sfaJack

Actually, he's British, I believe. In addition to Bush & America, he seems to hate Tony Blair with a passion as well.

Yes, that is correct. Redding is the #5. That was confirmed a couple of weeks ago. Actually, the Astros don't have any competition for roster spots/starting jobs this spring, outside of the one final bullpen spot and the backup infielder spot that's between John Valentin, Eric Bruntlett, and (I think) Jose Vizcaino.

Are you mad? Oswalt isn't as good as Prior. Period. And Oswalt's health issue is a pretty big issue, since he's yet to stay healthy for a full year. No way. I'm a die-hard Cubs fan and it pains me to say it, but Borowski was garbage for much of his career until last year. Dotel's had three solid seasons in the bullpen. Advantage Dotel here, though I'm interested to see how he handles closing full-time. Lidge has better stuff, obviously, so I'd say advantage Lidge here. Only caveat is that Lidge has never had two straight injury-free years in his history. You'd be better off comparing LaTroy Hawkins with Lidge though, since they're pencilled as the setup guys on their teams. In that case, it's pretty even, with a very slight edge to Hawkins, IMO. Stone was bad last year. Have you ever actually seen him pitch? Farnsworth had a good year, but isn't elite or anything. Advantage Farnsworth. Absolutely Hawkins, because Miceli sucks. This is where Remlinger should be, though. Don't be shocked if Gallo doesn't even make the team. The Astros got Brandon Backe from Tampa, and I wouldn't be surprised if he bumps Gallo back to AAA. Gallo's nothing special anyway. Even matchup here. Wellemeyer and Mitre have so little major league experience that it's hard to judge them. Robertson is perhaps the most overrated young pitcher in the NL after last year - he won 15 games, sure, but his ERA was over 5.00 and he averaged nearly 7 runs of support per start. Most guys could win 15 games with that many runs behind them. Saarloos and his 87 mph fastball are not effective over the course of a full season. The guy just isn't that good. Too hard to call these matchups. The Cubs and Astros are pretty even. My own Cubs fandom aside, I'll take them over the Astros because the rotation is a bit better and the Astros have more holes in their lineup than people want to acknowledge: Biggio is done as a good leadoff guy and is terrible defensively. Bagwell's shoulder is hanging together with two clothespins and some chicken wire...don't be shocked if his production drops dramatically this year. Kent has a wrist issue that he admitted the other day could flare up at any time. After his red-hot start last year, Ensberg only hit about .240 after the ASB; let's see if he can do it for a full year. Hidalgo is an enigma; who knows if you'll get 2000 Hidalgo or 2001 Hidalgo. Jason Lane could really push him to play well, though. Plus, their 7-8-9 (Ausmus/Everett/Pitcher) of their lineup is awful. And Berkman better hit more than 25 homers this year. I get the feeling that most people have fallen in love with the Astros just because of Clemens and Pettitte signing there. This team has a few issues, and I think they might end up missing Billy Wagner before the year is over. NL Central: 1. Cubs 2. Astros 3. Cardinals 4. Pirates 5. Reds 6. Brewers

How about we send them to live with you in your parents' basement instead? That way, you can personally watch over them and feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that they're not living in the "appalling conditions" that we generously provide them. How about that? Are you up for that? Jesus...I'm glad you're British because I'd be ashamed to share my country with you. It's bad enough we're stuck living on the same planet.

They need to sacrifice Steve Bartman instead!

Me either, but a suspension for this was ridiculous. Confiscating the magazine until the end of the day with a warning to not bring it back again would have sufficed. I took a SI swimsuit issue to school once and nobody said a word about it, and my high school was run by a bunch of censorship-happy nazis.

1090. I should have scored better, but I already knew what college I wanted to go to and, because I was in the Top 10% of my class, my SAT score didn't matter in the least little way as to whether I would be accepted or not. Thus, I didn't give a shit and put forth what would have to be considered only "average" effort. My ACT score was 29, I believe. I wouldn't testify under oath that that is correct, though.

Tom said he probably overreacted. What else do you want? Just be thankful you weren't banned and be done with it. Your life has not been ruined because you were suspended from a fucking message board for two days. Crikey. So if the word gets removed will you shut up? Yet another reason to shut up about this.

