Cheatingiest Cheating Cheater

In Major League Baseball by dmick89259 Comments

Barry Bonds was sentenced today.

The Barry Bonds case is over. Bonds, as we speak, is being sentenced. The penalty: 30 days of house arrest, two years of probation and 250 hours of community service.  This, by the way, is what the probation office recommended. Prosecutors were seeking a 15 month jail term.

Meanwhile, the US government wasted millions of our dollars. Just ask yourself which is worse: some overpaid athlete taking steroids and lying about it or your government wasting your dollars?

Cheatingiest cheating cheater is not in reference to Bonds. It’s in reference to your government wasting your dollars. I couldn’t care less about Barry Bonds. Yes, he obstructed justice and if the cost wasn’t so damn outrageous trying him would have made perfect sense. However, at some point someone more intelligent than the most intelligent person in the US Government has to step in and wonder whether spending millions of dollars is worth it. There has to be a point at which you just say fuck it. It simply isn’t worth it. It’s unfortunate that point is not at the amount it spent on Bonds. They’re doing the same shit with Roger Clemens.

Where’s the outrage about the government wasting this money? At the very least people should be outright enraged that the prosecution only managed one conviction and that conviction has been given a stay until an appeal is heard. It’s a god damn miracle our government can convict anybody.


Share this Post

Comments

  1. Mish

    My facebook status as of 20 minutes ago:

    I, for one, am glad that the ruthless, vile Barry Bonds was sentenced today. I mean, the sheer immorality of lying about freely sticking a needle in your butt to hit a leather ball over a wall is just unforgivable. Pol Pot’s got nothing on this guy.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  3. GW

    [quote name=Smokestack Lightning]Not to resurrect anybody’s hopes here, but Jim Bowden, who earlier was the loudest crowing about the Jays winning the Darvish sweeps…deleted the original tweet.

    http://twitter.com/#!/JimBowdenESPNxm/status/147646968397697024

    He has since tweeted that the Commish’s office hasn’t told anybody anything about nothing to do with Darvish, and won’t, thank you very much, until Nippon Ham accepts the bid.

    http://twitter.com/#!/JimBowdenESPNxm/status/147739078572515328%5B/quote%5D

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  5. ACT

    Where’s the outrage about the government wasting this money?

    All over the place? Seriously, every comment thread I’ve seen about Bonds and Clemens has quite a few complaints about how the government is wasting money.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  6. WenningtonsGorillaCock

    [quote name=ACT]All over the place? Seriously, every comment thread I’ve seen about Bonds and Clemens has quite a few complaints about how the government is wasting money.[/quote]The government wastes money?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  8. Aisle424

    [quote name=josh]Agree 1,000%. I’d agree 10,000%, but this is America, and 1,000% is the maximum amount to agree, by convention.[/quote]
    Not if you take steroids. You can agree way more if you take steroids.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  9. Aisle424

    [quote name=Berselius]I bet you etched our bid on a Faberge egg to send it in.[/quote]
    False. I sent it on the back of our rare first draft of the Constitution with the word “suckers” in it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  10. mb21

    [quote name=ACT]All over the place? Seriously, every comment thread I’ve seen about Bonds and Clemens has quite a few complaints about how the government is wasting money.[/quote]Not according to ABC News. Not according to half the blogs on the internet. Not according to most of the BBWAA members.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  11. Mish

    Wow. Listened to 5 minutes of Sullivan and Kaplan on CTL. On top of the unprovoked vitriol thrown at Ramirez and Zambrano, they completely misunderstand the trade vales of Byrd and Soto. It’ll bring you back a fungo bat, they say. I’m switching to an awful Simpsons from 2002.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  17. ACT

    Not crazy about Maholm. He’s coming off a decent year, but his velocity and swinging strike% were at all-time lows. Also, He’s always struggled against right-handed hitting.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  18. josh

    [quote name=ACT]Not crazy about Maholm. He’s coming off a decent year, but his velocity and swinging strike% were at all-time lows. Also, He’s always struggled against right-handed hitting.[/quote]He always just seemed to me like a lefty who in any given game was just about to give up a lot of runs.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  21. Berselius

    I don’t know what’s funnier, that the Brewers are considering Cedeno or that he could be an upgrade over Yuni. (dying laughing).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  22. mb21

    [quote name=josh]He always just seemed to me like a lefty who in any given game was just about to give up a lot of runs.[/quote]That’s anyone other than a handful of pitchers.

    Maholm isn’t bad. He’s not good. He’s probably about average. For the right price I’d be happy to have him.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  23. Rice Cube

    [quote name=Berselius]I don’t know what’s funnier, that the Brewers are considering Cedeno or that he could be an upgrade over Yuni. (dying laughing).[/quote]According to most saber-leaning blogs I’ve read, just about anything is an upgrade over Yuni.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  26. Rice Cube

    I think I looked at this Bonds sentence and laughed. It was like the judge wanted to throw the prosecution a bone but with the message that they were retarded for wasting everyone’s time with this trial.

