I've been listening to a lot of 670 lately, unfortunately (membership drive at WFMT = click off for me). Anyway, I've pinpointed the main reason I don't like Holmes or Zaidman, besides from tone; they always seem to be about 4 days behind the curve on any story. It took Zaidman until last weekend to conclude that the Cubs might be kinda good this year- previous to that, he was going through the chicken little Soriano-is-gone routine (I also hate his tendency to set up false dilemmas, "are you telling me that everything will be perfect with Soriano gone?", etc.) A good host is ahead of the curve, gives me a new point of view, or gives me the conventional wisdom a day early. B and B are still occasionally good at this. MJH are OK at it. I think Mully and Hanley have always been good in that regard. The young(ish) guns suck at it.

Simply put, those guys aren't on all the time, so as hosts, the likes of Laurence, Zach, "Whip", Matt and even Jason Goff don't have as much airtime to literally flap their gums and express their opinions on the local sports scene and/or national stories that have everyone talking...With North now off the air, their airtime is sure to increase.

I think it would be more reason for them to be topical and timely. Recovering the old ground that the regular hosts have already trampled isn't compelling unless they're going to refute what was previously said. A risky proposition

yeah, it does seem like they retread a lot of topics (especially ZZ and Larry) after having "missed their chance" to do so when it was relevant. boring.

_________________