"Ruler of the people." Recognize, bitches.

First off, don't speak about the plight of the working class family as if none of us have ever experienced that lifestyle or anything. I seriously doubt that many people on this board were born with silver spoons in their mouths and have been able to go their entire lives without ever feeling a financial pinch. Anyway, what is your solution to this problem? You want to stop taking ANY taxes out of people's paychecks? How do you fund Social Security, then? Medicare? Drop funding for those programs and you'd REALLY be fucking the poor/older people. What about those precious unemployment taxes? You want to stop those? What will happen when someone is laid off and then has nothing to fall back on because there is no unemployment money to be had? Do you propose some asinine plan of taking taxes only from those that you deem to be "wealthy" and thus able to afford it? What is your alternative? Why should the people most likely to take advantage of the services those payroll taxes pay for NOT actually pay anything into the fund? Where's the fairness in that? As for income taxes, the amount someone has taken out of each of their "precious" paychecks is easily controlled. Changing the number of exemptions on a W-4 form will take care of that, so that they can take home more money each month, while still paying their fair share of income taxes. Also, it's been my own personal experience that most families in "dire" financial straits have their financial priorities out of whack. Cutting out cable TV or not buying so many stupid DVD's or not paying $110 for some goddamn LeBron James tennis shoes their kids endlessly begged to have, as just a few simple examples, can go a long way to paying for a "trip to the grocery store."

So are you saying you'd rather give tax breaks to people that don't pay taxes? Or that you think the rich should pay taxes just because "they can afford it," or some bullshit reason like that?

Al, do you think there's any chance for Weaver to turn himself around now that he'll be out of the NY spotlight AND pitching at Dodger Stadium? Not that I'd expect him to fully replace Kevin Brown, but it seems possible to me. I know that Anglesault would explode with rage if he has a good year.

Yep. They had the contracts during the first Gulf War, BEFORE Cheney was head of Halliburton, no less. Add in the fact that Halliburton has been doing government contract work for over 60 years under both Democratic and Republican administrations, and the Dems little conspiracy theory just doesn't hold up.

You speak the truth, Frigid. It's all the Boss' fault, but don't try to let a reasonable argument like that interefere with Yankees' fans delusion that Pettitte had no desire to be a winner. The man earned respect with his performance for the last nine years. He wasn't shown any, so he walked (I personally would have done the same thing). And, after seeing first-hand how the Houston fans have welcomed Andy (and Roger) with fully-open arms, I'd say he made the right call. They're overjoyed to have a proven winner like Pettitte in uniform here. It's not as if the Astros are only paying him $2 mil a year or something; the money IS comparable to NY's offer, and the Astros have the potential to be a very good team. Plus, he actually gets to see his kids for most of the year now. I just don't understand how you can fault him for leaving, AS.

Oh, come on. Kick them out of the conference? That's too much, man. How is that fair to CU's OTHER athletic programs? You know, the ones that don't have all these heinous actions going on? You want to punish them, too? That's exactly what you'd be doing. You're also forgetting that the NCAA hasn't got the authority to throw a team out of a conference - the other Big 12 schools would have to vote them out, and that probably wouldn't happen. The NCAA can suspend schools or reduce scholarships, but that's it. As a bonus question: do you think that Baylor should be kicked out of the Big 12 because of what that piece of shit Dave Bliss did? That involved, you know, attempting to cover up a MURDER. It's worse than what's happened at Colorado. Nobody demanded they get thrown out of the Big 12 then; why should that happen to CU now? And what evidence do you have that says it's "the school?" Sure, it may come out that some administration was involved with all of this, but until it does, you can't work on the assumption that they were. And why do you just assume that it's the school? Gary Barnett is a known asshole, as is Rick Neuheisel (I forget who that third coach you're referring to is). Could it be that' they're just bad people? Is that not possible? I'm with you on this. Depending on how serious all this stuff turns out to be, the punishment should be swift and mighty. The worse it is, the worse the punishment. They won't get the death penalty, though. Mark it down - it ain't gonna happen. Yes, it would. For many years; all you have to do is look at SMU. I haven't seen or heard Gary Barnett or anyone else from CU say "Bring it on big boy!" in regards to the NCAA. Not gonna happen, for reasons I outlined above. Keep dreaming, though. The NCAA is pretty limp-wristed and hypocritical at times. No argument there. And it would be a shame if they do nothing to CU. But they're NOT going to give the death penalty out; they said years ago that they'd never do that to any school again. I hope you're not naive enough to think that Colorado is the first place that stuff like this has gone on or that it will be the last time.

