estan ganando los marlins

Bacardi Park or Bacardi Field, I think, takes the cake. Maybe Bacardi Stadium, but I favor Bacardi Park. Burger King won't be too bad because I like their logo and it would look nice on the stadium even though its colors don't match the Marlins' (even though Bacardi or Publix doesn't either). But just think about how bad ass it would be if our new stadium is named Bacardi. The Bacardi family has a long history in Miami. It is a Cuban family and Cubans love baseball. It is so ideal, and not to mention, nothing says Miami more than Bacardi (can anyone say "Bartender, can I have a rum and coke" at the Bacardi bar in the new Marlins stadium watching Hanley CRIZUSH one?)

:wave

Yes, I am clear about how clear that is (no pun intended). However LASIK allows you to reach a plateau that EVERYONE can reach; a plateau that has been reached naturally by human being without LASIK. Steroids provide you with strength that CANNOT be reached naturally. And it's a given that these players work out. I would be surprised to see someone taking steroids and not working out. Why do people take steroids? Because when they work out they will get bigger and stronger than if they would work out without steroids. Many more people have 20/15 vision naturally then Ryan Howard's strength naturally. Not to mention, gaining 20-30 pounds of muscle for power is much more drastic than CORRECTING your vision. Because that is what LASIK does; correct. Steroids don't correct anything. Also, LASIK can only be done to DETERIORATED eyes. Steroids are done when people who reach their strength plateau want to get ABNORMALLY stronger. You ARE NOT seeing ABNORMALLY better when you get LASIK. You ARE getting ABNORMALLY stronger when you use steroids (given you work out, because, again, you only use steroids when you work out). If Fernando Vina didn't take steroids he would have never played. Mark Hendrickson was fully capable of playing if he put on glasses, contacts, or if he never got LASIK. And the argument that someone could get as strong without taking steroids as they can with taking steroids is so dumb. You can tell if someone has taken steroids by just looking at them. Also, LASIK does not alter the way your eyes work so much that it causes massive amounts of stress and causes them to shut down. Your muscles develop so fast with steroids that your muscles literally weigh down on your bones and causes them to break. And your muscles and body end up shutting down.

So, Fernando Vina and Alex Sanchez were getting inhumanly strong then? Some players are stronger than others and some have better eyesight, that's a natural advantage... but when player A uses unnatural means to acquire/neutralize player B's natural advantage then it is paramount to cheating. It IS cheating. Anyone who takes steroids gets inhumanely strong. That is what steroids do. LASIK does not allow you to see inhumanely clear. It is possible for someone without LASIK to see as clear as someone with LASIK. There is no way someone without steroids could be as powerful as someone who has taken steroids. Physically impossible. And steroids does not allow you to acquire/naturalize any other player's advantage. It allows you to completely surpass any natural plateau of strength. LASIK just allows you to reach that plateau.

I think it's dumb to say that LASIK is comparable to steroids because it isn't natural. Come on! Does that mean Tommy John surgery shouldn't be allowed. Is Dwyane Wade a cheater because he got shoulder and knee surgery. Am I a cheater for getting 2 knee surgeries? LASIK is a medical procedure. Without medical procedures I would promise that the majority of players today would not be playing. That's absurd! What, are you going to tell those players. "Sorry, you had to have surgery, now you are cheating and are banned from baseball."? Come on now. If you don't care to read the rationale and logic I presented on why it ISN'T comparable to reparable surgery... then don't post... kthxbai... However, I'll sum it up for you... injured athletes get surgeries to return back to 100%... LASIK provides athletes with GREATER THAN perfect eyesight... in the context in which we're speaking... THERE IS A DIFFERENCE :thumbup Greater than perfect? There are people that don't need LASIK because they already have the vision they would have if they got LASIK. Not to mention, sunglasses allows you to have "not normal" protection you wouldn't otherwise have naturally to see the ball in the sun. Are you suggesting we make sunglasses illegal? You're argument regarding LASIK is moot. P.S. Regardless of whether I read the rationale and logic you present or not, I SHALL post. Trust me, it is not appreciated when you tell people what to do. My problem is not with people such as Hendrickson bringing their vision back to par, my problem is with people using this operation PURELY for competitive advantage. Therefore my argument is not moot. Not everyone used steroids for competitive advantage, not everyone uses LASIK, but it is used for such means. Sunglasses aren't within this realm because they don't physically doctor the athletes, or their tools. They are extra-physical utensils. My problem with you not reading my post is that you make it seem like I am uninformed and ignorant of the topic at hand... yes, LASIK is absolutely outstanding, for those who need it, but when people with 20/20 start getting it done, then there is a problem. Oh, and yes... legally, 20/20 is deemed "perfect" eyesight. Anything beyond that is considered like... as my optometrist told me "Pilot's eyes" Yes, but some people are born with so called "Pilot's eyes." So it is not like getting LASIK allows you to get an enormous competitive advantage. Steroids allows you to have strength that no human being can acquire otherwise. 20/15 vision is not something that you can ONLY get from LASIK. On the other hand, the power players get from steroids is power they ONLY could get from steroids. I'm not saying that 20/15 vision is something you can acquire over time but it is something natural. The strength that steroids gives you is not. I am not claiming that you are uninformed I just feel your assessment of this procedure is incorrect.