    As I’ve said before, as a Bay Area native and growing up following the Giants before I knew too much about baseball, it was awesome to watch Bonds just be really really good at baseball. You didn’t even have to understand the game’s intricacies to realize that Bonds was good at it. Hell, I didn’t even know what OBP was back then and I knew that being on base 60% of the time was really fucking badass. I was also immune to the steroid crap by then because I knew McGwire was taking a non-banned steroid substance (androstenedione) and 700-foot homers were awesome. I don’t consider myself an expert but I feel like you have to be pretty good at baseball already before taking steroids to get McGwire, Sosa, or Bondsian numbers. This whole thing was a waste of time and money. Maybe I wasn’t able to grow up in the innocent times when players were racist or throwing games or spitting on baseballs or taking amphetamines, but Barry Bonds was exciting to watch. I’m glad he got such a light sentence because hopefully it will signal to the government that they should probably stop wasting so much time and money to slap Bonds on the wrist for using bad analgesic cream or whatever he did to hit 10 more homers a season than he otherwise would have.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  28. Bottleasmoke

    Given what I’ve seen about the writers and teammates he was reputed to have been an asshole too it’s hard to judge him. If I had to share space with Jeff Kent and BBWA people it would be a Herculean effect to not go on a killing spree, it could be the strength afforded Bonds by PEDs saved a few lives.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  29. ACT

    [quote name=Rice Cube]I admit I’m a bit biased because I really liked Bonds as a player (he was an asshole but he was good at baseball).[/quote]Same here. I liked him better than Griffey (who cares about likeability?)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  31. Rice Cube

    I recall being pissed off every time they intentionally walked Bonds. I forgot how many times the IBB actually worked for the other team but it was still annoying.

    I also remember one time when the bases were loaded and the Giants were down two with two outs, and the opposing manager (I want to say it was Buck Showalter) actually walked Bonds to force in a run. The Giants lost, but that was how scared people were of Bonds back then and I was actually okay with that IBB.

    /cool stories bro

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  33. josh

    Just facebooking with a lawyer friend. I guess the whole reason Congress was involved, according to him, was that the Supreme Court declared MLB to be immune from antitrust lawsuits, then later, they tried to patch that up by passing a law that said Congress could fix baseball if it needed to. In other words, we have a Depression Era court to blame for Barry Bonds getting grounded (presumable, without dinner).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  34. ACT

    [quote name=mb21]That’s anyone other than a handful of pitchers.

    Maholm isn’t bad. He’s not good. He’s probably about average. For the right price I’d be happy to have him.[/quote]I think he’s below average at this point, especially since his fastball lost about 2 mph over the last 2 years. I don’t mind the Cubs going after him, but I wonder if he won’t be overpriced following after a “good” 2011. Then again, He’s had recent injury struggles, so he may come at a discount.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  35. ACT

    To put it another way, the Cubs’ other 2 acquisitions are “buy low” candidates, coming off bad years and likely to bounce back somewhat. In Maholm’s case, I think he’s probably worse than his 2011 numbers.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  41. Recalcitrant Blogger Nate

    What happens in the posting process if 2 teams tie for the highest bid? (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  42. ACT

    [quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]What happens in the posting process if 2 teams tie for the highest bid? (dying laughing)[/quote]They follow King Solomon’s example. They offer to split him in half and deliver him to both teams. Whichever team steps up and says, “Don’t do that; give him to the other team,” wins.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  43. fang2415

    [quote name=ACT]They follow King Solomon’s example. They offer to split him in half and deliver him to both teams. Whichever team steps up and says, “Don’t do that; give him to the other team,” wins.[/quote]That only happens if the Jews really do win the bid.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  44. Rice Cube

    [quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]What happens in the posting process if 2 teams tie for the highest bid? (dying laughing)[/quote]Ninja battle atop Mt Fuji.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  47. Aisle424

    [quote name=Berselius]Latos ———–> Cincy
    Alonso, Grandal, Volquez, Boxberger ———-> SD[/quote]
    Holy motherfucking shit.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  49. Aisle424

    The Reds obviously smell an opportunity to leapfrog the Brewers and Cardinals. They may not be done since this move alone probably doesn’t do it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  55. Rodrigo

    [quote name=GW]that’s my knee-jerk reaction, as well.[/quote]
    If that were the haul for Garza, would that have been a good deal for the Cubs?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  56. GW

    [quote name=Rodrigo]If that were the haul for Garza, would that have been a good deal for the Cubs?[/quote]
    yes. but garza has fewer years of club control left than latos, i think.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  59. Aisle424

    [quote name=GW]yes. but garza has fewer years of club control left than latos, i think.[/quote]Latos hasn’t even entered his first arb year. I think I saw they have 4 years of club control left on him.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  60. GBTS

    Latos has struggled with injuries for a while. I really think he’s prime for a Josh Johnson type jump.

    Really good trade for the Reds.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  62. Recalcitrant Blogger Nate

    Yea looks to me like SD wins that one. They get 2 regular position players and an arm for the rotation. Great move for them IMO.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  64. Berselius

    [quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]Yea looks to me like SD wins that one. They get 2 regular position players and an arm for the rotation. Great move for them IMO.[/quote]
    I think it’s a great move for both teams. None of those guys were going to help the Reds win a pennant anytime soon, and Latos will be around for a while. Given the 1B drain from the division and the Cubs apparent unwillingness to spend their time is now. I don’t see the Cardinals doing much of anything either, despite the money they were offering Pujols. I would have thought that they would go hard after Jimmy Rollins rather than sign the shadow of Rafael Furcal.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  66. mb21

