ZoomSlowik

Damn you Slav, beat me.

Steve pointed this out to me on Rotoworld, Minneapolis Star-Tribune: Twins close to acquiring Young for Garza Rotoworld Headline That kinda sucks, they get a talented young bat for one of their multitude of young starters.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 03:42 PM) Mark Buehrle's no-hitter says hi. There's a bit of a difference between a guy that's always been a power-pitcher that relies on a hard curve and high fastballs that guys can't catch up to throwing 84-88 and a guy that's always been a crafty lefty that relies on placement and movement while pitching to contact throwing 84-88. The results are something like that ERA that's north of 7 he put up the last time he actually pitched.

No thanks. Even when he's been "healthy" he's been a shell of his former self. I can't even remember the last time he cracked 90 on the gun.

Considering he was throwing closer to 84 than 94 last time he was actually pitching, that seems like a major waste of money.

Oh man, so many thoughts/comments... Rum and coke is probably my drink of choice. Generally I go with Bacardi Gold or Ciclon (Bacardi product, rum spiked with a little tequila). I also drink vodka and sprite pretty often, especially at tailgates since our group always has purple vodka and maintaining the color is important, or occasionally a cosmopolitan. Beer I'm not terribly picky. I just don't like Miller Lite or any heavier/darker beers. I don't really do wine, never really been a fan, especially of reds. That might be a product of some ugly nights at Illinois that involved vodka shots followed by bottles of wine for some strange reason. Call me crazy, I might be the only person in the world that actually LIKES tequila. I know, it sounds weird but as long as you get at least "decent" stuff (ie not Sauza, the basic Cuervo, or any of the super-cheap brands) it's not quite as brutal on you later, and some of the good ones have really solid flavor. Actually, one of my favorite drinks, especially during the summer: "La Bomba" -a shot of tequila (a bit more if you're feeling brave) -about half a shot of Cointreau (yeah, I know, the s*** is fairly expensive) - two shots of pineapple juice -two shots of orange juice -a dash of grenadine if you so desire Serve over ice. It's pretty refreshing, and if you like more punch you can cut the juice in half (that's pretty strong though).

Not exactly surprising, you have a team that's been struggling quite a bit offensively and then one of your few capable scorers gets hurt. They need Deng back FAST, unless Gordon scores about 30 or they somehow find a more inept offensive team they have no chance right now.

QUOTE(danman31 @ Nov 16, 2007 -> 11:40 AM) Yeah, I was impressed with what I heard (I listened online). What's the word on this Nikola Baran guy? He redshirted last year, but is starting this year. That seems like an odd combo to me, is he supposed to be good? Thompson sounded solid. I knew he'd be a decent player eventually, but I didn't envision him as a starter his freshman year. I was surprised because I saw him his junior year in high school and I was not impressed. I know, late response, but Baran sucks. He took it right at Lopez like 4 times and got stuff on each of them. He didn't do any better against DePaul either. What's worse is it seems like he thinks he can score, so he's going to keep trying it. If we're lucky, he might be the next Vince Scott.

You should know better than to post an NU score when they're close against someone. They always float between tied and down 7 for a while before the other team stretches it out, usually at the end of the half/game. They will not beat anyone remotely decent until Coble gets back. I do like Mike Thompson and Mike Capocci though. Maybe we'll actually make the tournament in a few years with those three.

QUOTE(rockren @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 02:22 AM) I went ahead and posted my app. I will be buying/d'ling the '07 version tomorrow when I get home from work this morning. Hopefully there is a team available, if not- I'll play the game on my own and wait for an opening to happen. I know it was posted on the league board as well, but if you're going to do that get 6.0 or 6.5 (well, you need to buy the first one anyways to make 6.5 work). 2007 won't be compatible with our league.

It has fallen off rather precipitously, though I still watch it because it still occasionally delivers a good laugh (and it's still better than the new Simpsons ).

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 14, 2007 -> 02:26 PM) Do I need the game to join? My laptop still is down, but I could just do line ups etc of a team. A lot of guys just post stuff, and honestly the dats are screwy right now for some reason anyways. We'd LOVE to have you back!

Bumped. We just finished 2010, and could really use some fresh blood. Colorado is definitely available (some nice talent there) and some other teams may become available as the off-season shakes out. The links are in the post above. While we appreciate new players joining, please only do so if you intend on being an active participant (by that I mean check up on your team/messages at least twice a week), as we've had some participation problems of late. Look forward to hearing from some people.

The NL was a lot closer than I would have thought. I guess they took fielding/team success into account more than they have in the past.

I think if you make the assumption that this group of players has at least some basketball talent (let's say at least able to make the rotation on a high school varsity team at a reasonably sized school) that it could definitely be done. I don't think you're going to be able to throw 5 total schmucks out there and do it. Still, if you can even go half of your posessions without turning the ball over, or even a quarter for that matter, eventually someone is going to slip and leave someone open, or a tip will go right to someone, or they'll commit some kind of turnover that gives you a fast-break chance. Then there's the free throws that have been mentioned a few times. Plus if you get desperate you can have one of your guys cherry-pick and try the long pass after they score. Sure, you're not going to get any rebounds and you might as well forget about taking the ball in the paint, but I gotta think you'll find a gap somewhere to hit an open jumper every once in a while. I just don't think it's possible to have every player/spot 100% covered for 48 minutes.

