SB Nation User Blog: EJThunder

ATTN: Cub Fans That Don't "Care"....

EJThunder — Wed, 06 May 2009 07:56:14 -0000

ATTN: Cub Fans That Don't "Care"....

You DO care.... why else would you be here?

This article caught my eye and I thought it was pretty good and pertained to some that were/are here. Thought I'd share it...

ESPN: Wrigley Rooftops Hit By Economy

EJThunder — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:41:57 -0000

ESPN: Wrigley Rooftops Hit By Economy

I read this article on ESPN and found it to be pretty interesting. I didn't really know that much about the rooftops prior to reading it.

Looks like they'll become a bit more affordable....

Has anyone ever had the luxury of being at Skybox on Sheffield or any other rooftop for a Cubs game?

If so, share.

A New Steroid Policy -- By BCB

EJThunder — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:28:14 -0000

Back in 2005, Bud Selig had introduced a new steroid policy that was thought to have been thee solution. Turns out, it still doesn't scare some players enough.

Some players seem more worried about having bad statistics and disappointing their franchise, fan base, and MLB. They don't seem to be worried about MLB's image, as a whole.

As a refresher, Bud Selig's current steroid policy (won't even get into amphetamines) that was ratified by owners and players in 2005 is as follows:

Steroid Penalties

• First positive test -- 50-game suspension, up from 10 days.

• Second positive test -- 100-game suspension, up from 30 days.

• Third positive test -- Lifetime ban, with player having right to apply for reinstatement after two years and an arbitrator being able to review reinstatement decision. Under the previous agreement, the earliest a player could be suspended for life was for a fifth positive test.

• In addition, a conviction for possession carries a 60-to-80 game penalty, while a second offense carries a 120-game to one-year penalty. A third offense nets the offender a lifetime ban. If a player is convicted for distribution, he will be suspended 80-to-100 games, while a second offense equals a lifetime ban.

Source: 2005 ESPN Article

In light of Alex Rodriguez's admission, even though he supposedly stopped in '03, do you feel as if this policy needs to be ammended?

I feel like this policy won't hold up. It's not scary enough. Players are still going to try to find ways around being caught. I can say with a good deal of confidence that there are still many players, in the minors and majors, that are still succeeding at beating the system.

There was some discussion in another thread as to what changes should be made to the current policy. Cubbie-Tim and a few others came up with ways to amend or change the it.

They are as follows:

(Almost) Zero-Tolerance Policy:

• Any player found to have taken steroids (Prior to the 2008 Season) will not be punished should their name arise through past tests, reports, etc. (Alex Rodriguez, 104 unnamed players, etc.)

• First Offense: Any player that tests positive after October 2008, will be suspended for 3-years and will be forced to relinquish the money to be made in the remaining year(s) of the contract

What about lifetime banishment, only after first offense?

• Second Offense: Lifetime banishment, name, stats, records, etc. expelled from Major League Baseball

• Also (from Cubbie-Tim): Any team with a player who fails a test cannot replace the player on the roster that season

What do you think? Sure, it might not be ideal and might have trouble being ratified by both the Players Union and Owners, but I feel like the current policy doesn't cut it.

Do you agree that the MLB needs to solidify their stance on PED's and construct a new policy?

If you were put in charge of coming up with a new steroid policy for Major League Baseball what would it be? Would you be harsher? More lenient?

-------

If you're sick of steroid talk, walk right on by. I thought this would be a good thing to discuss.

Go at it, if you wish.

Poll

Bud Selig's current steroid policy: Does it need to be changed?

Yes, it still doesn't send a strong enough message to players

29 votes

No, Bud's current policy works efficiently enough

12 votes

41 votes | Poll has closed

Alex Rodriguez Comes Clean

EJThunder — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:43:10 -0000

ESPN (Video Inside)

A-Rod has admitted that the allegations made against him by SI are truthful.

Tidbits:

"When I arrived in Texas in 2001, I felt an enormous amount of pressure. I needed to perform, and perform at a high level every day," Rodriguez told ESPN's Peter Gammons in an interview in Miami Beach, Fla. "Back then, [baseball] was a different culture. It was very loose. I was young, I was stupid, I was naïve. I wanted to prove to everyone I was worth being one of the greatest players of all time.

He's gained some respect back... but man, what a blow.

It's becoming more and more clear that steroids were a lot more prevalent than what everyone first thought.

"The more honest we can all be, the quicker we can get baseball [back] to where it needs to be," he said.

Rich Hill is on his way out

EJThunder — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:35:05 -0000

Rich Hill is on his way out

Looks like it's the end of the line for Rich. We knew it and I bid him farewell and good luck.