    I also think it’s a nice move for both teams. Helps SD out when they have a chance to contend down the road and helps Cincy out now. I’d have been happy with Alonso and one of the others for Garza.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  69. Berselius

    [quote name=mb21]http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7362909/sources-chicago-cubs-continue-pursue-free-agent-prince-fielder[/quote]
    It could go either way

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  70. Recalcitrant Blogger Nate

    [quote name=mb21]http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/7362909/sources-chicago-cubs-continue-pursue-free-agent-prince-fielder[/quote]
    this is getting to be some 1984 shit. the only reason you repeatedly deny a rumor like this is if there is some truth to it. you also don’t let reports out that you made a significant bid for darvish out if you have no money to spend. I figure they’re going after 1 of darvish/fielder, and they have to wait and see which way the darvish domino falls.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  71. Rice Cube

    The media and rumors keep swinging wildly back and forth. It’s like they’re using Prince Fielder like a really heavy pendulum.

    Actually, now that I have that image in my head, I’m thinking wrecking ball is more appropriate.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  72. mb21

    I think it’s Scott Boras. He’s been known to invent to offers and interested teams. Surprised he hasn’t named 33 teams interested in Fielder.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  73. Rice Cube

    [quote name=mb21]I think it’s Scott Boras. He’s been known to invent to offers and interested teams. Surprised he hasn’t named 33 teams interested in Fielder.[/quote]Were the I-Cubs, Smokies and Chiefs also interested?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  74. Rice Cube

    This new Joe Poz blog was a fun read:

    http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/12/17/hollas-and-tebow/

    Tebow can look helpless in ways that few quarterbacks ever have. He can’t throw from the pocket. His release takes roughly the same time it took Bob Ross to paint a landscape. He has Nerf-Football-In-The-Wind accuracy, meaning he will often hit a Starbucks with his passes but he won’t necessarily hit the Starbucks he’s aiming for (and meaning that his bad passes are SO bad, he doesn’t often get them intercepted — he’s thrown just two picks all year despite completing fewer than 50% of his passes).

    Nice.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  75. mb21

    [quote name=Rice Cube]Were the I-Cubs, Smokies and Chiefs also interested?[/quote]I don’t know. Didn’t Boras already say something like 10 teams had made offers? I think he made that comment right after the meetings. I don’t doubt that 10 teams made an offer. I doubt that 10 teams offered more than $30 million total. I’d say that was probably 4 or 5 teams. In my opinion, the market for Prince Fielder is Seattle and that’s it. I think Milwaukee would re-sign him for the right price. The Cubs probably would as well. My guess is that Fielder’s value would have to come down to about 5 years and $100 million for the Cubs to be serious about acquiring him.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  76. Rice Cube

    I think I am going by the Ken Rosenthal school of logic where if you look at the teams that actually make sense, you automatically exclude the entire NL Central except for the Cubs, you exclude all the cheapskate franchises, and you exclude the Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies because they already have expensive 1B and Fielder won’t DH for a while.

    I think the Marlins already took their name out of the hat, as did STL (as mentioned above because they wouldn’t overpay for Fielder if they couldn’t keep Pujols) and MIL (who signed Ramirez and don’t seem like they have the money to spend). The Angels got Pujols and won’t need Fielder. That really leaves the Mariners (they’re interested for whatever reason), the Rangers (who I don’t think are desperate because the core of their team looks pretty good already), maybe the Blue Jays, and the Cubs. I don’t think there is a dark horse candidate out there. The Giants are probably going to put their resources into extending their pitching staff. The Dodgers can’t pay for shit. The Mets are in financial ruin. The Braves have Freddie Freeman. I thought the Nats signed Adam LaRoche but I haven’t really paid attention.

    At this point I am inclined to agree with you that the only team who is desperate enough to overpay is the Mariners. The Cubs don’t have any pressure because they know they are probably going to suck without a whole lot of good fortune with or without Fielder, so they can afford to wait it out. If they get Fielder on their terms, it’s obviously a win for the Cubs. If they act as a smokescreen to drive up the price that Seattle or whoever else has to pay, assuming that no other NL Central team gets him, he’s out of the division and the team that signed Fielder is financially restricted for a few years.

    It’s actually not a bad situation to be in. It’d be nice if the Cubs got Fielder, but I don’t think I’d be too disappointed if he goes somewhere else because it’s most likely not going to be in the NLC.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  77. mb21

    I think I am going by the Ken Rosenthal school of logic where if you look at the teams that actually make sense, you automatically exclude the entire NL Central except for the Cubs, you exclude all the cheapskate franchises, and you exclude the Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies because they already have expensive 1B and Fielder won’t DH for a while.

    I wouldn’t exclude the Cardinals, but that’s only because they have a bunch of money to spend. I think it’s much more likely they sign Fielder than it is the Cubs do. That being said, i don’t think the Cardinals sign him. I think the Dodgers are a possibility, but it’s not likely.

    I think any team in the AL is more likely than the NL. Fielder may be able to stand at 1st base the next year or two, but in a couple years it will be like he’s in a lawn chair. He’s one of those guys that would be more valuable if he never played the field. He’s that bad defensively. Fielder is a DH right now. In my opinion, putting him at 1st base is playing him out of position. It’s like signing an average fielding 1B and moving him to LF or RF.

