CP0861
-
Posts
459 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by CP0861
-
-
Going back even further, which one of you here was bs630 on the old ESPN board?? Frobby?
I've always been curious.
-
10 hours ago, Frobby said:
I do not think doctors recommend a colonoscopy every 2-3 years unless they perform one and find polyps. If there are no polyps, it’s a five year gap before the next one.
This is correct.
My advice, if you are 45 or over - get a colonoscopy done. If you have to, tell your doctor you've been bleeding.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, baltfan said:
Not that I know the circumstances of Minor not catching his colon cancer, but most colon cancers can be caught with vigilance. If you have anything that seems like a weird change in your bowel movements, frequent diarrhea or constipation, ongoing stomach discomfort, unexplained weight loss, odd weakness or tiredness, or especially blood in your stool--get it checked out. You know your body. You know how it normally works. Don't assume anything.
"most colon cancers can be caught with vigilance"
If you're over 50 and have good insurance, then maybe. I don't think insurance covers colonoscopy procedures for preventative purposes until you're 50.....although I think that age may be trending down to 45.
I just had a 2cm polyp removed....my doctor said it absolutely would have become cancerous at some point. I'm 43. The only reason I was even able to have the colonoscopy done was because I embellished some symptoms a bit and I had a bad bout of colitis when I was younger, so I had some "history".
I had a friend die last year from it, she was 46. I know another guy who died recently in his mid-40s from it....and I know another guy who has it now who is only about 41ish.
Colon cancer is a mfer. By the time you have symptoms and go to the doctor, it's probably too late.
-
What's Hunter Harvey's trade value right now?!
-
14 hours ago, 24fps said:
I've read a couple of Matthew Postins' posts over the last week or so, and while he has a vague, basic understanding of the O's, it's pretty clear that he's posting whether or not he has anything that qualifies as news. The internet hustle - ain't it grand?
Is it just me, or has this offseason been RIDICULOUS with nothing but made up "what if" articles with no factual basis whatsoever?? It keeps getting worse and worse....it's nuts. Basically none of these articles are credible.
That article's headline is "Baltimore Orioles Linked to Twins Starter". And I guess they're linked because of an Athletic article?! That counts as "linked"???
Then it says the "Orioles could find help.....Maeda is not a pitcher the Orioles have been linked to this offseason. But he may be one worth investigating."
Garbage.
-
34 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:
Because they want to improve their offense and if this is the best they can do, they may prefer the bat since they have so many arms.
I guess that's where the disconnect is. I think that if they trade him, they can do better than 1 year of Santander.
If nothing else, instead of trading and paying for a single year of Santander, why not just hold onto Bieber in hopes of trading him at the 2024 deadline? Or holding him for a QO pick?
Wouldn't assuming the risk (of holding him) be a no-brainer considering they'd be left with nothing in 2025 if they traded for Santander??
-
2 hours ago, Frobby said:
Because their offense is bad and their pitching is pretty good?
Obviously. But is Santander the difference maker for Cleveland in 2024?!
So Santander helps their offense for 1 year. Then what? He'll be gone and they'll have nothing to show for either Bieber or Santander.
Santander as part of a package could make sense, but as a 1 for 1, why trade for a single season of a 1 dimensional player who will cost comparable money?
-
Why on earth would Cleveland trade 1 year of Bieber for 1 year of Santander?
It would make NO sense for Cleveland. Zip. Zero. Nada.
-
27 minutes ago, RZNJ said:
If you don’t think he’s good why would you want him for more years? Just say you don’t want him at all.
You've twisted my words. Two different times now.
I never said I "might be interested if he had 3 or 4 years".....I never said that I "want him for more years".....and I never said I "don't think he's good."
He could certainly be good. He's been good before. I just don't like some of his statistical flags and I don't like the idea of trading 2 top prospects for a question mark with a short window of control. It's not rocket science to understand. The same point about him only having 2 years of control was made or mentioned multiple times in the other Cease thread.
Anytime you reply to someone with something like "You are basically saying", you should probably stop and re-read what was literally written/said and reply to that versus your twisted version. Everything I wrote was pretty straight forward. There was no need for an alternative interpretation. Lol. I wasn't "basically saying" any of what you claimed that I was.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, RZNJ said:
I find your argument a bit funny. You are basically saying he’s not that good but you might be interested if he had 3 or 4 years of team control instead of 2.
