Exile on Waveland

That makes no sense, at all. The paradigm of Dempster's decision did not change with the "leak." (If he thought he could make the decision, turn down the trade offer to the Braves, and never have that become public knowledge, he's foolishly naive -- the media is quite good at discovering such information.) Remember a couple pages ago when it wasn't kosher to be annoyed with Dempster? That was cute. It was never kosher to be a raving [expletive] lunatic before you knew what was going on. Annoyance is not raving lunacy.

That makes no sense, at all. The paradigm of Dempster's decision did not change with the "leak." (If he thought he could make the decision, turn down the trade offer to the Braves, and never have that become public knowledge, he's foolishly naive -- the media is quite good at discovering such information.) Remember a couple pages ago when it wasn't kosher to be annoyed with Dempster? That was cute.

Strongly agree. The Cubs need someone to start for them next year. Maholm is solid and reliable, if nothing else. And since I'm expecting at least one kid obtained in the Garza/Dempter trades to earn a rotation spot next year, Maholm seems rather valuable for next year. Though I know I value boring starting pitchers more than many on this board.

Come oooonnn Eovaldi Curses. So fast, this guy. Someone fill me in on Eovaldi, please. BA's #96 prospect this year. Throws really hard. About MLB ready at 22 years old. Performance has lagged his stuff a little bit. IMO, a guy with the tools to really take off if a different organization/coaching staff can see the right tweak or two. My father is a Dodger fan so I at least have some passing knowledge in their system. I would be thrilled for the Cubs to grab Eovaldi, I suspect he's going to be pretty darn good (and, I think, someone that could fill a rotation spot reasonably well next year).

Broke. But that's still a good pick by the Bulls.

I was a Pacer fan in Indiana. Still, I'm not sure I knew a single person that didn't like Jordan in 1992.

The Pacers have to re-sign Hibbert. All their progress is for naught if they don't. He can't be replaced (at least not by Indiana) and the "max" contract is close to his actual value (not all "max" contracts are equal). I believe the average starting center in the NBA, excluding rookie contracts, earns about $12 million a year, so paying Hibbert $14ish million a year is not unreasonable.

This is not going well.

So the guy that basically came out of nowhere, didn't have great stuff/talent, and got worse each year actually was a flash in the pan? Shocking.

I'm gnashing my teeth because I think he's close to right. I don't completely agree, of course. I doubt all those players are promoted/relied on, and my suspicion is still that Garza is not traded and instead re-signed.

I certainly can because those two things are not mutually inclusive. Jorge Soler was one of the premier targets of the offseason (bleeding into the season) but is not (currently) a difference maker at the major league level. The Cubs signed Soler and yet still punted on this season. Same with Cespedes. I would have loved to sign Cespedes but he is neither a difference maker at the major league level nor a sign that the Cubs were not punting this year. The Cubs went 71-91 last year, management surely could not have believed that an unproven Cuban defector was the lynchpin to contention.

Sweet, participation trophies! Flippance aside, I believe you're being Panglossian. Cespedes, who I wanted, was not going to make the Cubs a contender (unless you think his -0.4 WAR would suffice to make the Cubs a good team?). He was an expensive flyer. As for Darvish, I'm rather dubious a competitive bid was made, as that would seem to run counter to everything else that has occured. I have think and actually hope management made the decision to punt this year. If that's not what they thought they were doing, color me rather concerned.

The question isn't if they will still suck or not. But rather if they will fill the roster with nothing but homegrown players. That's why I said "mostly"; if he's arguing the Cubs will have twenty-five homegrown players, which I don't think he is, he's obviously wrong. But I think he's right that additions to the roster will mainly be recycled crap and/or unproven youngsters. I don't doubt someone the likes of Ian Stewart, or even David DeJesus is brought in, but I'm expecting another punt. Management punted this year because they believed the team was not ready to contend; I suspect the same logic will be used next year. Hopefully that death cycle isn't interminable.

I hate that in a few months I suspect the Cubs will still suck and Kyle will have been (mostly) right.