    I’d be happy to have Fielder’s bat in the lineup, but it’s an adventure with him in the field.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  78. Rice Cube

    I agree with you that Fielder sucks at defense. I didn’t mean that he wasn’t a DH yet, I meant that it sounds like Fielder doesn’t want to be a DH yet. Semantics (dying laughing)

    I think the Dodgers are too messed up and probably not allowed to pay that much for Fielder although I was surprised they were allowed to pay so much to extend Matt Kemp. I guess I don’t understand how bankruptcy works.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  81. Rice Cube

    [quote name=Smokestack Lightning]http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/cubs-talk/post/Cubs-may-have-interest-in-Padres-Rizzo?blockID=614300&feedID=10336

    Do the Cubs even have the parts to get this guy?[/quote]They can make a Franken-Cub with the speed of Tony Campana, the glovework of Darwin Barney, and whatever they can cobble up in terms of OBP with the rest of the no-name prospects.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  87. Smokestack Lightning

    [quote name=ACT]I still think it’s the Blue Jays.[/quote]
    Nah, this isn’t the Jays anymore.

    It’s Theo.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  89. ACT

    Hey I’m starting to get the hang of this game! The crickets are loaded, the count’s three crickets and two anti-crickets and the infield cricket rule is in effect, right?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  90. Rice Cube

    [quote name=ACT]Hey I’m starting to get the hang of this game! The crickets are loaded, the count’s three crickets and two anti-crickets and the infield cricket rule is in effect, right?[/quote]BLERN

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  95. Rice Cube

    [quote name=ACT]Not sure what the 5 is.[/quote]That’s the number of people who actually might give a shit.

    Which is still more than the number of Tampa Bay fans.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  96. ACT

    [quote name=Rice Cube]That’s the number of people who actually might give a shit.

    Which is still more than the number of Tampa Bay fans.[/quote]The stadium crown certainly reminds me of a Rays game.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  100. Bottleasmoke

    Since I don’t have a tv, I follow an alarming number of sporting events through this blog – to be honest reading y’alls comments is usually far more entertaining than network sports coverage – this cricket commentary is a new level of awesome! Please, sir, some more!

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  102. Rice Cube

    [quote name=ACT]Lots of pitches in the dirt so far. Carlos Marmol would love this game.[/quote]That’s actually the “bowling” technique. They do their best to crank the ball into the ground as much as possible so it spins weird, misses the bat and crashes into the wicket. That’s what I learned from playing with the Indians and New Zealanders in club cricket.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  107. Rice Cube

    [quote name=ACT]Still haven’t seen an out yet. What do those look like?[/quote]An out should occur if a batted ball is snagged in the air, if a bowled ball hits the wicket because the batsman wasn’t able to protect, or if a runner is tagged out before he is able to get back to the wicket safe zone.

    As for “overs”, those are basically a set of pitches and I never actually figured out how that was determined.

    Cricket is weird.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  108. ACT

    Audience/athlete reactions are just the opposite of baseball. Mild applause when a run scores. Then, OH MY GOD, DID THAT GUY JUST GET OUT! HE ALMOST MADE AN OUT! WOW!

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  112. Rice Cube

    [quote name=ACT]They’re taking a break for lunch now.[/quote]I bet it’s better than a cup of Gatorade and some sunflower seeds.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  113. ACT

    For some reason, “innings” is both singular and plural. Of all the differences between baseball and cricket, I think this is the one I find hardest to adjust to.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  114. Rice Cube

    Simon Pegg used a cricket bat to pummel zombies to death in “Shaun of the Dead”…I think most Americans can relate to that.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  118. Berselius

    I never liked Alonso but like what I see of Rizzo. Could just be the difference in volume of experience though (dying laughing).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  121. mb21

    [quote name=Berselius]I don’t see why SD would want Garza though. They won as many games as the Cubs did last year.[/quote]It wouldn’t be a Garza for Rizzo straight up deal. It would be Garza and a few others. I can’t imagine acquiring Rizzo without giving up one McNutt or Brett Jackson. Or both.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  122. Berselius

    [quote = misattributed tweeter]My issue with all of this is why would SD negate prospect gain to get older, more costly SP that they can’t keep?[/quote]
    Pretty much

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  123. mb21

    The Padres could and most likely would trade Matt Garza. This is something that I think would be a 3-team trade. Padres get a shitload of prospects from the Cubs and a third team while the third team gets Garza and the Cubs get Rizzo.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  125. Berselius

    I don’t see the Cubs trading Garza if it’s a net loss of prospects, unless the other guys going along are the likes of Lemahieu

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  127. mb21

    [quote name=Berselius]I don’t see the Cubs trading Garza if it’s a net loss of prospects, unless the other guys going along are the likes of Lemahieu[/quote]Yeah, I don’t either.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  129. mb21

    I thought Rizzo was higher for some reason. Rizzo had a great season in AAA. Alonso’s was similar to his career average. Rizzo sucked at the MLB level while Alonso hit like an MVP in his 100 PA. Rizzo is younger. I don’t think Garza is close to enough to acquire a 21 year old 1B with the kind of power that Rizzo has shown.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  130. ACT

    Epstein has a game plan

    The Cubs were everyone’s mystery team this offseason. They were supposed to be in on Albert Pujols. Uh, not really. They were supposed to be in on Yu Darvish (yes, but a major league source indicated they made a very low bid and have no illusions of winning the post), and now they’re supposed to be in on Prince Fielder.