I hope he does good in the AL and is a second coming of Cliff Lee (not likely). I'd be sick to my stomach but still.

Slightly OT: Pujols -- I want Manny Ramirez

EJThunder — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:51:53 -0000

Here's an article I stumbled across on ESPN. Take a gander..... It probably doesn't mean squat, but still.

Couple snippets:

"I speak with Manny every three days and he tells me, 'Man, no one wants to sign me,'" Pujols said Thursday during a news conference. "I'm not an agent or general manager, but I can't understand how Manny has not signed."

Right, Albert. The money Manny wants now is nothing compared to what you'll want when you hit the open market.

Pujols passed along Ramirez's telephone number to St. Louis manager Tony La Russa.

"Maybe St. Louis doesn't have the money to sign him, but he could give them a discount because St. Louis is a great city that supports its players," Pujols said.

Manny give St. Louis a discount?

That's laughable.... or is it?

I was about to post this as a fanshot but I thought I would get everyone else's input on the subject. I'm kind of curious.

I figured maybe change it up and not talk about Brian Roberts, Jake Peavy, etc.

Let's say Manny does sign with St. Louis.... how does that affect the Cubs? Would St. Louis give us more trouble if they ended up landing him? And do you see Manny taking a "discount" to be Pujols's teammate and to play there?

Just wanted to get people's ideas of where they think Manny will sign since teams have shown that they don't believe in throwing him the money he thinks he deserves.

Poll

Opening Day: Where is Manny Ramirez?

Los Angeles Dodgers

100 votes

New York Mets

9 votes

San Francisco Giants

11 votes

Chicago Cubs (HA!)

26 votes

At home watching everyone having fun without him.

15 votes

Other

9 votes

170 votes | Poll has closed

Brother: Mark McGwire Used Steroids

EJThunder — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:06:06 -0000

Brother: Mark McGwire Used Steroids

I saw this on ESPN and I thought it was pretty interesting.

Mark McGwire's estranged brother, Jay, is pulling a 'Jose Canseco' and is in the process of getting a book deal to unveil Mark's steroid-using ways.

The truth may finally be coming out with Big Mac, even though we already had a big hunch.

[Should we / how do we] acquire Jake Peavy?

EJThunder — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:33:54 -0000

Alright, I know there's been some talk about this already but I've been thinking about this lately everytime I hop over to mlbtraderumors and see articles like this.

So the big question is: is it worth it?

Should we invest in a pitcher like this to solidify our pitching staff?

Do we have enough to entice the Padres?

Should we be confident that the back of our rotation will produce like last season?

A user on mlbtraderumors suggested that the Cubs trade Mike Fontenot, Jose Ceda, Felix Pie and Donnie Veal.

If the Padres would make this trade I would jump on it in a heartbeat if I were Hendry. Seems like a good deal for us...... which probably means that it isn't going to be enough.

It could take 1 or 2 more players/prospects which means we would possibly throw in Josh Vitters, Sean Marshall, Jeff Samardzija.

Would it be worth it to give up, say, 4 or 5 players

For a former Cy Young winner a couple years removed, I am leaning toward yes.

Thoughts?

Poll

Should the Cubs pursue Jake Peavy?

No, just re-sign Dempster and address other needs (LF Power??).

34 votes

Yes, this would give the Cubs, arguably, one of the best rotations in the Majors.

64 votes

No, we don't have as much to offer compared to others. We'd have to give up too much.

29 votes

Indifferent.

4 votes

131 votes | Poll has closed

Slighty OT: Bad Times To Be a Mariner

EJThunder — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:18:55 -0000

There was an article on ESPN this morning I found pretty interesting.

Apparently Ichiro, one of the best players and most hard-working players on the team, isn't very well liked.

Sometime during the season (around June 19), a teammate for which they don't know, said that they wanted to "knock Ichiro out."

Some of the Mariner teammates reportedly think that Ichiro is cocky and only cares about his own stats.

I don't really know what to think of that Mariner locker room but you sure as hell don't act like a coward behind a sports writer.

On the other side, if Ichiro is as self-centered as he is reported as being it should be expected.

Our "boy", Jim Riggleman, had a great quote about the situation. "When the ship is sinking, the rats are the first ones off. They're the ones scavenging everything on the ship when it's going good, but when it's sinking they're the first ones off."

Whew! Talk about good team chemistry! I'm really glad the Cubs' clubhouse is the polar opposite of this.

Kind of reminds me of the anonymous Sammy Sosa boom box smasher.

Extra-Innings Thread: Cubs vs. Brewers, Thursday 9/18, 1:20 CT

EJThunder — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:43:51 -0000

Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!Walk-off, please!