Here's the link: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/justice/baseball/4900826.html To be fair to Dick, the whole of the article doesn't put quite the negative spin on Biggio as the radio mediots made it sound like. But it's still a cowardly comment. Either site your source, tell the whole story, or leave it out. Innuendo is for teeny-boppers.
You can win...but you'll need a ridiculously talented pitching staff, which the Astros had. In previous years, having Everett, Ausmus, Pitcher at the end of the lineup was absolutely brutal. You need to have very solid pitching to overcome that.
It could be argued that part of the reason they had solid pitching was the defense of Everett and Ausmus.
True...but when you have Roy O, Clemens, and Pettite as your 1,2,3...those guys can take care of themselves. They dont need Everett to make them look better because they were already amongst the best.
Lamb has been batting in the 6 hole. The defense has been shaky. If Lance, the top of the lineup (Bidge or Burke after 3,000), and Luke get going, then I agree it would make sense to put Everett back in. But until then, I think we should take the risk.
What I found funny was this part: "Craig Biggio is going to see the handwriting on the wall for 2008, and he's not going to like it. He's going to think the Astros pulled the plug on him prematurely. Meanwhile, the Astros are going to be unhappy that he refuses to go quietly." Come on now, how does he know that Biggio wants to play in 2008? Give me a break. I think Biggio knows this is his last year. Also, I just hate how he writes. It's like he's writing a high school essay and has to fill in a bunch of paragraphs of bs to make it long enough.
I might be wrong, but I think Biggio has talked about the possibility of continuing to play before. I think that was actually one of Justice's better articles - it basically went through the issues that most superstars and teams face towards the end of the players' careers. Bagwell went through this same thing with the team, basically, where the team wanted him to retire but he insisted on trying to play.
NL Average: #7 .316 #8 .309 Houston Astros: #7 .299 #8 .356 Bottom of the order wasn't, isn't and won't be the problem.
happen to catch this morning's chronicle? hmmmmm.... timing seems a little... fortuitous, no? how improbable is it that biggio got wind of justice's comment, went to ortiz and pitched a “hey, i want you to do a story on me working with the kids…” i say, "not that improbable..." and it underscores why i don’t really care much for craig biggio; admire him as a player, sure, but…
As improbable as it is probable. Actually, "possible" or "feasible" are much better terms than "probable". At any rate, this is the same type of wild-assed speculation you've repeatedly hammered others for. Enjoy your license.
baby jesus, you have a hard time letting things go. i hope you're not married... what was that? like, four months ago? seriously, msn - you've made reference to this twice in the last few days. it's long-past time for you to move on... because, as before, i'm merely drawing a reasonable conclusion from - and here's the important part - two known variables: a writer took a shot at craig biggio. fact. and two days later, an article about craig biggio that openly refutes that claim is published. fact. it very well could be a coincidence. but i find that hard to believe, especially given that the chronicle and its lazy reporters are prominently involved.
You have a hard time admitting your double-standard. Others have referenced it too, and I didn't pipe in at those times. We can all have opinions, Ric. Mine is that you hold everyone to one standard and yourself to another. Fact: you just made bat**** up about Craig Biggio.
and i've never implied otherwise, msn. never. not once. nowhere did i register my theory as "fact." i was merely drawing a reasonable conclusion from two factual, related events. it's not like i jumped on here and randomly said, "you know, i bet biggio manipulates weak-minded drools likes JDO...." with no shred of evidence to suggest such a thing. THAT would be irresponsible.
Neither did I. Funny, I didn't do that, either. "I think we might risk" were the words I used. Double. Standard.
In fact, others were jumping in after your sanctimonious speech saying that was a perfectly reasonable scenario. The thing is, the only difference between that and all the **** you make up is you disagreed with mine. That's the only difference.
i can't believe you're sucking me back into this... maybe you can pull up the page, as it seems likely you have it bookmarked: i was initially responding to someone else who did NOT put any conditions in their post; you then butted in, made it all about you, and have been grinding your privates into this grudge ever since... really, seriously, msn: that took place BEFORE moulds' release, which was in february. FEBRUARY!! and here you are bringing it up in freaking june...
Thanks for the "grinding the privates" reference. Classy. I don't have it bookmarked, but your response was directly at me. Every time I catch you "making **** up" it reminds me of your disdain for it when anyone else does so. I'm not the only one who comments about it, either.
