goonys evil twin

Says a lot about how that team thinks of Dennis Green. He scapegoated the offensive coordinator, and I believe lost his team in the process. How does it make any sense to fire an OC 3 months into a rookie's career?

If STL wins Henry Blanco will be the starting catcher next year.

Texas is already eating $10M of his annual salary. ARod costs $16m per year for 4 years. I'm guessing Zambrano won't cost that much. I bet Z will get that much or something very close to it. Look at what AJ Burnett got. Z should be in line for a few mil more annually than Burnett. AJ didn't come close to $16m per, he only got $11. I think Zambrano might get close to what Roy Halladay got in his latest extension, 3/40, which is 13.3m per.

Team baseball is an after the fact way of describing a team that won used by lazy sportswriters and experts. If you use up outs moving runners over, and lose, then people will just blame the lack of clutchness of the players coming up next, or, perhaps, the increased clutchiness of the team on defense that benefitted from the team giving away outs.

Texas is already eating $10M of his annual salary. ARod costs $16m per year for 4 years. I'm guessing Zambrano won't cost that much.

I won't give them any heat if they resign all 3 for decent contracts and try to get the most out of them next year.

Tim, I have a great amount of respect for you analysis of the game, and I almost never disagree with you. That said, i386/.5t frustrates me when you make a proclamation like this, yet don't bother to post any supporting evidence. It's not that I don't believe you, but it's obvious a number of people here feel otherwise. So let me ask you this: why is it that you feel ARod is significantly better than Zambrano, Ramirez or Lee? More importantly, do you think he'll remain significantly better over the course of 3 years, assuming the Cubs are able to hold on to all three of them for three years? When playing SS (and I believe he still can), ARod is either the best or second best player at that position in the history of baseball. He's not at his peak any longer, but he's still the best SS in the game by far. No current Cub at any position can make either of those claims. The numbers ARod puts up year in and year out are simply outrageous. He's averaged a line of .305/.386/.573/959 across his entire career. He's a proficient basestealer. He is a (deserved) two-time MVP and has (deservedly) finished in the top 3 five times. Nobody on the Cubs roster can even come within shouting distance of any of these accomplishments. Past accomplishments? No. Nobody on the Cubs has been as consistently great as Rodriguez. But Lee certainly has a chance to repeat what he did in 2005, which would be as good as what Rodriguez could do. And Ramirez still has a good chance for improvement at his age. And at his age, it is not hard to imagine Zambrano putting up 3-4 years as the best, or at least top 5 pitcher in baseball, which would easily match what Rodriguez is capable of doing over the next 4 years.

Funny thing is, he wasn't nearly as bad as people wanted to believe. I mean, he was bad, dont' get me wrong, but I would've taken that .340-.350 OBP out of the leadoff spot over Pierre. Hell, in 1999 he was clearly better than JP of 2006. On the surface you might think that. But look closer. He had a 130 OPS+ in 1997, at age 31. In 1998 with the Cubs it was 69. That's less production than Pierre. That's Neifi territory. It was 88 in '99. A .340 OBP is not bad, but it's basically average, and when everything else you do is below average, it doesn't help much. Blauser really was as bad as people remember.

Wow, a veritable cornucopia of negative vibes!! I suppose the Hawks have earned that much over the years. I'd still like to see what happens (if anything) when Havlat & Ruutu both come back, which should be at about the same time in early November. If they could prevent the other team from scoring 5 times a game, they might be able to hang in there until those guys return, but they'll be doing it without Khabi for a couple weeks.

what a terrible weekend, no Bears game, and the Hawks moderately promising seasons dies an early death.

You are quite wrong on all of your assumptions.

Talk about overreating to a small sample size. The Yankees won 4 of 5 years. The White Sox and Red Sox were favorites over their respective NL opponents and crushed them. There's about 6 underdogs each playoff season, which makes it really easy to say after the fact that the underdog made it. The Yankees won 4 of 5 BEFORE they became a team of mercenaries. They still had guys like Brosius and O'Neill on those teams. Comparing the star power of the Yanks dynasty and the current version is apples to oranges. The RedSox were not favored to win the AL were they? No they weren't. The World Series - yes they were. If you are saying there is one favorite per postseason, there are indeed 7 underdogs. I am saying there is 1 favorite and 1 underdog per series. That means that upsets this year include: A's over Twins, Tigers over Yanks, Tigers over Twins, Cards over Pads, Cards over Mets. 5 of 6 series. Last year underdog wins: Astros over Braves, Astros over Cards, Angels over Yanks 3 out of 7 series 2 years ago underdog wins: RedSox over Yanks, RedSox over Angels, Astros over Braves 3 out of 7 series The 2003 Marlins 2002 Angels and Giants SHould I keep going? So favorites that don't hire mercenaries aren't susceptible to underdogs? This is a silly thought process. Being an underdog is not an advantage. Wow - if that's what you read, then I guess I can save my fingers from typing anymore. . :roll: I didn't say either statement. Read much? My point is that the teams that are heavy favorites are not winning very often as one would expect. I'm talking about the teams with tremendous lineups - whether hired guns or not. Cards lineup in 2004. Mets this year. Yanks this year. You countered by saying the Yankees won 4 of 5 - last being 6 seasons ago before their team became as loaded as it is today. Those teams were good but not the runaway favorites each year - only 1998. You are the one who brought up the Yanks. They won those series when they weren't the obvious favorite - except for 1998. I am only making the distinction that the late 90s Yanks were not as talented and favored as todays Yankee teams because you brought them up as a rebuttal. Got it ? You don't get it. If you claim being the underdog is definitely the role to be in, you are claiming it is an advantage. Read your own words.

