KurtEvans

I don't get it.

Their size and popularity has never stopped ESPN from reporting nonsense as absolute fact. I don't think there is such a thing as "too big" a blog to post the occasional garbage story. It is a blog. Blogs by definition do not contain fact, and if they claim to, links are expected to be provided substantiating the fact. ESPN has expanded their blog section greatly in recent years, where a lot on conjecture occurs, but you don't often see a story about a trade reported as fact unless a deal is in place "in principle", if not official. I do wish sites that contain both "news" and blogs would do a better job separating the space they share, because it is too easy to mistake a news report for a blog. I do so love that this perspective continues to exist. Blogs are media. Media conveys news, and blogs are news sources just like anything owned by Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, or anybody else. There are certainly differences between a blog and an accredited news source, but the assertion "blogs by definition do not contain fact" is just plain ridiculous. Now if you excuse me, I have to return to MY blog in order to discuss the World Champion Chicago Cubs. They've won the title 4 years straight and have talked a surprisingly resurgent Mark Grace out of retirement in order to help him accumulate the numbers he needs in his bid for the Hall of Fame.

I don't get this Kurt Evans photoshop at all. Dude, kayfabe!

Dolan used to write a 7-10 paragraph blog entry every day. Now he'll churn out 3 paragraphs a week. He is a fading star in the Cubs blog world, so I guess this would be a good way to get back into the mix. Based on everything you seem to know about him, he sure does appear to have a fan in you, UMFan. For his next stunt, Dolan will be arranging a Voyeur Bus in Chicago. He'll have nude models and porn stars riding around town in a glass bus. He figures it'll be a good way to "get back in the mix," as you put it.

Anyway, on the off chance that any of you would be interested in learning more about the whole process of being interviewed by ESPN, I've written about the whole thing. You can read it here, on GROTA.

You think?

I met you, got one of the photos. Very cool... I hope you enjoyed it. I was hoping that people who got Carlos could go and try to get it signed, but from what I understand, the Carlos line was amazingly long. On the bright side, I was able to give him a full-sized Scarlos.

Did nobody here who attended receive one of the Goat Riders photoshops I was distributing? I know we gave some stuff to some guys who frequent the board, but I didn't catch their names.

I just think it's interesting that bunts and the hit-and-run are "useless." Still, there seems to be an advocation for a manager who basically does nothing more than make sure his players take fielding practice, learn how to work the count, and then sits back and only works on the pitching and substitution aspects of the game - if even that. Is an intentional walk also a no-no because it's guaranteeing that a guy is put on base? Anyway, from what I understand of it, a bench coach's role is to know the splits. How well does player A hit off of pitcher B? Who is the best pinch hitter or reliever in any given situation? That kind of thing. The bench coach should not be relied on for strategic moves, although I'm sure he'd be asked his opinion from time to time. Therefore, assuming that Sandberg can do his homework, I would have no problem with him serving as bench coach for a year or two. Ryno is also very knowledgable about base stealing and he seems to understand fielding fundamentals. So long as he's not making personel decisions or overly advocating the bunt, I'd have no problem with him breaking his teeth in with the Cubs. On the other hand, I do suspect that he'd make a terrible manager. But there is a drastic difference between being a bench coach and being the skipper, and I see no reason as to why Ryno wouldn't be qualified for the former position.

Why? He's made comments intimating that he's a huge fan of (in so many words anyway) Ozzieball. Bunting, hit-and-running, other completely useless things that managers do to make themselves look smart. Ah. And what exactly is the superior method of managing? Not telling your players to give away outs or run into outs? So, no stolen bases, then? Just out of curiosity, what if a player hits a frozen rope into the outfield? Should he settle for standing on first, or "run into an out" by trying for second? Does the superior managerial strategy call for hitters to try for drawing walks, try to get hits, and nothing more?

Why? He's made comments intimating that he's a huge fan of (in so many words anyway) Ozzieball. Bunting, hit-and-running, other completely useless things that managers do to make themselves look smart. Ah. And what exactly is the superior method of managing?

Why?

That's fine, sir, but I don't think that contradicts anything Piniella has said. Based on how he's managed his other teams, the Cubs may start playing the game with a more disciplined approach to hitting. That in itself is huge. Something else to consider is that, while the Cubs can absolutely lead the league in homers at Wrigley Field on any given year, it probably becomes considerably more difficult to rely on the three-run homerun (or any kind of homerun) in the cold months of the season. And, regretably, it tends to be pretty cold in Chicago in late September and October. The notable exception to this was the playoff drive in 2003, when it was unusually warm in Chicago in October. I'm just saying, if Piniella advocates winning with other means than the homerun, I'm all for it.

I am not and never will be a Lou Piniella apologist, but I get the feeling that you fine folks are misunderstand what I believe he was trying to say. Piniella seems to have said at some point that the Cubs can't rely on homeruns to win. I see absolutely no problem in that opinion. Clueless to the end, Dusty Baker wanted a team that could hit more homeruns, but Wrigley Field is not a good ballpark for a team of players who rely on the longball. It seems to me that the team is better off with players who can hit, run, and work the count. Over at Goat Riders the other day, one of my colleagues noted that Piniella's teams seem to have higher OBPs in the last year he managed the team than in the first, the Yankees being the only exception. While I see Lou as potentially being dangerously clueless, he seems to understand the importance of plate discipline and that alone makes him an improvement on Dusty. And if he actually tries to improve the team's approach by making them a group that does NOT rely on the long ball, then I'm all for it. That said, I remain unconvinced that he was the best guy available. He's just not quite as bad as I originally thought he was.

Here's a crazy idea... Before Joe Girardi became a manager, he spent a year as Joe Torre's bench coach. The Cubs have a guy who wants to become a manager. He could get a job managing a minor league team in the system, but maybe he'd make an interesting pupil under Piniella instead. Anyone for Sandberg getting a chance?