goonys evil twin

No they don't. Coordinators rarely get interviewed before their team is eliminated from the playoffs. It happens all the time. Riveria interviewed for the Rams before the Bears home playoff game. They are usually not denied permission. So that means it happens all the time and pretty much every NFL coach will let it happen? No. Most teams allow coordinators to interview on the off day during the playoffs. Very view hold back their guys from possible promotions.

This stuff cracks me up.

I have a feeling that if they fired Torre, they would go in a different direction than simply hiring a former Torre disciple. And I wouldn't be surprised if Girardi wanted to stay clear of that situation as well. There's very little upside to being a Yankees manager. Torre won 4 rings, and has been in the playoffs every year, but half the Yankees audience can't stand him. Girardi would have to win multiple rings to even have the chance to survive a season without a World Series.

The Bears are giving 10 points, on the road. San Diego is the next biggest road favorite, giving 9 points. The Bears are just freaking amazing. I thought they had a chance to be excellent if Grossman just had an average season. But a good Grossman, let alone a fantastic Grossman, makes this team a freaking force.

I can't comprehend your inclusion of Mussina. He's an old inconsistent pitcher. He could easily be a mediocre 100 ERA+ guy next year, going on his recent track record. He could also easily fail to reach 200 IP again. How in the world can you justify putting him over highly productive lock offensive players. You are blinded by the need for pitching. inconsistent picther? first of all, he's fourth on my list. any of those first 3 i would take over him. no, he's a consistent innings eater that has had 2 below 100 era+ years in his entire career (99 and 98). no, history doesn't show he's due for a terrible year. his ERA+ was 125 this year, but i guess we can just assume he's bound for imminent disaster because he's 38. Who said terrible year? Here's the facts on Mussina. 3 years in a row of sub 200 IP. His last 5 ERA+ numbers have been 108 129 98 101 125 That's inconsistent. Two good years, 1 decent year and 2 mediocre/average years. That's not somebody you put 4th on your list ahead of difference making offensive players. You are blinded by the need for pitching to the point where you are willing to throw huge money after old pitchers who don't guarantee you much more than a 160 IP season of averageness. And to top it off, you want a broken down shell of his former self in Edmonds to be the offensive centerpiece of the offseason, while at the same time letting Ramirez walk. It's a terrible plan that will lead to nothing more than continue failure.

So you expect a guy with a mediocre career minor league OBP to improve upon that OBP in his rookie season? Yes, Edmonds is going to keep declining. Do you not understand the idea of aging ballplayers? Do you think all these injuries have been faked?

I'm resigned to the fact that he's probably going to be stupid and go after a name like Lou. I just want him to get it over with because he can't walk and chew gum at the same time. He will let the manager search interfere with the far more important job of improving the team.

I think he's a caretaker until the team is sold. We don't really know anything though. He's there until he's fired.

But wouldn't an overhaul of the minor leauge system lead to those young players that Minnesota has? And wouldn't a team with young studs cost a lot less than 100M worth of mediocrity? Wouldn't a team of young studs that were contenders draw in more money than 100M team that goes 66-96? And frankly, any decision to overhaul the minor league system should come from the GM or head of minor league development. And taking such a decision out of Hendry or Fleita's hands would be undermining them. you mean overhaul it like hendry did a few years ago? I think jim is a classic example of the peter principle. to a T, or whatever that phrase is.

What correct? I said I like both. But I can understand why some prefer one over the other. It's the cliche, and wrong, reasonings that I have a problem with. That kind of support? Okay, so you don't get 5000 19 year olds standing all game, preening for the ESPN cameras and hoping to hook up at most NFL games. I've been to student sections. I've been to a lot of them. And they aren't all they're cracked up to be. It's fun as hell, but they aren't crazy dedicated fans who come back year after year. They are taking advantage of the short window of getting away with doing what student sections do.

I have no interest in mediocre at both, and there's no reason why you would be. You aren't guaranteeing excellent pitching, there's no such thing.

I can't comprehend your inclusion of Mussina. He's an old inconsistent pitcher. He could easily be a mediocre 100 ERA+ guy next year, going on his recent track record. He could also easily fail to reach 200 IP again. How in the world can you justify putting him over highly productive lock offensive players. You are blinded by the need for pitching.

That's some awful sneaky use of stats. What's the point of giving DLee's 2005? He'll never repeat that. Theriot's 2006 is meaningless. Barrett's career year? Beat up catchers decline quickly. Moore's AA OBP? His career OBP is .343. Edmonds didn't just have a fluke down year. He's in decline because he's an old cripple. You are filling a lot of full-time slots with part time players. There's no way that lineup gets 7 players over .350 OBP. And there's significant downside risk to many of those players. Not to mention a severe lack of SLG.

This is my problem with the anti-NFL viewpoint. Like much of what we hear in baseball, I think it's based on conventional wisdom more than actual fact. From the beginning the pro version of football was thought of as the bastardized version of the "pure" college game. It's simply wrongheaded to think that way. I love both games. They are different, but college is in no way shape or form more intense. People who grow up around the college game and without much of a pro influence, tend to lean on the college game. In places without much college exposure but pro teams it's the other way (especially true in NY city area). I understand preferring one over the other, the problem is people's explanations aren't all that accurate.

the thing is, we can afford to throw enough money at them to get them. why not do that? Because it's stupid to put all your eggs in the pitching basket and ignore offense when offense has been your biggest problem for several years. You can cite the fluke teams that look good only because of pitching, but year in year out the real contenders are the teams that are good at pitching and hitting. It's asinine to purposefully make yourself a one dimensional team.

