USSoccer

D-Caf! ** D-Caf! **

Maybe all that time off just was too much for a timing offense to overcome.

Cut That Meat! Cut That Meat!

is that a pick?

Len Thanks for taking time out to talk to us! Did you ever question using Kerry Wood in the bullpen last season even though it was public knowledge that he needed shoulder surgery? Describe and evaluate Aramis Ramirez. He's a much better player than I think anyone realizes, and I think he's a bit underrated by some.

It's very simple, the Dodgers want to compete now. jackson has been a disappointment for them. They had to make room on their 40 man roster for the 16 middle IF's they currently have under contract.

Agreed, don't except it Dusty. O:) Bruce Jenkins with another piece of garbage. What is it about reporters and the media that makes 90% of them incapable of putting together a well written, well reasoned piece of writing?

Nah...that was my move last year, but with signing Eyre and Howry, Dempster actually working out as a closer, and having Williamson, Wuertz, and Ohman...I'd look to him as a number five starter when healthy. I think we're better off letting our minor leaguers take up 40 man space than wasting a space on a guy with real signifigant shoulder issues.

That might end New England's season. Tom Brady's not "supposed" to make idiotic throws like that.

Haha. Only a matter of time until he gets a marketing deal. That is funny stuff! That's a really good summary.

I'd imagine he does. Of course, there's a difference between giving in a signing Neifi to a one-year deal and taking the initiative to sign him to a two-year deal. Maybe this will clear up what Dusty said: That seems much more reasonable and sane. Maybe Dusty has a case of "Contract-Year-itis" and is going to be a sane, effective manager.

Didn't hear it. What was said? Was it Treebeard? :D I need to hear this. details, please. Even just a summary...

Ugh.

Fortunately, that would never ever happen in real life. In that situation, we'd eiher be kneeling or running. :) It was a strange dream. I think it also had a part where Orton came in with 9 seconds left and hit Berrian for like a 70 yard TD, but I am not sure.

If true, yes it good news, and very relieving. It's also interesting that Hendry and Prior are meeting today. The most important thing Hendry can do right now is make sure the core (Z, Prior, ARam, Lee and Barrett) stay intact and content. I am also very happy to read that the Cubs want to keep Ronny. I want to see him in our MIF for years to come. Agreed. If we're going to compete, we need to allow some young players to break in. Murton and Cedeno are the perfect two, IMO. They have the skillset to be consistent, which is something that's been lacking in the last few prospects that have come up.

If true, yes it good news, and very relieving. It's also interesting that Hendry and Prior are meeting today. The most important thing Hendry can do right now is make sure the core (Z, Prior, ARam, Lee and Barrett) stay intact and content.

I had a very vivid dream in which the Bears led 22-21 late, and Grossman threw a pick deep in Bear territory with 59 seconds left, and Carolina ended up winning 24-22.

Baker's team's high OBP is due to Barry Lamar Bonds. Bakers high career win total is due to longevity as a manager, as is his winning percentage. Kind of like the winningest basketball coach is also the losingist. Completely untrue. There's nothing to back this up. Wood had also not missed much time post 2000, until Baker nuked his arm in 2003. And when you have a "MAJOR INJRUY RISK", you don't have him throw the most pitches in baseball during a given year. This is not just Baker's fault, but an organizational failure. Baker gets equal blame. He also had the good fortune to manage 3 of the most talented pitchers in Cub history during his tenure. Lucking into success doesn't mean you're good at anything. Who cares if you've never been a player or a manager? So, just because you aren't either means you can't use evidence to back up an argument or a second guess? That's such a big failing of baseball insiders-they feel that unless you're "in their club", you've no right to talk, which is crap. Some of the most innovative and illuminating baseball thought of the past 25 years has come from non-baseball players. (Gammons and James in particular).