I think it's dumb to say that LASIK is comparable to steroids because it isn't natural. Come on! Does that mean Tommy John surgery shouldn't be allowed. Is Dwyane Wade a cheater because he got shoulder and knee surgery. Am I a cheater for getting 2 knee surgeries? LASIK is a medical procedure. Without medical procedures I would promise that the majority of players today would not be playing. That's absurd! What, are you going to tell those players. "Sorry, you had to have surgery, now you are cheating and are banned from baseball."? Come on now. If you don't care to read the rationale and logic I presented on why it ISN'T comparable to reparable surgery... then don't post... kthxbai... However, I'll sum it up for you... injured athletes get surgeries to return back to 100%... LASIK provides athletes with GREATER THAN perfect eyesight... in the context in which we're speaking... THERE IS A DIFFERENCE :thumbup Greater than perfect? There are people that don't need LASIK because they already have the vision they would have if they got LASIK. Not to mention, sunglasses allows you to have "not normal" protection you wouldn't otherwise have naturally to see the ball in the sun. Are you suggesting we make sunglasses illegal? You're argument regarding LASIK is moot. P.S. Regardless of whether I read the rationale and logic you present or not, I SHALL post. Trust me, it is not appreciated when you tell people what to do.

Nice gamethread! Hopefully, somebody else but me can deliver a win. It's getting weird. Go AdrianneLove! Go Marlins!! :marlins Do we keep game thread standings? If not, we should. Here ya go... Erick 10-4 Admin 2-1 Beetle 0-1 Rachel 0-1 Rabbethan 0-1 lol, awesome. These should be stickied for reference throughout the year I agree, I like that idea. Definitely a good idea. It could be our "thread rotation." Let's get a win tonight. IT"S MILLER TIME!

Fish Field I was going to suggest this one. Especially so that we could preserve the (soon to be) outdated fish-over-F logo on the Stadium's signs once the team changes its name to Miami. I've never cared too much for the "F" logo, in fact, the Mets can have it for all I care. Agreed. The M logo is much nicer

I think it's dumb to say that LASIK is comparable to steroids because it isn't natural. Come on! Does that mean Tommy John surgery shouldn't be allowed. Is Dwyane Wade a cheater because he got shoulder and knee surgery. Am I a cheater for getting 2 knee surgeries? LASIK is a medical procedure. Without medical procedures I would promise that the majority of players today would not be playing. That's absurd! What, are you going to tell those players. "Sorry, you had to have surgery, now you are cheating and are banned from baseball."? Come on now.

Bunting eliminated the possibility of a double play. Not bunting there to set up your best hitter (Hanley) is foolish. Bunting is hardly throwing outs away. Think about it. In order of probability (least probable to most probable), given that we don't bunt: Homerun (Fish up 4-3, no outs, bases empty for the next batter - we probably win); Triple (Fish tie, no outs, man on third - probably drive in the next run); Double (Fish tie, no outs, man on second, less likely to drive in the winning run); Single (Fish still down, no outs, man on first and second, double play still possible which then leads us to a runner in scoring position with 2 outs just like we were today if a double play is turned, if not we POSSIBLY drive in the tying run and then the winning run); Grounder into a double play (Fish down, 2 outs, no one on, chances are we lose); Pop fly (Fish down, one out, man on first, this puts us in a worse position than we were earlier tonight) Given there are no errors, these are 6 different scenarios that could happen, and they have been listed in order of probability Now, by bunting, you eliminate the second most probable scenario. You now have eliminated a less favorable scenario and have kept the other scenarios alive. Not to mention, now the single scenario becomes more valuable because you automatically tie the game up with that, as opposed to not bunting, just getting a single and keeping the double play alive without making a difference on the scoreboard. So any argument that we should not have bunted is foolish

