goonys evil twin

Nobody claimed we haven't seen anything like this. I, for one, have acknowledged that Hendry helped take this team from laughinstock to semi-respectable. The problem is he failed miserably in taking them to the next level. What do Ed Lynch and Larry Himes have to do with anything? How can you sayd he doesn't deserve another chance but he should get one?

They don't seem to have any sense of ugency getting him back, so I have to wonder... Hendry seemed to think Ramirez wasn't going to opt for free agency, which tells me he thought he could get this done with a simple extension, as opposed to a brand new contract.

First shot across the bow? Or warning to fans that Aramis isn't coming back?

sorry, I'll take the Ramirez figure

Somebody might toss out something like 5/60, but if people are concerned about the health/age factors, it might be more like 4/48-50. I think he can get more than 3 years though.

When the Orioles were good, 96/97, they were at the top of the league in spending, higher than the Yankees. But George quickly surpassed Angelos, and the Orioles started cutting payroll after back to back sub .500 seasons. The real stinkers came about once they cut payroll on a bad team. The Mets were good, and expensive from 97-2000. But a lot of their best players were old, and quickly faded. In the early 2000s they were going through ownership changes, and held payroll in check. They ended up with some big money bums, waited to clear them from the payroll and settle the transfer of ownership, then reinvested heavily a couple years ago.

Well, some of us old guys know a thing or two about statistics - heck, I can even work one of these newfangled computer thingys. Old isn't necessarily bad. I didn't necessarily say it was. I was just thinking since options look to be drying up, and Lou is an old-timer, I'm guessing we get somebody who has worked with him in the past, possibly Elia.

I get the feeling that the run on mediocre pitchers we saw a couple years ago is going to pale in comparison to this offseason. Mediocre journeymen pitchers have dominated in the playoffs. Suppan just guaranteed himself $30 million easy, and quite possibly more. The standard innings eater contract was 3/27 a couple years ago, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a few 3/33, or even 4 year deals for some of the less than inspiring pitchers on the free agent market.

Opens a door for Girardi, if he's interested. Doubtful though. My guess is we'll get a really old guy.

That's why I can stay somewhat optimistic. If you can win your division and get into the playoffs, anything can happen so you don't have to build the best team in baseball, just the best team in your division and hope somebody on your team gets hot at the right time. Not "having" to build the best team in baseball is no excuse to not try to build the best team in baseball. Setting your sights simply on winning your division is a good way to miss your goal. Set your goal at best team in baseball, then if you miss, you can still be in the playoffs. Andy had 12 years of "contend within the division" and it took this team nowhere. This is evidence that the Cubs can win next year. They aren't years from contending. But, they cannot simply say, "well, we could have won 84 games if healthy, maybe with a little luck and another arm, we could win 89". Sometimes 90 isn't even enough. You don't know when you go into the season. Baseball is all about increasing your odds. The better you are, the better you chances of making the playoffs, which is the only way you have a chance to win in the playoffs. Build the best team you can afford without bankrupting the future.

Why do they do that? I never understood why the refs spend so much time looking like they are trying to fake guys out.

Ease up cowboy. I was responding to the general conversation about Hendry's relationships affecting drafts. Hendry's imprint is all over the team. The hitters fit to a T the type of hitter he's advocated, and the results of both the hitting and pitching were almost inevitable, given the goals he set long ago. I tought you were trying to argue for the sake of it, trying to correlate me mentioning his past relationships as something of a positive. Don't call me cowboy :) surely

Ease up cowboy. I was responding to the general conversation about Hendry's relationships affecting drafts. Hendry's imprint is all over the team. The hitters fit to a T the type of hitter he's advocated, and the results of both the hitting and pitching were almost inevitable, given the goals he set long ago.

Who cares about his relationships? He's been a major factor within this organization for several years. He's very much a reason why this team sucks.

Actually it is. It's not like he was the groundskeeper before and ticket seller. He was in charge of the farm, then he was asst GM, then GM. His paws are everywhere. This is his team. I'm not singling out any one individual, just the one remaining individual from the triumverate of failures that led this team into the toilet. Andy, Jim and Dusty. Jim is as guilty as any of them. What does that even mean? Do you want to sit on the $40-60m available to spend until a new core is in place? The core is in place. Zambrano, Ramirez and Lee are the core, with Barrett and Murton along for the ride and guys like Hill, Wuertz and others very capable of contributing now and the future. Midseason they should have gone after Bobby Abreu for the garbage Philly was looking to take back. I don't know what other midseason spending you are talking about, but that would have been a very smart move.