Think of it this way, Kotz: the death penalty does nothing to punish those that actually committed the sins, so to speak. All it does is punish the new coaching/administrative regime by handcuffing them entirely when it comes to competing on the field. That's unfair to both them and the future set of players. Not to mention the athletes of the other athletic programs, many of whose existence relies heavily on revenues generated by the football team. SMU is STILL feeling the effects of the death penalty after all these years: their football teams have been shit for the most part since then, and you can probably trace it to the fact they became uncompetitive because of the death penalty. Obviously, we don't know the full extent of what is/was going on at CU, but for now it looks like that other than losing their jobs and the possibility of never coaching again, Gary Barnett and Friends won't be feeling the effects of this down the road. The CU program, however, if it got the death penalty, would probably be unfairly punished for many, many years. It's just too harsh of a punishment. Now, if it turns out that the administration and the athletic department were covering it all up for 20+ years, well, I think I'd probably look the other way if they got the death penalty.

Unlikely. I don't know too many specifics on the Bush plan, but I know that here in Texas, we just had a similar law go into effect late last year. In our law, I believe the $250,000 is a cap on punitive awards; the injuried party still gets fully reimbursed for any medical expenses or lost wages they actually suffered. I'm not sure about future lost wages, though, and I'm not sure exactly how you could calculate that fairly.

Baseball players, and most pro atheltes in general, are overpaid, in relation to what you or I make at our jobs. It's insane the money they get to play a game. But the other side of that coin is what bps said: the league makes a hell of a lot of money off the games those athletes play, so why shouldn't they get a sizeable chunk of the cash? Sure, it's ridiculous what they get paid, but can you sit here and tell me that if you were in their position that YOU wouldn't demand and/or expect that kind of money?

The NCAA has said that they will probably never issue the death penalty to any school again because of the severe damage it does to both the institution and their athletic program as a whole. A serious set of sanctions for CU is likely, probably a reduction in scholarships and a postseason ban for starters, but you're right - no way do they get the death penalty.

I think Yogi Berra said it best, to Bernie Williams during the 1999 ALCS: "Relax. We've been playing these guys for 80 years - they're never gonna beat us." Pretty much sums it up right there. I am not a Yankee fan at all, but 26 world championships speak for themselves.

I don't have a lot of time to respond to your drivel, but I'll say this: It's obviously not a secret that I'm a Bush supporter. I wouldn't call it "blind support," though. Right off the top of my head, I can think of two things Bush supports/has endorsed that I do NOT agree with. His immigration amnesty plan makes my blood boil, and I do not think that there should be a constiutional amendment banning gay marriage. Is that "blind support?" I do feel that Bush has done a reasonably good job as President. Does he have his faults? Yes. Do I think that we'd be better off with John Kerry or John Edwards or Howard Dean, et al. instead? No. Unless something drastically changes between now and November, I can't see myself voting for anyone else but Bush. I don't fawn over the guy, though, and will criticize him when I feel it's necessary. You, however, hate everything about him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you think about killing him when he visited your country last time? Yeah, you're real objective. I really don't know why I'm even bothering responding to your "posts."

The thing I don't get is this: in the SI article, CU coach Gary Barnett said that neither he nor anyone on his staff knew that this was going on. WTF? There isn't ONE coach who didn't see one instance of the groping or harassment himself or overhear some of the players bragging about that stuff? Huh? I find that very hard to believe.

A counter to what, exactly? All of the logical reasoning in the world wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to you. Your hatred of Bush makes you spew stupid shit like that (which is in NO way a productive, well-thought out argument), and there is nothing I, Powerplay, MikeSC, or anyone else would be able to say to dissuade you from your ignorant position. Troll.

Using the 3506 listed at the bottom of the board as registered members (yes, I know it's not right because of all the gimmick/inactive accounts), that's only $542 a person for the TSM island. Should we hold a bake sale or something?