USSoccer

You can't accept a 4.5 #5 starter? Can you name any club that has all 5 starts with an ERA under 4.5? An innings eater is more valuable than you might beleive. As it saves the bullpen from overwork, and helps to keep them fresh. . A #5 innings eater, is something we really should get. You don't spend $5M+ on a #5 starter. It doesn't matter how many innings he pitches in a season. You use the 5 slot to evaluate minor league pitching talent, which we have. Very well. But one of the other 4 have to be a bonified innings eater. You're wrong. They have to be good. You look for a good pitcher, not a mediocre durable one. If you find a good pitcher, the innings take care of themselves.

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO. No. Maddux is not a good pitcher anymore. We need consistency, and that is something he can no longer provide. I have no use for "innings eaters" if the innings being eaten are eaten at a 4.5 ERA clip.

That same section of the GOP is probably the same section that hated every fiber of the Clintons, so who knows. Who would be the lesser of two evils to them? Pat Buchanan. :P That would be an interesting election. I could see turnout being super low, or super high, depending on the rhetoric. One thing I think Clinton's supporters need to keep in mind is that people's biases don't always show up in polls. People will go to great lengths to hide their prejudices in poling interviews, but inside the ballot box they will have no reservations.

Fantasy Football helps with that, I'd imagine.

Nice win for the Fire 1-0 over DC, but marred by horrendous officiating. 2 United players were sent off for questionable fouls. If MLS wants to continue to develop as a league, it needs to get better officials and learn how to protect creative players like Dempsey, Moreno, and Adu from the more clumsy style of play that the league offers.

I think you are forgetting that Hillary is hated by some Dems almost as much as the right hates her. I don't think Condi faces that dilemma from within her own party like Hillary does. That said, neither will ever be president. Agreed. You don't think there's a large section of the GOP that wouldn't ever want a female, African-American president?

Murton on his own wouldn't net us much. Maybe a 4th starter type or a bullpen guy. Murton packaged with a top pitcher, and a midrange pitcher would probably get some interest from FLA, but IMO he wouldn't be the centerpiece of any deal for Cabrera.

Anyone else nervous with Rex on that turf next week?

It's more of an observation made at the real target of the "running out ground balls" comment. Given who generally is the target of the "hustle" crtitiques, I'd rather he not sprint every single ground ball out because the likelihood of injury to a relatively slow player is higher than the liklihood of a bad throw on a routine ground ball. It's not like I don't want players to hustle, but in general I'll take a max talent guy over a max effort guy 100 times out of 100. So the runners had had more injuires than Cedeno, Walker or Ramirez had errors? I don't think so USS. Huh? I'm confusing myself. Let me clarify: Given the choice between making Ramirez run as hard as possible and risking a leg injury, or dealing with him occasionally jogging a ball out and getting him healthy for a full season, I'll take the latter. I apologize for hijacking the thread, though.

It's more of an observation made at the real target of the "running out ground balls" comment. Given who generally is the target of the "hustle" crtitiques, I'd rather he not sprint every single ground ball out because the likelihood of injury to a relatively slow player is higher than the liklihood of a bad throw on a routine ground ball. It's not like I don't want players to hustle, but in general I'll take a max talent guy over a max effort guy 100 times out of 100.

Yeah, that's the sort of trait that wins baseball games... That aside, if the Cubs had a better CF, SS or 2B you can deal with Jones in RF batting 6th or 7th. He had a nice power year. I still think what would be best for him would be a platoon situation. It doesn't hurt. Nor does it help.

LaTroy and CPat may disagree. Cade McNown, Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler, Wood and Prior, Sosa...

Yeah, that's the sort of trait that wins baseball games... That aside, if the Cubs had a better CF, SS or 2B you can deal with Jones in RF batting 6th or 7th. He had a nice power year. I still think what would be best for him would be a platoon situation.

I agree, this game will be tougher than people think.

I'll go Bears 13-10. Grossman 12-27, 128 yds 0-2 Benson 11c 44 yds

I don't think Condi or Hilary stands a chance, but it would more likely be Hilary. Condi has zero electability. She's as hated by Dems as Hilary is by the right, only add in the fact that she's also not exactly the best speaker on the planet, and you have an unelectable candidate. The next POTUS is Mark Warner.

I guess I was addressing a different thing. Dave is of the opinion that MLS's lack of talent is responsible for our 2006 showing. I personally think that if you look at which players did what, you'll find that the players who played the poorest were mostly the European players. Of the MLS'rs, only Pope and Donovan crapped the bed. If the argument is that MLS is the reason that we were bad in 2006 relative to 2002, you can look at the roster and see that most of the players who played saw signifigant time in the league at one point or another. I can't see how you can look at that and conclude that MLS is the reason we haven't made "the leap" into the international elite. Now, I don't agree with Dave that every talented player should leave MLS, but I do agree that the most talented players who have a chance at developing into legit international players should be sold.

Of the 18 players that saw time in the World Cup: Cherundolo Bocanegra Onyewu Pope Mastroeni Convey Beasley Dempsey Reyna McBride Donovan Wolff Johnson Conrad Olson Lewis Keller O'Brien 11 of them had/have signifigant MLS experience. Of those 11, Pope and Donovan absolutely deserve to be ripped for playing terrible. It was the European contingent, particularly Reyna, McBride, Beasley and Bocanegra that absolutely killed this team. Three of those four players were directly involved in plays that cost us goals and games, and the 4th (Beasley) was a shell of his former self apart from 2 brief moments. The only Europeans to actually play well were Gooch and Cherundolo. Of the 11 MLS'rs, Dempsey, Convey and to a lesser extent Conrad and Olson played well. Dempsey was our best player and should have started all 3 games, Convey played well, and Conrad and Olson exceeded low expectations by holding their own in difficult circumstances.