More time under control equals more value. I don't love the guy, but that's still common sense. How is that funny?
-
11 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:
Appreciate that.
As for Cease, the walks do get frustrating at times and that is part of the reason he has averaged ~5.4 innings per start over the past three seasons. And while I’d love to see him average closer to six (beyond that isn’t realistic given his high K rate), he does make up for that shortfall by being incredibly durable. He’s made 97 starts over the past three years and isn’t a guy I’d expect to wear down come October.
It's probably easier to make 97 starts in 3 years when you walk 4 batters a game and only pitch 5 full innings.
I don't understand the infatuation with him. If he had another year or two of control, then that's a little better, but judging by his career numbers vs AL East teams, he's a 4.50 era guy in this division.
His 2022 numbers were partially fueled by feasting on AL central teams (40% of his starts) before the schedule change.
From what I've read, his fb (and slider) velocity dropped a full mph in 2023 and his slider lost effectiveness and wasn't the same as 2022.
I don't want to give up 2 top prospects for a 4.5 era guy with only 2 remaining years of control and his best 2 pitches showing decline.
-
Arenado's streak was busted....
-
I don't see how Johnson can be in any of Elias' plans over the next 2 seasons. There are too many variables involved for him to be part of any plan. Hopefully, he'll be a bonus piece some day, but he has a long way to go to contribute as a starter.
He's thrown a total of 130 innings in the last 3 years combined (4 counting 2020), and almost all of them were back in low A in 2021. He's also newer to pitching and has never built any innings....and that was BEFORE TJ surgery. He threw 10 innings last year and 27 the year before. He absolutely will not be a factor in 2024.
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, NCRaven said:
I think Elias is capable of thinking long and short-term at the same time. You can subtract and add players at the same time to enhance both outcomes. And, the level of Mountcastle dismissiveness on this board continues to amaze me.
Are they dismissive? Or realistic?
Is it simply the ability to hit 20+ home runs that some fans seem infatuated with? Is that the "hard to replace" part?
He's another streaky .250 hitter with some pop. And yes, I know he hit .270 last year (only because of his July/August tear), but offensively he's still absolutely mediocre. In their positions, they're absolutely replaceable. If you can get anything of need in return for the guys closest to FA, you move them.
Do you want Mountcastle extended? What would you pay him?
In my perfect world, Mountcastle and Santander both get traded.
-
1
-
-
I feel like a lot of people are overvaluing Santander. I'm going to call it the Mancini effect, lol. He's familiar to us all, but he's just not as good as some of you make him out to be.
Earlier in this thread, he was mentioned as a 30/100 guy, which he's literally never done.
He was also mentioned in this thread as a MOO #3/#4 playoff hitter. Which he was for the Orioles this postseason, but only out of necessity with a young roster....and they got bounced in the 1st round. But, he's NOT that guy.
Keep it simple folks, he's only under contract for one more year, he's pushing 30 and he's about to get expensive. He's also a streaky hitter with a whopping .248 career BA. Yet he has some value, so you do whatever you can do to trade him/package him and get something back. They can replace 20something home runs and a .250 BA.
The Orioles have 14 younger oufielders with higher ceilings. You can't keep everyone. There is an OF surplus and other areas of need. It's very simple.
-
1
-
-
Holliday because I think he's the best hitter and overall player in the group.
Now as to whether or not he's on OD roster, I'm sure I don't know.
-
My ALCS refund just posted as "pending" on my credit card statement.
My wildcard game was refunded 10/6.
-
10 minutes ago, ThomasTomasz said:
That nothing is currently known yet is weird. I mean, you can go back to MLBTR years later and see the rumors for Erik Bedard. Dodgers offered Kershaw and Kemp, Reds offered Votto and our choice of Bailey/Cueto.
You figure that something would’ve leaked out by now of who they were potentially targeting.
My guess is with all the instant news via social media, teams and GMs are more tight lipped than ever. Elias very much seems like that strategic cloak and dagger type also.
-
20 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Sigh...
But what's an overpay?
If Elias says it's an overpay does that make it an overpay?
The other side probably didn't think it was an overpay.
Don't sigh. I should be sighing. I basically already answered that - in the post that you quoted.
"With what's been built so far, I trust the judgement on trades that weren't made."