I'm hoping Boras (God save me) is trying to convince ARod that the people of Chicago would make him forget of the "unfinished business" he has left in Noo Yawk. And trust me, ARod will never be accepted in noo Yawk. That's interesting. Does A-Rod feel it is imperative to right the legacy in New York? Or would he rather write a new one somewhere else? . He's saying he wants to, but there's no way of knowing if that's just a way to not look like a coward, or even a negotiating stance to help direct where he goes. ARod would be accepted in New York if he had a big playoff push in a World Series winning year. Clemens was hated, but accepted once the team one. He'll never be loved like Jeter, but one WS win would change a lot of minds.

So would I. But we aren't writing the articles about the CBA. Salary cap, revenue sharing, oversees money, expansion/contraction, arbitration/free agency eligibility, these are all the real big ticket items. If none of those change, but compensation does, people would claim it was mostly unchanged.

I'd have to disagree. He made 5.7m this year, and was a problem. His OPS+ of 81 (84 in 2005, 86 career) suggests his production is significantly below average, yet a 5-6m salary is significantly below. He's a below average player. The only value he gives is that he's not among the very worst. I would say, at best, he's worth a slightly below average salary, and that's only because there's a slight chance he'll get a little better. Teams need production, and guys like Pierre just don't provide it. No reason to pay extra for that.

Zambrano isn't the only major league ready pitching. He's the only established stud pitcher, but that's not the same as major league ready. Funny thing, right after my original response, the biggest Yankees fan in my office came up and said, "You can have ARod, I want to get rid of him." Before he was saying he wants Zambrano and Ramirez. Now he wants a couple young arms and then find a third baseman elsewhere. Obviously, he's not Cashman, but I think that's what is going on in Yankee land now. An ARod trade is either going to happen for $0.75 on the dollar, or it's not going to happen. The last guy they talked about like this was Soriano, who they wanted hung up for being such an easy out. Anyway, it wouldn't have to be a 1/1 trade.

It was a terrible post because you willingly ignored facts and listed a bunch of cliches and untruths. Respecting your ability to have an opinion doesn't mean I have to respect an opinion if I see that it is based on false pretenses. Pierre stinks. He stunk last year. He stunk for the Cubs. He's unlikely to be good in the next couple years. He's not a rare commodity, the only way he would be is if you mistakenly put value on being a leadoff hitter. Leadoff hitter is not a position. Center field is a position, and Pierre is one of the worst out there, and he's expensive.

This is a terrible post. Fact is he doesn't get on base, and he gets himself thrown out too often when he does. He stunk in 2005 and wasn't good in 2006. You know, all of us could sling around insults. I'm not slinging insults. You made a terrible post. You made completely inaccurate claims. We don't have to resign Pierre, we should only tolerate it if he was a cheap one year deal and they got a lot of other production. Your hatred of stats is your own problem that you have to come to terms with, because stats matter. Pierre is not a good baseball player.

Nah, he could let Ramirez walk, sign Nomar (or settle for a guy like Spiezio), resign Pierre, sign Lee or Soriano, moved Murton in a deal for pitching, and he'll think he's built a contender.

I'm not sure. If that was the only change, I could easily see it passed off as minor. Baseball media in general ignores the draft.

The thing is, he's not getting somebody better than Zambrano. So, if he'd demand prospects in addition to Zambrano, he'd be asking way more than anybody else can give him.

A basehit only scores one unless it is a double if you don't bunt. Which is easier: a double, 2 singles, or a bunt and a hit. I say a bunt and a hit. Correction. A double, 2 singles, walk with one single with 3 outs to spare. Or, a bunt, and a single with 2 outs to spare.

Talk about overreating to a small sample size. The Yankees won 4 of 5 years. The White Sox and Red Sox were favorites over their respective NL opponents and crushed them. There's about 6 underdogs each playoff season, which makes it really easy to say after the fact that the underdog made it. The Yankees won 4 of 5 BEFORE they became a team of mercenaries. They still had guys like Brosius and O'Neill on those teams. Comparing the star power of the Yanks dynasty and the current version is apples to oranges. The RedSox were not favored to win the AL were they? No they weren't. The World Series - yes they were. If you are saying there is one favorite per postseason, there are indeed 7 underdogs. I am saying there is 1 favorite and 1 underdog per series. That means that upsets this year include: A's over Twins, Tigers over Yanks, Tigers over Twins, Cards over Pads, Cards over Mets. 5 of 6 series. Last year underdog wins: Astros over Braves, Astros over Cards, Angels over Yanks 3 out of 7 series 2 years ago underdog wins: RedSox over Yanks, RedSox over Angels, Astros over Braves 3 out of 7 series The 2003 Marlins 2002 Angels and Giants SHould I keep going? So favorites that don't hire mercenaries aren't susceptible to underdogs? This is a silly thought process. Being an underdog is not an advantage.

Maybe Jim assumed he wasn't coming back, considering how bad he did the past two offseasons. In that case, he didn't really care about the 2007 Cubs.

This is a terrible post. Fact is he doesn't get on base, and he gets himself thrown out too often when he does. He stunk in 2005 and wasn't good in 2006.