    Things could change, but as of this writing the Cubs were still in the mode of, let’s not spend until we’re ready to spend and right now we’re not ready to spend.

    There appears to be the perception that because Theo Epstein spent a lot of money on free agents in Boston, he will do the same in Chicago. Maybe in time he will, but his focus in addition to improving the team is revamping the farm system.

    In order to do that you need players. You need draft choices.

    Judging by the nastiness of the tweets and e-mails from Chicago, the Cubs fan base is no longer the mild-mannered, just-happy-to-go-to-Wrigley following it perhaps was once upon a time. They want a winner. Unfortunately, some fans equated Epstein’s arrival with instant winning. Doesn’t work that way.

    Epstein didn’t inherit a great situation and his first order of business is to try to get out from under it, hoping to lose some of the big contracts that weigh down the franchise. Improve Carlos Zambrano’s value? Of course. Make it so Alfonso Soriano is at least somewhat attractive to another contending team? That’s the goal. Bid adieu to Aramis Ramirez? Done.

    Possibly deal pitcher Matt Garza, probably Chicago’s biggest asset, for a boatload of good young players? Why not. This is the way you rebuild your organization. Epstein has a plan to retool and he appears to be sticking with it.

    Now, owner Tom Ricketts could always intervene and order Epstein to sign Fielder, but that’s not why he hired him. Ricketts hired Epstein to do the job and put together the team his way.

    http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2011/12/18/red_sox_have_more_competition_than_ever/?page=full

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  131. Aisle424

    If the Reds just traded Alonso who was #73 plus and bunch of other guys who sound like they are highly regarded for Latos, surely Rizzo for Garza straight up isn’t totally ridiculous.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  132. Berselius

    [quote name=Aisle424]If the Reds just traded Alonso who was #73 plus and bunch of other guys who sound like they are highly regarded for Latos, surely Rizzo for Garza straight up isn’t totally ridiculous.[/quote]
    They have a potential ROY in Volquez

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  133. Recalcitrant Blogger Nate

    I always thought SD was a logical landing spot for Zambrano. Obviously not for RIzzo, but if the Cubs eat enough or take back a contract (say, Hudson?), SD could extract value from Zambrano with that park.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  134. Recalcitrant Blogger Nate

    I’d say if the Cubs trade Garza, it will be a 3-team trade with Texas and SD where Tex gets Garza, Cubs get Rizzo, +, SD gets prospects. Don’t know how that would work though.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  135. mb21

    [quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]I’d say if the Cubs trade Garza, it will be a 3-team trade with Texas and SD where Tex gets Garza, Cubs get Rizzo, +, SD gets prospects. Don’t know how that would work though.[/quote]Yeah, I think a 3-team trade is the only way the Cubs are trading Garza and acquiring Rizzo.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  136. Recalcitrant Blogger Nate

    Apparently Toronto was also trying to get Latos. I’d try to trade Garza to them. They have a really good farm system. They are apparently trying really hard to improve; between Darvish, Latos, and possibly Fielder.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  137. Recalcitrant Blogger Nate

    Bleacher Nation says Garza-Rizzo trade is being discussed, and adds this:

    UPDATE: Some of the other names I’m hearing bounced around in the talks include Orlando Hudson, Casey Kelly, Keyvius Sampson, Simon Castro, Jedd Gyorko, Robbie Erlin, and Joe Weiland. Obviously the Cubs wouldn’t be getting all of them (or even most). These are just some of the names that the Cubs are interested in, or – in Hudson’s case – that the Padres want to ship back to the Cubs.

    I’m guessing the Cubs trade Garza and get back Rizzo and some type of pitcher. I can also see them taking back Hudson to offset cost. They may also have to throw someone else in there.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  140. Recalcitrant Blogger Nate

    [quote name=mb21]I suppose I could see Rizzo and Hudson for Garza, but I still think that’s not likely either.[/quote]
    I don’t think the Cubs would trade Garza without getting some kind of pitcher in return, but I could be wrong. Garza is a valuable piece. When the Yankees and Rangers were rumored to be interested, it seemed like the Cubs wanted a pitching prospect and a position player prospect. Not sure though. Garza will be paid 9M and maybe 11M for the next 2 years, but he was a 5WAR pitcher this year. That’s 15M surplus for 2012. I’d say the Padres would acquire Garza and then shop him to get something for the future.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  142. Mish

    While I agree that Rizzo is a balls prospect (and I like Simon Castro too), I think Theo would want to get multiple assets for Garza. It’s not only quality that the Cubs lack, but quantity. I think he’d like to get a few players back from Garza. But that’s just my conjecture.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  143. mb21

    [quote name=Recalcitrant Blogger Nate]I don’t think the Cubs would trade Garza without getting some kind of pitcher in return, but I could be wrong. Garza is a valuable piece. When the Yankees and Rangers were rumored to be interested, it seemed like the Cubs wanted a pitching prospect and a position player prospect. Not sure though. Garza will be paid 9M and maybe 11M for the next 2 years, but he was a 5WAR pitcher this year. That’s 15M surplus for 2012. I’d say the Padres would acquire Garza and then shop him to get something for the future.[/quote]I think if Thoyer is expecting that much for Garza then they’ve overestimated his value. Trading Garza straight up for Yonder Alonso would have been a fair trade for both teams. Considering Alonso played significantly better at the MLB level he has more value. Some have said the Cubs asking price for Garza is too high so I’m going to guess that he doesn’t get traded.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  144. mb21

    [quote name=Mish]While I agree that Rizzo is a balls prospect (and I like Simon Castro too), I think Theo would want to get multiple assets for Garza. It’s not only quality that the Cubs lack, but quantity. I think he’d like to get a few players back from Garza. But that’s just my conjecture.[/quote]They could probably trade him and get the same quantity that they gave up, but it was a package that lacked quality. I’d rather the Cubs get quality in return.

