westsider

Maddon, Showalter and Johnson ... it would be hard to top those three from the current crop.

He led the Academy to the Tennessee 1A Championship a year ago, good hire by Christian County.

UK isn't saying they won't play them. They are saying we aren't agreeing to a 4 year deal. They are saying we'll play you in your home state the next two years in a huge stadium that more prepares UK for Regional and Final Four type games. Didn't UK kind of repay that loss at IU by blowing them out in the game that mattered?

As for the rematch ... was it a blowout? A 12-point spread hardly backs up that claim, and my recollection of the game is that it was anything but that. And that was not long after Indiana lost a starter to a knee injury.

My, my, some of you guys have some warped memories ...

I haven't read all 8 pages of this thread, so this may have been brough up, but you do realize that Bob Knigh held the same position (no home/home) as UK is holding now?

Coach Cal wants large neutral sites for this year, I'm sure he will 3-4 years from now too. If IU wants to play Kentucky, they should just suck it up and take the two games at Lucas Oil.

They are offering three games in the state of Indiana. I do not think that Indiana fans would look at two games at Freedom Hall , one at Rupp and ons at Assembly Hall as a perfect comprise.

Why is Indiana dead set on having this as a home game? If they want the series played UK is willing to play it in Indiana the next two years. If that doesn't work for IU who will they get as good as UK willing to play them twice in a row in their state? UK holds the power hand here while IU whines and moans in public about it.

Reports are that Kentucky, despite being ranked in the national top 10 for much of the year, wasn't selected as one of the 16 schools to host an NCAA tournament regional. Kentucky's ballpark is apparently cited as one of the factors.

Hard to believe.

His home splits are better than his road splits. Someone better tell him it's easier to hit on the road.

FWIW, I wouldn't give up Chapman for Bruce either.

His stats are similar to Bruce's. I'm not saying the guys not good and won't get better but Chapman hasn't given up a run all season long.

Stanton's OPS is roughly 100 points higher than those of Bruce at the same age ... again, in a tougher hitting environment.

He isn't Bruce. He's potentially much, much better than Bruce.

How can you do that? Only possible with the ability of hindsight and a crystal ball. The Angels paid for what they thought he would do based on his past performance. Isn't that why all professional contracts are based upon? Sounds like you would support a pay for performance type of contract.

Never pay for what they did, pay for what they will do.

Stanton won't hit the free agent market until 2017 and is making pennies on the dollar compared to Chapman. I'll pass on a guy with a. 260 average and a 3:1 k/bb ratio.

One of my good friend brought this up in a recent discussion......Obviously this would never happen in real life...Would you now trade Aroldis Chapman for Giancarlo Stanton?...His Argument the Fish would love the Cuban in the rotation or closing and the Reds would love Stanton's bat in LF and the cleanup spot for years to come...

The Marlins won't take the call.

Pujols was already in decline when he signed with the Angels, who handed out what may end up being the worst contract of all time. Pujols will have some decent years in Anaheim, but he'll never come close to returning value on that deal.

But instead of just making a blanket statement of the source isn't credible, discredit the info. TMZ was a joke until they started actually breaking stories. Now their still some what of a joke but most are not too quick to just write them off when they report something.

If this story gets reported on a reputable site, I'll pay attention.

It won't be this season so I guess we'll have to see if he's healthy enough for a winter ball stretch out.

I know it happens from time to time, but I'm not sure it is wise to take a short-reliever and stretch him out during the regular season. I would rather see a team do that in the offseason, when the pitcher has time to refine his throwing program and make preparations for a different role.

Besides, Chapman has been so dominant in the pen that I would hate to mess with success at this moment. Really, the Reds' rotation doesn't have any big-times holes right now, unless something is wrong with Leake.

Because you only do it if it is a right leaning site. Plus you never add anything to back up your position nor do you actually make an attempt to discredit the info given. Attacking the source doesn't make the information wrong.

There are actually few sites I've said that about on here ... unfortunately, it seems, the same ones (NewsMax and NewsBusters, most frequently) get cited here a lot. Neither of them has established much in the way of credibility.

Heck, how many "left-wing" sites get linked here? Very few. I don't even read them.

It's okay. I take everything WS says with a shot of penicillin.

Doesn't matter. westsider has that post on speed dial.

Infowars ... such a credible source.

Denial can be comforting.

 

Care to point out what is inaccurate?

No one here is in denial. Most of us don't know whether to laugh or cry at some of your ridiculousness.

Legally, that is not established. The only SCOTUS rulings and laws refer to parents (plural). It is a nice rationalization, but it is not backed up by anything legal.

 

If by chance he were born in Kenya. And I do not believe that the case at all. He would not have acquired US citizenship at birth. To do so under the law at the time a mother had to have lived in the US for 5 years after the age of 14. Stanley Ann Dunham Obama was only 18 at the time of the birth.

 

Parents do not need to be 'natural born citizens' for their children to be 'natural born citizens'. Parents must be 'citizens' at the time of their child's birth. The status of 'natural born' is not one conveyed from parent to child automatically. The supreme court in Minor v. Happerset specifically defined 'natural born citizen' in the actual ruling.

 

To complicate matters. Obama could claim rights to British citizenship today if he wanted. His father, a British citizen in 1961, bestowed that right. And unless British form RN is submitted and he formally and specifically renounces this right he can claim British citizenship - today, tomorrow or in the future. Seems an odd capability for a natural born citizen.

Right you are. Same non district, same district, class, everything. I've always found it amusing how Mercer caught all the crap for playing in the 'wrong' class, when Harlan County's situation was identical.