I liked the bunt though you can't pass up an opportunity like that to put a runner in scoring position. However, I would have put another pinch hitter. I thought we were going to win by supporting Nolasco. I think this could be a bad thing for Nolasco's confidence for next start. But now we gotta concentrate on Atlanta... IN Atlanta. It will be tough but we have to do it so that we can go into Milwaukee fresh with Olsen. Definitely a painful loss but we gotta make sure we don't continue to lose. We needed more run support today, which baffles me why we didn't get that. Ross NEEDS to pick it up. Uggla NEEDS to pick it up as well. Cantu is doing great. Tomorrow we gotta pick it up

Is it me or is Hanley good? (rhetorical question)

We need to finish off a mini-sweep and take advantage of a struggling ballclub. It's about time for Nolasco to have a quality start. This would be THE PERFECT time for Nolasco to get a good outing in. A struggling ball club faces a pitcher who hasn't really proven himself. Coming in, he should feel confident that he would get a lot of run support, especially since the Fish are facing a winless pitcher thus far. I say Nolasco wins today and builds that confidence to carry him into his next start and things begin to fall in place after tonight and into the series with the Braves. It would also be nice to see Uggla get in some nice cuts today and continue coming out of the slump. And just for dramatic purposes, I want to see Hanley's bat come alive... AGAIN! It would be nice for Hermida and Ross to pick it up but definitely not imperative. P.S. Apparently, Danny boy started hitting when he stole Andino's bat: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Apm1...ype=team_report :marlins

It's too early to call him the best player in the game. He has been a complete player for about 3 weeks. Let's see him keep up his improved defensive play for a while and then he'll be in the conversation. He has been a complete player for a little over a season. Last year was an MVP-like year and this year I think we will see the first MVP come to South Florida. Take it back... He has struggled defensively and he is showing quite an improvement just this year. So yeah I guess he has shown his complete game in these just three weeks

It's too early to call him the best player in the game. He has been a complete player for about 3 weeks. Let's see him keep up his improved defensive play for a while and then he'll be in the conversation. He has been a complete player for a little over a season. Last year was an MVP-like year and this year I think we will see the first MVP come to South Florida.

So what is the deal with Rabs? Is he going to be our starter or is it still a position battle with Treanor?

:weed Happy late you know what and what a way to celebrate. Marlins are on a tear and I love proving my roommates wrong. I just made a bet with my roommate: He thinks Tim Wakefield will have a better year than Scott Olsen. And he is also a die-hard Mets fan that can't come to terms that his team is out of first place. He also thinks Hanley Ramirez is not MVP material, especially because he loves Jose Reyes. Our pitching is doing mediocre overall but the bullpen is saving us, and with solid starts from Mark Hendrickson and Scott Olsen we will be a force to be reckoned with. Our hitting will be among the best in the league also. Now, I shall celebrate :jackson :gofishb

Mmm... Yuengling... Bottoms up to a nice victory over them Pirates today fellas. Mark needs to come out with the nasties tonight.

if Samson-ite or Loria are in charge of the naming of the stadium be prepared for something... "flowery"

What are the chances of Bacardi, Burger King, or Publix getting the naming rights? Just wanna know because I am really pulling for the Bacardi Bowl haha

Selling the naming rights would be a huge profit for the team....I don't know why anyone would be against it. I didn't really mean that I was just thinking out loud and writing. Just put any possible names. sorry for the confusion

Completely disregarding any situation in which a company buys the naming rights for the new Marlins' stadium (and obviously ruling out "Marlins' Stadium"), I want to see some creative names for the stadium.

The police thing is not even an issue. People on this forum read way too much Miami Herald. This is trivial issue that can be solved easily and is being blown WAY out of proportion. Even if the problem persists it won't hinder the building of the stadium. Talk to anyone in City Hall or on the Commissioning Board and they will tell you that it is a concern but it won't hold back construction. As far as the lawsuit, things don't seem to be going anywhere. So i consider these problems to be completely trivial and no one should be worrying about them. I'm not... You tell us not to jump the gun but there is no gun to jump