    Garza for Rizzo is a fair trade. I imagine the Padres want more since they have no use for Garza.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  145. Rice Cube

    [quote name=mb21]They could probably trade him and get the same quantity that they gave up, but it was a package that lacked quality. I’d rather the Cubs get quality in return.

    Garza for Rizzo is a fair trade. I imagine the Padres want more since they have no use for Garza.[/quote]That suggests that a third party makes the most sense in any potential trade involving those two.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  148. fang2415

    (dying laughing) that I missed the cricket conversation. 240-5 means they’ve scored 240 runs and have made five outs. (I assume the other team hadn’t been up to bat yet.) So you can see why they get more excited about outs than they do about runs.

    Also an “inning” means the time that a batsman spends “in”, i.e. “not out”. So the first time a team bats is its first innings. In a test match each team has two innings (inningses?); I’m not as familiar with other forms, but in one-day cricket I think they just give each team 50 overs each, and 20/20 is 20 overs each?

    An over is six deliveries; after six balls have been bowled, they switch “over” to the other side and change bowlers. Run rate per over is important because unlike baseball there is a limit to how long the games can go so it’s better to score efficiently. (It can actually be hard to fit 40 outs into five days!) Bangladesh being at 240-5 with 3.27 runs per over sounds kinda mediocre to me. Hopefully the bottom of their order doesn’t suck too bad.

    Cricket, like baseball, has more jargon than the all other sports put together, and the exceptions to rules are often more important than the rules. I frequently have to rewind like five times before I understand what the fuck the announcers are talking about. (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  151. fang2415

    The other crucial discovery that helped me make sense of cricket is that the roles of batter and pitcher are basically the opposite of baseball: in cricket, the batsman stays in until he fucks up, which can be hours if he’s good; and they send a new bowler to face him every few balls.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  155. Rice Cube

    [quote name=Rice Cube]The Green Bay defense look like amateurs.[/quote]Shut me right up on that almost-goal line stand.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  161. Recalcitrant Blogger Nate

    I think the dude at Bleacher Nation has some Cubs sources, right? Here’s what he says now:

    UPDATE II: The Cubs are still in active discussions with the Padres, I’m told, but it’s pretty complicated when you’ve got this many parts involved. The Cubs’ most valuable piece is Matt Garza, but the Padres may prefer to get the prospect-equivalent of Garza, rather than the pitcher, himself. That means a third team is necessary, and the Rangers have been involved. Bringing in a third team makes completing an already “complicated” deal a real “pain” (not my words). The two/three sides will continue to discuss a deal until they reach an agreement or seem hopelessly gridlocked. These things tend to take on a life of their own, and the deal could evolve into yet another incarnation. Or, it could just wilt on the vine. With this many players involved and such high stakes, I couldn’t say a deal is more than 50/50 to get done. You’ve also got the Prince Fielder pursuit and Yu Darvish post as a backdrop for these discussions, which only complicates things further. I’m doing my best to get the most complete and reliable information I can, but, given the circumstances and the moving parts, you can understand how the best I can give you is: (1) they’re talking, (2) a trade might be completed soon, (3) or a trade might be completed in a week, and (4) or a trade might be completed never.

    then:

    UPDATE III: I’m told the biggest hold up, from the Cubs’ perspective, is making sure they get the right pitchers/pitching prospects included in the deal. While Rizzo may have been the impetus for the discussions, the Cubs don’t appear to be interested in moving Garza unless some very, very good pitchers/pitching prospects are included. That is to say, Rizzo may not necessarily be “the centerpiece” of a completed deal, such as there is a centerpiece, and such as the sides are actually able to consummate a deal (which, again, remains very much in doubt).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  163. Recalcitrant Blogger Nate

    [quote name=Suburban kid]Is this a rumor, or does he have a source?[/quote]

    no idea, although seems to be a source.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  164. Suburban kid

    Sorry, I meant that in Yellon terms.

    A-Rod being traded to the Cubs for A-Ram wasn’t a rumor, because he had a source.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  166. Suburban kid

    The hovel is looking nice these days. I’ve got a new dead cat in the doorway. Ginger. It brings out the trim of the scatter cushions.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  167. Suburban kid

    [quote name=mb21]Didn’t notice this yesterday, but RC posted an Unobstructed View: [/quote]It’s not all about you, MB.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  170. Suburban kid

    [quote name=fang2415]
    Cricket, like baseball, has more jargon than the all other sports put together, and the exceptions to rules are often more important than the rules.[/quote]This is important to remember. I was at a game in Toronto and there was a couple sitting in front of me, on a date. The woman had a strong French accent and knew nothing about the game. The guy explained in simple yet thorough terms everything that was happening in terms of pitching, batting, runs, outs, advancing around the bases, etc. But after everything he said, she would inevitably reply, “but WHY does he hit the ball with the stick?).