I'm going to respond to your points one by one. 1. Yes. Yes, you should take steps to ensure injury prone players don't get overexposed to injury. That includes giving Aramis a day off every 2 weeks or so, or making sure you don't toss a guy with reconstructive elbow surgery 3 days straight, or toss your injury prone ace 140 pitches thru 7 innings in May. Your examples of sitting Aramis 40 games or Nomar 100 are wildly hyperbolic. There's nothing unreasonable about Baker taking simple steps to limit the chance of injury and overuse. 2. In 2004, to make up for Sosa's decline, he had Barrett being miles better than Miller/Bako, Alou had a career year, Aramis had a huge year, and Lee gave them more offense at 1B. Zambrano helped make up for some of the downtick from Wood and Prior, and Maddux was a big upgrade from Shawn Estes in 2003. And despite all that extra offense we struggled to score in games Ramirez didn't play in, and tanked the last 2 weeks, as Baker couldn't keep his team focused on execution. 3. Injuries happen to every team, and to say that the 2004 and 5 teams were less talented than the 2003 Cubs is simply not true. See the above post for specifics. 4. Lots of people give alternatives to Baker. Many gave them in this thread, in response to things you posted. 5. Steve Stone would be a god awful, bad, terrible manager. He's wildly overrated by the casual baseball fan. Fans that invest time in learning the game know better. Also, Mark Grace is not manager materiel, and I've never heard anyone anywhere mention him as a serious option for manager. 6. Fredi Gonzalez. Larry Deirker. Those are just 2 names that would be markedly better than Baker. I think than Larry Rothschild might be better, since Baker is so unskilled at managing a modern baseball team that there are a ton of better options out there.

I am a huge Cubs fan who spends an inordinate amount of time and a good chunk of change every year to see them play on TV, as well as in person, in Chicago and several road cities (but to be fair, when I see them in NY it's free 95% of the time - and better seats). But I have never once had any interest whatsoever in going to the convention. It seems to me to be a celebration of 100 years of failure (or at least the past 40-50 of those years of failure) with no real information coming from the team or serious discussion on what can be done to improve the team. It's a giant PR event. Oh, don't get me wrong. I love the Cubs (like we all do). I'd have to love them to be willing to put up with the verbal thrashing I get on occasion from my new wife for the time spent watching them, and then on this site following them. I would only go to that convention to ask a tough question, or be part of a group of tough questions. I want to hear answers to questions that absolutely baffle me. I want accountability. I have no use for autographs, or any of that other junk. I want a winner, and won't celebrate a century of losing. I'd bet any tough question will be given a bs answer. I wouldn't doubt if they've gone through a run- through of every possible question and what response should be given. After all, it's hard for me to believe that even with a tough weekend of questions those two bullheaded men would change their philosophies. That's fine, though. At least I'd know for sure that someone called them out for something in a public forum, and maybe it would create some thought.

I am a huge Cubs fan who spends an inordinate amount of time and a good chunk of change every year to see them play on TV, as well as in person, in Chicago and several road cities (but to be fair, when I see them in NY it's free 95% of the time - and better seats). But I have never once had any interest whatsoever in going to the convention. It seems to me to be a celebration of 100 years of failure (or at least the past 40-50 of those years of failure) with no real information coming from the team or serious discussion on what can be done to improve the team. It's a giant PR event. Oh, don't get me wrong. I love the Cubs (like we all do). I'd have to love them to be willing to put up with the verbal thrashing I get on occasion from my new wife for the time spent watching them, and then on this site following them. I would only go to that convention to ask a tough question, or be part of a group of tough questions. I want to hear answers to questions that absolutely baffle me. I want accountability. I have no use for autographs, or any of that other junk. I want a winner, and won't celebrate a century of losing.

Yeah, I'm not envisioning anything be addressed that I want to be addressed. It's not like you can sit down and have a back and forth conversation where you can more or less call them out on their BS. ideally you would get about 4 or 5 of us to go together and stand in line armed with an original question and 4 follow ups. that way they couldn't dodge it. sounds like a good idea for next year. I would get together this year and do it with some of the guys who are going, but I can't get my hands on a pass.

Yeah, I'm not envisioning anything be addressed that I want to be addressed. It's not like you can sit down and have a back and forth conversation where you can more or less call them out on their BS. ideally you would get about 4 or 5 of us to go together and stand in line armed with an original question and 4 follow ups. that way they couldn't dodge it.

But wait, it gets better. Regarding Cedeno and Murton in that same article: That has to be a ghost written Q & A, unless Dusty is just lying.