: KU, K-State, Iowa State, Missouri, Baylor. The Kansas schools and Missouri are pretty serious basketball programs, Iowa State was too until recent years, and Baylor suddenly is making some noise. If you can pull in say one or two of the stronger WAC and Conf USA Schools, you could have a pretty damn good basketball conference. Or...the Big 12 grabs Utah, TCU and maybe BYU and you still have a Big 12 with continued good football and decent basketball. (That's if Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri all leave)

Excellent posts Krush and Critic. Let me add my history... I was lucky enough to be invited into the locker room of the 79-80 Black Hawks where I got to meet an aging Tony Esposito and Stan Mikita. Also, I was lucky enough to meet a young Doug Wilson and Keith Magnuson. I watched games with my grampa on Channel 44. I had been to games in the old Stadium so loud, I couldn't decipher the different screams, it was all one big blur. I was lucky enough to watch this team in the early 80's, with Denis Savard, Darryl Sutter, Steve Larmer and Al Secord beating the crap out of Dino Ciccarelli. I was lucky enough to be at the final games, regular and post-season, of the old Stadium, watching guys like Steve Smith, Chris Chelios, Jeremy Roenick and Tony Amonte. I died a little bit with the Alpo Suhonen-Craig Hartsburg teams. And I have watched this team transform from a bunch of young guys and cast-offs to Stanley Cup Champions! If the White Sox winning the World Series in 2005 was my number one sports moment...then this is 1A!

I have now seen all of my favorite professional teams at the top of their games. Bears, Bulls, Sox and now 'hawks! I may now go quietly.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 9, 2010 -> 11:18 AM) Its not about "markets" its about a very specific contract clause between the big 10 network and tv networks. The Big 10 network gets a certain amount per subscriber in states not in the "footprint" they get exponentially more for subscriber states in the "footprint". The footprint is based on teams being located in that state. This is why Pittsburgh is unnecessary because Penn St. covers Penn., its why MU is some what desirable because STL is located in that state and it has a decent population base, its why Rutgers is desirable because its in NJ, its why they want Syracuse, because youd get the entire state of NY. Texas is not coming to the Big 10, there was a chance months ago, but its not going to happen now. The Big 10 doesnt want Texas + and Texas will not move without bringing another Texas team. The alleged Pac-10 offer giving Texas a chance to bring multiple Texas schools, Oklahoma, etc is something the Big 10 wont match. Notre Dame is an outside possibility, it just depends on how they think its all going to turn out. If this marks the beginning of super conferences, ND will not want to be left out. There would be new BCS negotiations, and most likely the 4 super conferences would be the only ones with a shot at BCS/national title games. When you have 4 sets of championship games (Pac-16, Big-16, SEC-16 and mystery-16) it will make it very easy to have those 4 be the teams that play for the championship. Youd then have the rest of the conference go to bowl games against other super conferences to retain the bowl tradition. If that happens, ND does not want to be independent, because no way will those schools let them in the party. Before they were good enough where there was a question of legitimacy if they didnt have a shot, now I dont think thats the case. Some addendums...Missouri will bring St. Louis AND Kansas City. Which is big. Texas will have to bring A&M AND Tech...probably OU, which will HAVE to bring OSU and possibly Baylor. So, yes, UT is out.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Jun 9, 2010 -> 11:16 AM) s*** My Shat Says POTY!

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 9, 2010 -> 01:36 AM) Do you guys really think we stand a chance in Game Six? I just can't see Philly quitting all of a sudden. We never beat them at Wakovia. I'm hoping but truly do any of you think we stand a reasonable chance? I think it's similar to Game Five only Philly's way and we gots to go to a Game 7. How can you think otherwise? Philly isn't all of a sudden going to tank. Philly has been a resilient lot the entire playoffs why stop in Game Six now? We're going to have to buckle down and win Game 7 in Chicago me thinks. You?? Yes, the Flyers are very resilient. Yes, the Hawks haven't won in Philly since 1996. Yes, Leighton (if he starts) is 6-0 at home and the Flyers are 9-1 at Wachovia. How about this...How many times do you think the Flyers can come back? It's tiring to always be facing eliminations. A good portion of those Hawk teams between '96 and now were absolutely HORRIBLE. The Hawks confused the Flyers in Game 5 with the line changes and Pronger can't be everywhere. I'm not saying this is going to be another 7 goal game...but I could see the Hawks toughing out a 3-2 game. The first 4 games the Flyers were in the heads of the Blackhawks. Now, after game 5...it's the opposite. I certainly don't know who's going to win...I hope it's the Hawks. But I wouldn't be surprised either way.

The 'hawks are up in this series because of two reasons...skill and luck. They've been outplayed in a majority of the periods, but overall, the 'hawks are deeper and more skilled from top to bottom than the Flyers. If the top two lines can get going...this series is over.

Congrats! Now repeat after me: "Yes dear." "You are most definitely right." "You don't look fat, you look sexy." "I love it when your parents come to town. And of course they can stay with us!"