High rate of turnover? Andy and Hendry were in charge for 12 years. How the hell can you possibly claim the problem is with the high rate of turnover in leaders when the two most prominent leaders were in place for 12 years. Andy was part of the problem. He set the agenda for everyone below him. I'm glad he's gone. He was way too conservative and it showed with his lack of flexibility. Hendry switched titles several times in that 12 years. Hendry has nothing to do with the draft now, for example. Job responsibilities changed. Not only have they changed for Hendry, but baseball is extremely against micro-managing. You let people do their jobs. Blaming Hendry for long term problems (like 20+ year problems) when he was only in certain roles for a several years is ridiculous. That's not how baseball organizations work. Yes, the problem is a high rate of turnover. We can't even begin to fix the many problems further down in the organization without quality steady leadership. MacPhail was steady, but not quality. Let's see what Hendry can do with a free hand now that MacDonough is basically going to rubber stamp the baseball department's decisions. If it doesn't improve drastically in the next two years, it's all on Hendry. I disagree strongly with the free pass you are giving Hendry. He was not a puppet. This team looks exactly like he wanted it to.

At the risk of skating on some dangerous racial territory, I'd say that might be due to the relatively large number of shots of fans in the high roller seats, compared to the rest. 95% of fan shots have to be the ones right behind home plate or the dugouts. Those are invariably "corporate" types, and as sad as it sounds, white people. Of course, that's not always true. Our office has its hands on a lot of tickets, and some very good seats, and at least one of the guys that went, was black, and another asian. But that's just a pointless example I guess.

Does Jason Grimsley look stacked to you? I didn't think so. Grimsley has a neanderthal head

You think this is a 2006 thing? This problem has been around for a long time. I spent several posts explaining that this is a long-term problem. Do you even read what I write, or just argue for arguements' sake? It's hard to read what you write because it makes so little sense. You think there's been high turnover by leaders, when Andy and Jim were around forever. You don't want to spend money on this team, but you think the talent is very close to contending. What exactly are you advocating? You are all over the place.

Only major mistake? I would say hiring Baker was the biggest mistake. So what is your plan? Sit on the $40-60 million he has to spend and just let the kids play now?

There's more to overuse than blatant injury. Loss of effectiveness is often a problem. Pitching through pain or just means you'll rack up innings, it doesn't mean they'll be good innings. Lots of guys pitched big innings/pitches and kept on going but lost their effectiveness while still in their 20's.

Gunslinger? The guy has shied away from every possible big time acquisition, except for when teams were desperate to unload and NOBODY else was buying. Yes, fire him now. Better yet, fire him following 2005. You don't judge a GM based on a couple moves. You base it on the big picture. Hendry's signature is all over this organization. He helped bring them from pathetic to halfway decent, but they've reverted to bad very quickly under his watch. He hasn't been all bad, but he's been mostly bad. And in this business, mostly bad means you aren't going the job right.

High rate of turnover? Andy and Hendry were in charge for 12 years. How the hell can you possibly claim the problem is with the high rate of turnover in leaders when the two most prominent leaders were in place for 12 years.

You think this is a 2006 thing? This problem has been around for a long time.

You seem like somebody who likes to come to conclusions without much evidence. I've followed the Hendry era very closely. I was strongly against the whole "we're going to be the Braves" thing long ago. I advocated many many years ago a much stronger effort be placed on developing hitters. I was all about the farm system long before it became par for the course to be all about the farm system. But you cannot simply build around young pitching, because it is the single most unstable thing in all of baseball. Young pitchers drop like flies, and pitchers in general are not the most consistent bunch. I'm all about having young pitching. But building through the farm system does not mean you can't spend $100+ million on good pitching and good hitting today. I don't see what you seem to be advocating. You talk about the need for developing with young players, but then you also talk about not going with a Zambrano + rookies rotation. What are you looking for? There's no reason why the Cubs can't continue to build from within, while at the same time spending to build with players from outside the organization and contending today. 10 years ago, a guy like Jacque Jones would have been your 2nd best position player, now we have 3 hitters who are much better, plus a young player that is just as good and probably soon to be better. This isn't a hapless bunch where you'd be better off dumping everything and building for 5 years down the road. This is a team that can contend, with the right moves, now. They can be a 95 win team, and still keep building up the farm system. They can, and should, get as many good hitters and pitchers as they can. They should not sacrifice hitting for pitching because of some cliche about great pitching.