Carroll's certainly not without flaws. He is all but incapable of taking a defender one-on-one (though I disagree with his shooting, he's actually quite good with his left foot, including outside the box). As for Suarez and Kuyt, they had a very good understanding together, and you'll get no arguments from me that Carroll was poor most of the season. Oh, and Comolli didn't lose his job because of the Carroll transfer. FSG were pretty clear they believed they had to make some move while losing Torres and valued Torres at 15 million pounds more than Carroll. A lot went into that move outside of on-the-field and they basically got what they wanted (obviously they would have preferred that Carroll perform better). Comolli lost his job because of the likes of Stewart Downing and Charlie Adam, who were both brutal and aren't likely to improve at their age.

As far as being on the England national team, or the exhorbitant transfer fee, sure, those mean he's been overrated (though England is crap and I believe they were correct in picking Carroll). But you'll hear no meatbally arguments from me that either proves he's better than Altidore. Regardless, Carroll has proven far more than Altidore, who at the club level has done basically nothing besides one good season in the Eredivisie. As for Hull being terrible, sure. Yet, at the same age, Carroll was playing on a Newcastle team that would be relegated (i.e., they were also terrible). He scored three goals in 16 appearances (not great, but better than one in 29). The following year he crushed the Championship (19 goals in 42 appearances). Then the next year had a great start the next Premiership (11 goals in 19 games; then two in seven for Liverpool). He stunk last year -- though he did pick it up at the end of the year -- but that's one subpar season (though if we're talking about service, I watched every Liverpool game and Carroll got crap for service too). Altidore has had one good year, which, again was in the Eredivisie. Comparing Hull to a relegated Newcastle is at least as fair as comparing the Eredivisie to the Premier League. It's counterfactual to say Altidore would have scored more for Liverpool last year (and I doubt that anyway); but, at the same time, I think it's likely Carroll would have scored more in the Eredivisie than in the Premiership.

Carroll. Only an American would think this is even close. Carroll has already been pretty successful in the Premiership at a young age. Though he has struggled with Liverpool, certainly, he scored 14 goals in 37 Premier League appearances for Newcastle (which includes his time as an 18-year-old). Altidore had scored six total goals in Europe before scoring 19 last year in the Eredivisie (which is not exactly the hardest league to score in). When Altidore played in England, he managed one goal in 29 games for Hull. Even at his worst last year, Carroll scored nine goals in 47 games for an awful, goal-allergic Liverpool team.

Interesting lineup changes for Germany. They make sense. Of course, if somehow Greece wins, Low will be accused of "over-managing," I'm sure.

James' next title(s) is/are inevitable. Just like this one was. There's no such thing as an inevitability with regards to championships, unless you think the next Mike Miller will hit seven 3-pointers in a game. Unless James suffers a debilitating injury, he's going to win another title. This is basketball (and the NBA, at that), not baseball, he's probably the most talented player ever, and he's still only twenty-seven. He's going to win more. As for Miller, what a pointless strawman argument. His seven 3-pointers last night weren't even necessary for them to win that game, much less the series. But, sure, some role player will step up and help James win in the future (and it's James that opens such opportunities up). That's the way it goes.

James' next title(s) is/are inevitable. Just like this one was.

And is already a productive major league player. For going on three years. As a shortstop. This basically doesn't happen; picking nits is crazy at this point.

Well that will, hopefully, change when the Cubs sign B.J. Upton. Especially if Brett Jackson comes good (I'm a bit dubious). And especially if Lahair is for real and can somewhat passably play the outfield (I'm even more dubious).

Uh . . . no crap. Really, just like Soriano was untradable before he got in his hot streak. The long baseball season normalizes most players' performance. Just look at Garza and Dempster coming back to "normal". Sure. But there's no point in posting that an injury will make Soriano untradable. So would his death.

Uh . . . no crap. The way that's quoted, makes it look like I said that. Just want to reiterate, it was NOT me. Apologies.

Ha ha, so? Michael Jordan is older than every current NBA player and is still a bigger star/name than the vast majority of them. No one said this. But the Pacers did lack superstars. Reggie Miller was never a superstar and, if Chris Mullin ever was, he certainly wasn't by the time he was a Pacer (he was a role-player at that time and often/usually was on the bench at the end of games). And, even if you want to dispute the superstardom of those players, none of them could compare to Michael Jordan. Again, no one said this. The Bulls were better than the Pacers. The Bulls did not beat the Pacers because of officiating (there was never some 2002 Lakers-Kings scenario). But you have to ignore all context and understanding of the NBA to believe a team from Indiana with Reggie Miller received the benefit of more, or equal, calls than the team from Chicago with Michael Jordan.