I gotta go with Steve on that one, Jefferson is going to be a beast. Maybe not 25-15-2, but I could definitely see 22-12-2 on that team with regularity. Not too many big men are going to be better than that.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 12:26 AM) Damien Wilkins (Dominique's nephew) was magical this evening... I really like that Seattle team actually, and think they will be very sick in 2008-09 and they will get the 8 seed this year. They better step up their defense considerably if that is to happen. They don't have one guy that you can call a good defender right now (though Durant and Green have potential). They are also very young, which makes them a bit more turnover prone and makes it harder for them to close out games, as you saw tonight. The conference is considerably softer after the top 6, but New Orleans and Memphis both look a bit better than them (actually, the Hornets are probably a playoff lock unless Paul gets hurt again), and until Baron Davis gets hurt you can say the same for Golden State.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 03:06 PM) Whether or not it'd be better including Gordon or Kirk overall isn't necessarily the point in this sort of deal though. The point that no one should forget is that Kirk's contract makes a deal like this 1000% easier. You have to include like 5-6 guys to come up with a legal deal for Kobe if you don't include Kirk or Wallace. And if it was possible to get Kobe Bryant without giving up more than 1 of Gordon, Deng, TT, Wallace, and Noah, it'd be hard not to jump at that. Kirk is still a base year compensation player, so they can only count half of his salary in a deal. That makes the difference between him and Gordon negligible financially.

Man, that means Duhon or Sefolosha starting at PG, or possibly Gordon. Yeesh. I'd MUCH rather see Gordon as the centerpiece, Kirk can have an awful lot of value as a complementary guard that can limit turnovers, play defense, and stick the wide-open jumpers he's bound to get with decent regularity. I just don't think Sefolosha is ready, Duhon can't score/shoot, and Gordon as a PG on both ends worries me. Obviously value-wise it's a no-brainer, but it doesn't seem to make sense with the rest of the team, you take a major hit at PG and end up with two SG's.

Ouch. On the plus side, Damon does fill a need. He gives us a legit top of the order hitter that can get on base. On the negative side, he's going to be 34 this time next week with 2 years and $26 mil left on the deal, and I worry that Ozzie will play him in center.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 02:58 PM) Zoom, If you keep Rex, draft a rookie, then youd get rid of Orton or Griese. At this point the Bears dont need Griese, Orton, and Rex, since they all bring about the same suckness. That's extremely unlikely though, as Griese is currently signed through 2010 and the team obviously thinks he's their best option right now, and Orton is signed through 2008 at a dirt-cheap price. Rex is the one who's contract is up, and even if they got him for the minimum that'd be a 600k commitment.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 02:42 PM) Well Zoom, what pick would you say that they should take a QB? The only way I would advocate Rex is if he put up a 80-90 rating in every single game from here on out. I do not think you could expect a rookie to come in here and put up those type of numbers. Anyways if Rex did awesome I would sign him to a 3 year deal, still draft a young QB in round 4 or later and have him back up. Most young players are not ready as rookies anyways, so next year the Bears are going to need another QB anyways. If Rex can show he is serviceable you can probably get him for a decent deal that would not handcuff you and allow the Bears to draft the QB of the future. I just dont see how the Bears can develop anyone with the current OC. They just are so bad at game planning, development, etc that any QB you bring in will be damaged by the time they are done with their first season. The Bears offense needs to completely be rebuilt, and the OC is the guy who needs to go. How many more horrible game plans do we need to see before we call it? How many Benson being motioned into the slot do we have to see before we know this guy is clueless? And Im sorry but 3 ints by Griese in the end zone is inexcusable, those plays to Bradley were horrible. I dont know why you are throwing jump balls to your 4th wr, but I guess thats a recipe for success? Depends on who's there, but definitely 2nd or 3rd round at the earliest, unless I could get ridiculous value on Brohm, which is doubtful where they'd likely be picking. And Rex is going to somehow put up those numbers? If the coaching staff even remotely thought that was possible he wouldn't be on the bench. He didn't do that in 2006 when he was playing well, how the heck is he going to do it now? And how does having 3 quarterbacks under contract not take up space for a rookie? I would imangine that if they took one they'd have Griese fill in until they think they are ready, not start him from day one. With the defense that they have they're not going to do that. I don't argue that Turner is good, and he's probably gone anyways (at least I hope so, that'd be pretty pitiful if he were back). Even with him though Griese had some success throwing the ball the last several games, and he's not all that talented.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 02:27 PM) I wouldnt say to resign Rex unless he played well in every single game the rest of the season. But I would give him that chance to play well, because Id rather resign Rex at a cheap price, than draft a QB in the first round and 5 years from now have this situation replay itself. The Bears cant draft offense, and im really afraid of what they are going to do with a high pick. Really? I'd rather take a chance that maybe a newer, younger player would come in and develop than re-sign a guy that you know isn't very good and apparently already decided isn't the answer. Granted I wouldn't spend my first rounder on one as there are other needs and none of them totally thrill me, but you don't really have anything to lose with drafting one, they can't be a whole lot worse than Rex has been of late. Yeah, they've drafted pretty poorly on offense, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

Well, it's only 27 starts because he constantly got hurt before last season. He's been in the league 5 years though in the same system and still shows basically no ability to read a defense or find secondary options. I mean come on, his BEST start at the beginning of this year was 20-34 for 160 yards with a TD and 2 INT's. I really don't think he's suddenly going to go out and show anything different, not when the line still sucks and the receivers often drop balls on the rare occasions that he actually does put it in the right place. There's really no point in playing him, nothing good will come of it, and if by some miracle he did perform well they might be tempted to re-sign him and start this s*** all over again.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 02:06 PM) Id rather have Rex. I think the benching, etc, could do a lot for his career and perhaps make him a better qb in the long run. He wouldnt be the first QB who needed to get knocked off the horse before they actually turned out decent. Also maybe a sense of urgency that he wont ever start at QB could do wonders for him turning it around. I personally doubt that. I really think he needs to get out of Chicago if he has any hope of succeeding, he can't seem to handle the criticism he's received from basically every media outlet since about the middle of last year.