Dave, I agree with everything you've written except this. If you look at 2006 compared to 2002, they performances aren't dissimilar. In 2002 we snuck up on Portugal but had to hang on to win 3-2, but then gave a game away against South Korea (and should have lost it, were it not for Friedel saving a PK) and then absolutely crapped the bed against Poland (and should have been out in the group stage, except Portgual got 2 guys kicked out, went down 1-0 to a host country and STILL missed advancing by about 1 cm when Pauleta's 90+m shot hit the wrong part of the post. What happened after the group stage in 2002 was meaningless. We drew Mexico, a team we knew we could beat, and beat them, and choked a game away to Germany. In 2006, we were much more talented overall, got dumped in a very difficult group, and crapped the bed in our 1st game as opposed to our 3rd like in 2002. The tie against Italy was 1 bad call and 1 atrocious red away from being a US win, and the Ghanian game was again, 1 bad call from being a completely different affair. Both times we went into the 3rd game with a chance to advance, but the breaks that went our way in 2002 (Friedel's PK save against Korea, Pauleta hitting the post, Portugal looking past us) went against us in 2006 (Pope's 2nd yellow, Beasley's goal that was called back, and the penalty on Gooch in the 18). MLS is in large part responsible for the growth of talent in the US pool. Most of the US roster has seen time in MLS and in general it has been a positive thing for the USMNT. I don't think MLS is the reason for our failure in Germany. I think the breaks didn't go our way, and when you get no breaks, and half of your best players don't show up to play (#'s 21, 10 and 17 in particular) you're going to get bounced. Of the players that played terrible in Germany, only 1 was an MLS player (and we both know Mr "I-Can't-Handle-Being-In-Germany" was the worst offender) Where I agree with you most is on what MLS is doing with their players. Eddie Johnson should have been sold to Benfica in 2005. That was a stupid decision trumped only by the inexplicable decision to turn down the Dempsey transfer to West Ham a few weeks ago. MLS made 2 decisions that were acceptable (barely) in the short term that will probably cost the in the long term. However, it's not anything new. MLS probably wrecked Clint Mathis' career by not selling him to Bayern Munich (I think) in 2003 and ended up giving him away on a free transfer a year later. In the end, the league got nothing and Mathis wasted a year and by the time he got to Germany he was such a headcase about it that he has never since been the same player. MLS needs to realize that selling players at their peak while unearthing new stars to develop should be their model for the next 5-10 years, instead of holding onto players for fear of alienating a fanbase. They will never market Dempsey, and New England is one of the best fanbases in the league-they would have understood Dempsey going to the EPL. Ditto for Johnson and the transfer to Benfica. EJ got the largest ever transfer offer for an American player, and given his importance to the USMNT, he should have been delivered with a bow and a thank you note, and MLS would have reaped the benefits of his development down the road. Instead, EJ got hurt playing for Dallas in meaningless games, developed an attitude and regressed. Sounds like Mathis all over again.

Dear God no !!!!! That's even worse than giving it an MLS coach as far as I'm concerned. I'm with Dave. SGE is the Dusty Baker of soccer managers...his handling of England this WC cycle alone was a joke. He put an 18 yr old Theo Walcott on the team for no good reason, passed up Jermain Defoe, and it it weren't for terrible finishing against Portugal, that decision would have been exposed for the joke it was, as Owen and Rooney were already out for the tournament. They would have started a World Cup semi against France with Peter Crouch and an 18 yr old striker with like one half of pro experience. He allowed his crush on Beckham to affect the team's performance, especially when it was obvious that Aaron Lennon was the better player. Add to that the unneccesary rushing of Rooney back on the WC roster, questionable subbing decisions and you have a nightmare. If he ever go ahold of the US roster it would be a giant step backwards,

yeah the '04 Cubs were ousted from the playoffs by the Expos, Reds and Mets :( Let's take a look at 1994: STL (.644) - 8-10 ATL (.578) - 3-3 LAD (.574) - 2-4 LAA (.568) - 2-1 HOU (.564) - 10-9 OAK (.562) - 2-1 SFG (.544) - 2-4 SDG (.534) - 4-2 PHI (.515) - 3-3 CHW (.503) - 4-2 FLA (.503) - 3-3 CIN (.466) - 9-8 NYM (.425) - 4-2 PIT (.419) - 13-5 MIL (.411) - 10-7 COL (.410) - 5-1 MON (.406) - 3-3 ARZ (.313) - 2-4 .500 or better against every losing team but Arizona, more than made up for by the total ownership of the Pirates Interesting. That's good work!

I have a feeling that if you apply the same test to seasons 2003-2005, you might see more of a correlation.

Mark O'Neal should be fired so fast if this is true.

The "develop arms and then trade them for bats" isn't a bad idea, but it's his GM that has held onto his arms much, much longer than he should have. Juan Cruz for one should have been dealt before 2003 if he wasn't going to be used, when he still had good value. I think it's a bad idea. Arms are inconsistent and unreliable. It's nice to develop a lot of them, but it's necessary to develop position players. By going into it with almost a complete disregard for position players, the Cubs were doomed to carry on the tradition of non development. I see what you're saying, and am not trying to downplay the importance of developing your own position players, but what I am saying is that if his (somewhat flawed) plan would have been implemented more effectively, you'd probably see a better ML product on the field.

The "develop arms and then trade them for bats" isn't a bad idea, but it's his GM that has held onto his arms much, much longer than he should have. Juan Cruz for one should have been dealt before 2003 if he wasn't going to be used, when he still had good value.