    I experience a similar existential disconnect whenever I try to watch cricket, or have someone explain it to me.

    We need to appreciate the obtuse nature of our sport as both part of its rich character as well as the barrier that keeps it from becoming more popular in the world at large.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  175. Rice Cube

    [quote name=ACT]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-19/kim-jong-il-north-korea-s-dear-leader-dictator-dead-at-70-yonhap-says.html[/quote]Kim Jong-Il’s greatest legacy:

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  178. Aisle424

    [quote name=Desipio]Just heard the paranoid little dictator has died. Now who’s going to camp out in the back row of the left field bleachers?[/quote]
    (dying laughing)
    (dying laughing)
    (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  182. mb21

    [quote name=GBTS]It appears it was four business days.[/quote]In sports the idea that Saturday and Sunday aren’t business days is ridiculous. The NFL plays most of their games on Sunday. It is a business day. Teams never have Saturday or Sunday off during the regular season in baseball. In sports, there are 7 business days per week.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  183. WaLi

    I’d like to thank Jesus Tebow for leading Dancing Bear Down to victory over Snyds in fantasy football this past weekend. Although he lost the game and only completed 50% of his passes with no throwing TD’s, he still knew he had to grind it out to help Dancing Bear Down win and ran for 93 yards with 2 TD. As Urlacher says “he is a good running back”

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  184. Rice Cube

    [quote name=Aisle424]I’m sorry to hear about Kim Jong Il, RC. I just assume that you knew him.[/quote]
    I suppose that joke was inedididibre.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  189. WaLi

    [quote name=Mish]Dude, the list of titles Kim Jong Il went by is almost as long as my cock.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kim_Jong-il%27s_titles%5B/quote%5Dhttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57344961/kim-jong-il-n-korean-dictator-dies-at-69/
    My favorite part:

    North Korean legend has it that Kim was born on Mount Paektu, one of Korea’s most cherished sites, in 1942, a birth heralded in the heavens by a pair of rainbows and a brilliant new star. Soviet records, however, indicate he was born in Siberia in 1941

    The whole Mount Paektu birth with double rainbows sounds a lot better (dying laughing)

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  190. Suburban kid

    My two favorite titles:

    • Dear Leader, who is a perfect incarnation of the appearance that a leader should have
    • Amazing politician

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  193. Rice Cube

    [quote name=GBTS]I thought Microfiche was what Mish called his penis in the first place.[/quote]Is that like a MicroMish?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  196. GBTS

    Let’s play a game, Bears fans.

    Quarterback A: 171 yards per game, 60% completion percentage, 4 touchdowns, 2 picks, and 16 sacks, 83 QB rating (6 games)

    Quarterback B: 153 yards per game, 50% completion percentage, 3 touchdowns, 9 picks, 19 sacks 42 QB rating (4 games)

    One of those is Donovan McNabb, who obviously is no way could have come into a Mike Martz offense this late in the season and run it effectively.

    Quarterback B is Caleb Fucking Hanie.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  197. WaLi

    [quote name=GBTS]Let’s play a game, Bears fans.

    Quarterback A: 171 yards per game, 60% completion percentage, 4 touchdowns, 2 picks, and 16 sacks, 83 QB rating (6 games)

    Quarterback B: 153 yards per game, 50% completion percentage, 3 touchdowns, 9 picks, 19 sacks 42 QB rating (4 games)

    One of those is Donovan McNabb, who obviously is no way could have come into a Mike Martz offense this late in the season and run it effectively.

    Quarterback B is Caleb Fucking Hanie.[/quote]But Caleb Fucking Hanie looked good for a few plays in the NFC Championship vs the Packers! And he knows the system (the stats don’t lie, look at those sacks)! And he is a white gritty QB Chicago fans can rally behind!

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  198. GBTS

    [quote name=WaLi]But Caleb Fucking Hanie looked good for a few plays in the NFC Championship vs the Packers‘ prevent defense, but also threw a back-breaking pick six to a defensive lineman, along with a season-ending interception, which everyone conveniently forgets when they talk about how good Caleb Fucking Hanie looked in that game.[/quote].

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  200. Aisle424

    [quote name=GBTS]Let’s play a game, Bears fans.

    Quarterback A: 171 yards per game, 60% completion percentage, 4 touchdowns, 2 picks, and 16 sacks, 83 QB rating (6 games)

    Quarterback B: 153 yards per game, 50% completion percentage, 3 touchdowns, 9 picks, 19 sacks 42 QB rating (4 games)

    One of those is Donovan McNabb, who obviously is no way could have come into a Mike Martz offense this late in the season and run it effectively.

    Quarterback B is Caleb Fucking Hanie.[/quote]
    If ever there was an argument that a team in Chicago doesn’t care about winning as long as they field a team that sells out the stadium every week, it is the Bears.

    They consistently go with the cheap option while feeding a line of bull about knowing the system, or having confidence in the young players developing, yada yada yada.

    They could have acquired a real receiver this offseason, instead they got Roy Williams.

    They could have traded a low round draft pick to make sure they acquired Orton instead of letting him go through waivers where they had about a 2% chance of acquiring him. They let him go to KC.

    They could have had McNabb, but they didn’t want to sign an extra QB if there was the slightest possibility that Hanie could succeed because they plain don’t want to spend the money.

