Buehrle>Wood

QUOTE(bmags @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 12:53 AM) How much stronger could frank have gotten anyways? Probably so big he couldn't get the bat around. He'd look like this guy:

ASU- 61 Xavier- 46 6 min left Purdue- 59 UL-53 3 left

Gillispie'd

Robert Vaden=man-god

If we can get that down to 5 years I would do that in a heartbeat. Then again so would everyone else. Nice planning by his agent I think here. Someone will bite.

Elrock = Adam Morrison confirmed?

Decision: Admit - College Reviewed That means I got in, right? God their effin webpage is so hard to work WOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHOOO though if I got in.

Are the word-linked ads on the front page new?

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 11:01 PM) Good luck. I'll need it.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 10:57 PM) What is it, online? Phone call? Online.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 09:36 PM) I am s*** my f***ing pants. 1 hourrrrrrrr

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 05:25 AM) I've used online coupons plenty. What is an offline coupon? Should read as two separe words. Anyways, UofI at 5 tomorrow...ARGH...wait killing me.

Are coupons printed offline valid for stores?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 04:26 AM) How exactly can they stand by that being the mitchell report list when we have the mitchell report list and it's different? They think it's a list where the player's names came up numerous times in the investigation, but did not get included in for one reason or another.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 03:08 AM) No. Albert Pujols is not in the Mitchell report. He was in a phony list that went around this morning before the real one was actually released, along with several other players. 39 of the names in the list that was released this morning were incorrect, and Pujols was one of them. Pujols is not implicated by this report. Maybe not phony. NBC is standing by that list.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 14, 2007 -> 01:12 AM) Thanks for saying this... Mostly it means we didn't have a rat in the clubhouse. Don't kid yourself into thinking this means that none of our players juiced, because it simply isn't true. No one is saying that. What we are saying is that none of those players are the three mentioned.

Why is John Kruk so upset that he named names? Sheesh.

Jermaine Dye too. Yeah I know someone will come in here trying to educate us on how this is not definitive, but little to no chance any of these three are.

Today should put an end to the discusion on whether he was a first ballot Hall of Famer or not.

What did he say about HGH? Something about testing?

Bud use this public pressure to come out and say "I propose to enfore the following rules: (strickter testing, etc). I will enforce this unless the MLBPA disagrees, in which they must come out with a reason why"

Hatton should stay up. There just isn't much at 140. 147 is, obviously, loaded. In fact, maybe not for his next fight, but a Hatton/De La Hoya fight is probably all but done. PBF, well, there just isn't much for him. Some say Cotto, but I just see another easy W. And then what? Paul Williams? He's got a ridiculous reach, maybe he would be the one to give PBF some trouble.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 12:50 AM) It will all be worth it if Roger Clemens makes the list. Curt Schilling too. Not because there's any chance of it, but because I hate him as much as I hate Clemens. As for the Sox, I think we'll have the least of pretty much anyone, but still someone. The Rangers, Orioles, and Mets are going to have some 'splainin to do though. It will be interesting if Damon and Clemens show up. Sue SI for slander?

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Dec 12, 2007 -> 10:14 PM) If anyone's on the Mitchell Report that's not named Bonds, he has the initials M.T. I can't imagine the Astros doing the deal if that were the case.

What is our payroll in comparison to these small market teams? Curious.