So yes, judging by the rebuild and his tenure thus far, I trust Elias' judgement in all things roster related - including trade values. He's responsible for gathering and assembling the resources that would be traded, so who would be better at evaluating their value?
Of course the other side probably didn't think it was an overpay. They're literally trying to get as much as humanly possible for whoever they're trading. If you're the opposing GM and you're trying to trade a player to a GM desperate to make a playoff push, there's no such thing as an overpay!
-
9 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
But at the end of the day it is about what they actually accomplish not what they try and fail to do.
It depends. If they failed to overpay (just to accomplish a trade), I'm fine with that. At least for now.
-
32 minutes ago, RVAOsFan said:
I saw an interesting quote from Elias where he mentioned that they tried trading for guys with significant Contracts. Would love to know what deals he was working at the deadline that fell through. I think he was all in on Verlander until the Astros swooped in.
This is the thing that kills me about the Debbie downers that whine that they won't spend money and never get anyone.
NONE of us know who or what they tried to pull off. With what's been built so far, I trust the judgement on trades that weren't made.
But yeah, I agree.....I'd looooove to know what fell through.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, accinfo said:
I don’t object to the point that you can question whether Baker should have been used. It is the way it was said and calling everyone a moron for not agreeing with him. It is not entertaining to me. I Like Ken and Tim but he does sometimes bring them down to his level. He just seems like a nasty SOB to me. He masks opinion’s as facts.
I get it and completely agree. I listened to (mostly sports) talk radio daily for probably 20 years. The Junkies (on 99.1 and 105.7), Don and Mike, Stern, Jim Rome, Tony Bruno, all the 105.7 guys.
There's more ego on most shows than there is anything else. At some point, I just got tired of the smartass attitudes and huge egos, and went back to listening to music. A lot of the 105.7 guys got old to me also, as did constantly taking the same calls from the same complainers (is Bob from Parkville still kicking?!)....the only thing a lot of those talk show guys are good at is kissing ass and name dropping (Steve Davis was the worst).
Now, I read stuff online and check stats daily. The talk shows stir opinion more than they offer decent analysis anyway.
-
On 10/10/2023 at 6:14 PM, accinfo said:
In my mature years I try not to get too upset about takes on talk shows or posts on a message board but La Canfora just was a pure horses rear end today on the radio. Saying Hyde should be fired for putting Bryan Baker in. It was much more than just that statement but his whole ranting with his know it all attitude about everything. His opinion is fact and if someone disagrees you are a moron. I am going back to listening to music in the afternoon.
That's just the way things are now. A lot of sports guys rant and rave and compete to see who can be the biggest smartass. Social media exponentially makes this worse.
If they rant and rave with loud personalities, they're hoping to start arguments....they want people to talk, share, tweet, post on message boards (like we are now) because we're talking about them and spreading their name. The more they can draw attention to themselves and spread their name, the more marketable they are to land bigger, better, higher paying gigs. Like SA Smith....or Howard Stern. Any attention is good attention.
With that being said, I can't disagree with his point.
I don't know why he was on the roster, let alone brought into a remotely crucial situation.
-
I don't remember the wording, but when I purchased mine, I think I remember reading it could take "weeks" for a refund.
With that being said, like someone else mentioned, I got my WC ticket money back on 10/6 or 10/7. So hopefully we'll see it soon, but I wouldn't count on it.
Favorite Netflix Originals
in TV Show Talk and Reviews
Posted · Edited by CP0861
Ozark is amazing. Top 10 all time show for me.
Longmire is very underrated. It's not an "original" but they bought it out from A&E and put on the last several seasons. It's not as deep as something like Ozark and the acting is probably average at best (aside from Walt, who I thought was incredible). Also, it's not Netflix, but if you like Longmire, you MUST watch Justified on Hulu. The reboot kinda sucked, but the original series is excellent. They both remind me of 1980's shows where the plots were more basic with a different "whodunnit" each episode as well as an underlying plot line that runs the entire season. Think Murder She Wrote meets Walker, Texas Ranger.
Stranger Things of course.
And, I recently watched The Umbrella Academy and although it's definitely not my usual style of show (I'm typically not much on sci-fi, unless it's very well done, ie Stranger Things), it completely sucked me in. I like "different" shows and it's definitely that. It's kinda like if X-Men and Quantum Leap had a baby. Very very well directed and has a killer soundtrack.