    It happens year in and year out with that team and yet the Cubs are always the ones portrayed as the team that doesn’t care about winning. The only reason Wannstedt isn’t still the head coach over there is because fans finally stopped buying season tickets.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  201. Aisle424

    Now the window on this defense is just about closed and we’ll waste having a perfectly good QB because he has no receivers to throw to and he’ll have to put up 40 per game to have a chance at a winning record.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  202. GBTS

    I think next year is the defense’s swan song: Urlacher’s last year under contract, Tillman’s salary doubles in 2013, Briggs is perpetually seeking a trade, and there is no depth whatsoever to plug any missing holes.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  203. Aisle424

    [quote name=GBTS]I think next year is the defense’s swan song: Urlacher’s last year under contract, Tillman’s salary doubles in 2013, Briggs is perpetually seeking a trade, and there is no depth whatsoever to plug any missing holes.[/quote]
    Exactly, and they are aging. It’s not like the defense is as good as it once was. Briggs and Urlacher are still very good, but they are not game changers anymore. Next year is pretty much it for this defense since they can’t seem to draft anyone who is good for more than a season, and it would not surprise me at all if it just falls apart next year.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  206. Rice Cube

    [quote name=GBTS]Grabow —–> Dodgers[/quote][quote name=Rice Cube]Grabow —> Dodgers

    RC —> whatever[/quote]
    So is that like John Grabow putting on a Dodgers’ uniform?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  207. GBTS

    [quote name=Rice Cube]Grabow —> Dodgers

    RC —> Needs to learn to refresh the fucking comments before posting about shit[/quote]/Internet tough guy

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  211. Suburban kid

    [quote name=GBTS]I like to sing “Yu Darvish” to the tune of “Who Are You?”

    Yuuuuuuuuuuu Darrrvish. Yu Yu. Yu Yu.[/quote]Go on and tell me who are Yu?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  216. Rice Cube

    [quote name=fang2415](dying laughing)@ Wikipedia[/quote]Whoever performed that edit should get the Nobel Peace Prize.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  228. GBTS

    That dude in the blue is definitely a closet CIA spy. He gets hit, goes for a ride for about 20 yards, then executes a perfect tuck and roll. Textbook.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  237. fang2415

    [quote name=Rice Cube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJNBfBr-OGU

    From a coworker.[/quote]They may be living on a handful of rice a day, but they put on one hell of a halftime show.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  239. Rice Cube

    [quote name=Aisle424]Holy mother of DeRosa, this is scary.

    http://motherboard.vice.com/2011/12/16/dear-congress-it-s-no-longer-ok-to-not-know-how-the-internet-works%5B/quote%5D

    But for some committee members, the issue did not stop at mere ignorance. Rather, it seemed there was in many cases an outright refusal to understand what is undoubtedly a complex issue dealing with highly-sensitive technologies.

    It sounds like Congress was infiltrated by an even more dangerous version of Joe Morgan.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  240. Aisle424

    [quote name=Rice Cube]It sounds like Congress was infiltrated by an even more dangerous version of Joe Morgan.[/quote]
    That’s exactly what it sounds like. Joe Morgan is running America. Awesome.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  241. GBTS

    [quote name=Aisle424]That’s exactly what it sounds like. Joe Morgan is running America. Awesome.[/quote]That’s not exactly a new phenomenon.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  242. Aisle424

    [quote name=GBTS]That’s not exactly a new phenomenon.[/quote]
    Yeah, but I never realized how perfect that analogy is.

    The internet is probably almost as important to the world economy and social structure as anything ever has been, and these people are openly admitting they don’t know anything about it, and they are perfectly fine with that.

    While we know they don’t understand much about the economy or foreign policy or anything else, they at least have to pretend they do or they get drilled on national television for being idiots. But it’s cool to not have the foggiest damn clue about a tool that pervades almost every aspect of life as we know it. That scares the hell out of me.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  243. Mish

    The Fatal Conceit of politicians – they think they can regulate X without any specific knowledge or understanding of what they are about to regulate.

    /political talk

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  244. mb21

    [quote name=Aisle424]That’s exactly what it sounds like. Joe Morgan is running America. Awesome.[/quote](dying laughing) we need a Joe Morgan for President image.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  245. WenningtonsGorillaCock

    Jon Bon Jovi ——–> deceased

    er, maybe not. The article I was sent appears about as reliable as a Paul Sullivan rumor

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  249. Aisle424

    [quote name=WenningtonsGorillaCock]Jon Bon Jovi ——–> deceased

    er, maybe not. The article I was sent appears about as reliable as a Paul Sullivan rumor[/quote]
    If it didn’t come from a guy in a purple shirt, GTFO!

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  254. Rice Cube

    [quote name=GBTS]To be fair, he’s probably halfway there.[/quote]I was going to make an “It could go either way” joke with “Wanted: Dead or Alive” but I think this one wins the internets.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  255. Aisle424

    [quote name=Suburban kid]GBTS has outed himself as a 70s/80s stadium rock nerd today. I did not see that coming..[/quote]
    Bon Jovi is a recent band I enjoyed.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  256. Berselius

    [quote name=Suburban kid]GBTS has outed himself as a 70s/80s stadium rock nerd today. I did not see that coming..[/quote]We salute you, GBTS

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment