goonys evil twin

If the Bulls signed LeBron, I'd trade in my Blackhawks jersey for a Bulls jersey.

I think I've seen that video.

Can't say I'm going to miss the airflow helmets or the red-billed caps. I hated both of them.

I think the chances of Peavy agreeing to a trade to the Pirates are slim and none.

Floyd jumps as high as I do.

I can't imagine a single thing that Lou would want to be doing that Hendry isn't allowing him to do, other than working with a great roster that is.

hey, you know what, scotty, since you got wright out two nights ago, i guess i'm not mad at you for giving up the hit yesterday. getting him out two days ago is good enough for me. I don't understand getting pissed at pitchers for giving up hits. All the pitcher can do is throw the ball. A ball in play that isn't a rocket/homer is going to fall in or be an out pretty much at random. i'm just annoyed by his excuses. Understandable. Although at least his excuses are actually pretty accurate. It's probably best to say nothing, but then you go the other way with Dempster tipping his cap to everybody. Yesterday's game leaves a bad taste in everybody's mouth, but it boils down to two things in my opinion, Dempster not getting regular work leading up to the game, and Dempster not throwing strikes. I can't be pissed at Eyre for that loss. I can't blame Theriot for not getting the ball or Murton for not throwing the runner out. They scored 5 runs with a banged up lineup, the starting pitching and most of the bullpen was fine. It was Dempster and the walks that lost that game.

What's the matter with this team is they are far too willing to accept players' flaws, or they just ignore them, and don't do anything to offset. It's fine to have a all glove no hit shortstop, assuming the rest of your lineup is good. It's fine to have a defensively flawed OF, as long as your pitching and hitting is strong. It's not like the Cubs are acquiring guys with impeccable resumes and they are just falling apart on the Cubs. Soriano has always been a poor man's "star". Lee was never an elite 1B. He had one elite year, but the fluke factor, age and health probably means he will go back to being a 2nd tier 1B. The pitchers with control problems have always had control problems. They didn't just develop them with the Cubs. It's a poorly constructed team. It's talented, but it's all mismatched talent. And I think people blow out of proportion things like missed cutoff men and leaving the bases loaded or not hitting in the clutch as strictly a Cubs thing. I think it is pretty clear that Hendry panicked, had his little Joel Goodsen "sometimes you just have to say what the (frick)", and tried to patchwork a team together while hoping Pinielle would just make things work. His infatuation with big name managers exposes his nonsensical view that is probably tied to his days managing college players. He thinks a manager can win you games and he's got too much of a college, rah rah, we'll fight our way to victory attitude, when really he needs to put more thought into acquring a team of players that should win a lot of games, instead of a team that could win if everything works out for the best.

7 years, 5 months and 1 week.

What makes Walker more valuable than Ward? Ward had the better year last year by far. Before that, Walker had the better years-but if Ward regresses back to his usual year and Walker keeps declining, then Ward will likely be slightly better. Both can play 3 positions-Walker the 3 in the infield, Ward the two in the OF and 1B. What is there to justify eating a million by dropping Ward and signing Walker? Please read what I wrote. I said, pretty clearly, that it was worth considering. I did not say that Walker was better than Ward. You should always look to improve your team, and if Walker is an upgrade, then it might be worth it. I remember Walker being really bad as a pinch hitter for us though. I don't see the value in him right now for us. There are no guarantees of Ward repeating last year. Pinch hitting numbers aren't very reliable in predicting future performance. But Lenny Harris has the most PH ever.

Wha? Man I remember playing Madden '98 or '99 and always grabbing that guy if I did the fantasy draft... I thought he was out of the league like 5 years ago. the ticker said out of the league since 2000

ESPN radio or TV? The radio has podcasts so you can hear it again... radio

Just saw one list. It had the Yankees at 97.5 (I'll take the under) Cardinals at 86 and Cubs at 84.5. Considering I'm hoping for 85 from the Cubs, that's a tough call. But with money on the line I'd probably take the under.

I heard the guys on ESPN radio talk about over/under for total victories this year, but I didn't listen long enough to hear any specifics. Anybody know they are? This is always a fun bet. I'm guessing they'll have the Cubs relatively high, like around 85, since they are always overbet. Same with the Yankees (95/96?).

This man is insane. Trade excess OF talent for bullpen help? That's just dumb. It's Nate Silver in his updated NL Central PECOTA report. I know.

This what I have been saying the last month to you crazy kids. The Bears cant CANT cant invest 120 plus million at the linebacker position with Tommy Harris, and the starting cb all due for extensions in the near future. Has nothing to do with how good Briggs is. So moving up to a top ten pick for a guy who does not want to be here is gravy, IMO. 7 million gets freed up, we draft a young impact player... LB is not one position. It's 3. They should invest heavily in their best defensive players. LINEBACKER IS 3 POSITIONS????? DEAR GOD THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING I HAVE EVER KNOWN ABOUT FOOTBALL!!!! congrats on missing the point completely. I didn't miss the point. The point is it's not very smart to let your best players walk just so you can fit into some arbitrary LB salary cap.

This man is insane. Trade excess OF talent for bullpen help? That's just dumb.

I would bet they wait, but eventually trade down.

My belief is he'll do what makes the most financial sense, and sitting out does not make any financial sense.

This what I have been saying the last month to you crazy kids. The Bears cant CANT cant invest 120 plus million at the linebacker position with Tommy Harris, and the starting cb all due for extensions in the near future. Has nothing to do with how good Briggs is. So moving up to a top ten pick for a guy who does not want to be here is gravy, IMO. 7 million gets freed up, we draft a young impact player... LB is not one position. It's 3. They should invest heavily in their best defensive players.

He should reopen negotiations based on the fact that he's a really good player who doesn't have a contract right now. We're not talking about caving in to some 2nd year player wanting to renegotiate his rookie contract. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. If you think that I want them to make some sort of stand on principle, that's not what I am talking about. They aren't negotiating because they feel that his cost outweighs his value. If this is the reason they stopped negotiating then I don't see why his threat to hold out would change their minds. It has to do with your assertion that they shouldn't cave to him just becasue he's talking about holding out. Franchising Briggs was the right move. Franchising without any willingness to talk longterm is just dumb. Angelo should talk because they have a valuable player whom they need and can keep with just money. And they have plenty of cap space (and that cap is just going up) to do it. Of course he'd threaten to hold out with a franchise tag. That has nothing to do with me wanting Angelo to go back to the table. I've wanted him to go back the whole time. Thinking Briggs will be cool with playing as a franchise player is an error in judgement.

He should reopen negotiations based on the fact that he's a really good player who doesn't have a contract right now. We're not talking about caving in to some 2nd year player wanting to renegotiate his rookie contract.

I've been trying to unsweep this point the whole time. Jones for a move up is completely different than Briggs for a move up, since there is no Cedric Benson ready to take Briggs' job. The value of the move up is real, and I'd be pretty happy with that value. However, are the Bears any better off? I don't know. They have to get better on the offensive line. Browns' return doesn't change that at all. They weren't a great line last year, by any stretch, but they were lucky with health. One injury in 2007 and they could go from pretty good line to bad. They might need D-tackle help. And I'm pretty convinced they need secondary help and some sort of offensive playmaker help. Jones and a pick for a higher pick wasn't a bad move. I don't think it was great myself, but I was fine with it on a value basis. But if you do that again (2 assets for 1), you start stripping away your quantity pretty quickly, and for a team that is already in good cap situation and needs to keep getting better, that's tough to swallow. This is a deal I'd really have to consider, but I'd try and hold out for something to add back to the team.

I've been trying to point out the overall value of going from #31 to #6, but yes I like the way you put it. This is like gaining the #16 overall. It is like gaining the #16 overall. But, it's only "like gaining the 16" and isn't exactly gaining the 16. The Jones deal was easier to swallow because there was an obvious replacement for him already on the team, one who I think is already better. If you can trade a guy who is no better than a platoon player then moving up in the draft without actually gaining additional picks is still attractive. When trading Briggs, you are opening up a huge hole with no real internal solution. Without adding quantity to your draft picks, you are therefore adding more needs while keeping your supply the same. The Bears have needs. Trading Briggs without adding addition picks is just going to make it harder to fill all those needs. What if Briggs sits out the first 10 weeks? Then what? He's really burned his bridges here. I have started to come around to the fact that this is a real possibility. If that's the case, you'll still have the big hole and have either a a lower caliber player filling it or without an extra impact player on one side of the ball. I think this is a no brainer for the Bears if offered. I'm still not convinced that the Redskins have a big need at LB, but they like the make a splash. Angelo should start talking longterm contract if he doesn't want Briggs to sit-out. Cutting off negotiations was a fun little jab at the guy, but it's really a stupid longterm strategy.

Like I said, you're wrong. And we can only hope Angelo doesn't think like you. I'm not making assumptions I can't make. What I'm doing is not allowing frivolous meanginless information to cloud the issue. No, I'm not wrong. You're starting from a point of "this deal is bad." That's a false starting point. I'm simply pointing it out. Your selling your own assets short for no reason. It's PR nonsense that has no place is a discussion about the actual values being traded. I'm starting from a standpoint that this isn't the slam dunk that some people think it is. I could probably live with it, but it's hardly great for the Bears and stupid for the Redskins.