I completely disagree. There's no need to go after 2 stud pitchers, especially ones that include an old inconsistent Mussina. Teams don't need 3 superstart starting pitchers. The Cubs have 1, it would be nice to have 2. But pitchers are far too unreliable to base your whole team around. Look at Houston, their team is all about pitching, one year they are WS candidates, the other year the team is not very good. Overall, they were lucky to ever see that WS. Why are the Mets so good? Because they have a great lineup and lots of good pitching, not a handful of superstar pitchers. What's with all the old declining players on your radar? Mussina, Edmonds? Please, this isn't a team in need of veteran leadership. They need some freaking production.

Cabrera - numero uno because he's pre-prime (upside) and any longterm deal will only take him into his early 30's, at the most - I'd give up a lot. ARod - SS, or fallback if Ramirez leaves at 3B. Zito/Schmidt - I'm actually not in love with either, but they desperately need pitching, and there's not a lot of pitchers I'm dying for. Crawford - Not nearly the upside of Cabrera. Back to back 111 OPS+ seasons doesn't scream star in the making, but he could help this team a lot offensively. wild card Abreu - still on my radar in case the Yankees get weird with their OF. Soriano - I'd take him, but I'm not in love by any stretch. A. Jones - almost forgot about him. If he means no Pierre, that's good enough for me. Burrell - I'd take him over Carlos Lee, but only if it means Jones is gone. C. Lee - See Burrell situation Padilla - Might be the best of the 2nd tier of pitchers available, unless I'm missing a name out there.

I just hope to God that Hendry doesn't use the manager hire as the premiere offseason acquisition.

He's done that only with Baker and Barrett. Everybody else was a matter of teams dumping players, or being left with the last guy on the list. He got guys like Burnitz, Jones, Pierre only after flirting with others first and then settling. I don't see how anybody can defend Hendry as eagerly as you do. He's a failure.

What has happened with Hendry and the Cubs in the past clearly has a bearing on the current situation. We know Hendry's MO. Others know Hendry's MO. He's indecisive, incompetent, and in the end will be left with few options and be forced to bid against himself, as usual.

This is the same kind of thing we've heard the past several seasons, and offseasons. The Cubs are losing ground. Don't worry, it's early. The Cubs haven't signed any free agents. Don't worry, it's early. The Cubs haven't improve the team this offseason. Don't worry, it's early. A lot of people have talked about the need for somebody with the Cubs to get a sense of urgency. Waiting, calm and patience has done jack squat for this team. I think most of this is that Hendry is actually a very indecisive guy. He fluctuates from year to year in how he wants his team to look. His "I've decided I like guys who can catch the ball" line was a big red flag for a guy who can't put together a plan, execute that plan and stick to that plan. He shoots from the hip with regards to personel decisions. Dusty Baker was the last guy he targeted for a long time and then put a lot of effort int acquiring for a long time. Most everybody else was a situation where he just took what came to him. He was reactive to other team's moves and desired moves. He didn't get Nomar until Theo started to really try and make things happen. He got most of his guys either after their other options dried up or after all his own other options dried up. When he did set his sights on a specific player, Furcal, he came up short. This is symptomatic of incompetent management. Most anybody can look at any specific situation in a vacuum and make a case to defend how Hendry handled a situation. But as always, when you look at the big picture, everything included, it's pretty easy to see his failings. He's a coach/scout who is in over his head in a management positions. He's worried more about offending the outgoing manager than getting a new one. He's worried more about doing things the right way than doing the right thing for the betterment of the team. He's not focused on bringing a championship caliber team to Wrigley. The evaluation period regarding Baker exposed his in ability to make the tough, and right, decisions, in case there was any doubt before that.

Paltry amounts that take away from what you can offer others. $2.5m might not seem like much for a player, but if you spend $0.5m on a similar player, that's $2m more you can offer a real player that actually helps the team. Glendon accounts for even more of that. Wouldn't you rather have a AAAA version of Neifi and Rusch, for a combined salary of $650,000, and then have $5m more to spend on one good player?

All the negativity? I think there are some optimistic posts out there. But, come on, our negativity towards Pierre isn't necessarily all directed at him -- most of it is directed to the type of contract we think Hendry is going to offer him, based on Hendry's habit of overpaying. Now the negativity towards Pierre directly comes from him giving us nothing for the 1/3 of the season when we needed him most. Now do you think he'll get a fair contract offer or will we again overpay and neglect other areas? I don't get on Pierre or Jones about their hustle. I get on them because they aren't good at OBP and the Cubs desperately need OBP but don't realize they need OBP.

And he's just going to keep getting that heat. Logically they shouldn't trade him. But if the Yanks go their 6th straight year without a title, Cashman might no longer be making the decisions. Just like Philly felt the need to move Abreu to "mix things up" the Yankees will feel the need to make changes if they don't win the WS this year. If they win it there's no way they trade him, but that's what this all hinges on. If they lose the next 2 in Detroit, the media, fans, bandwagoners and front office folks are going to freak out.

I think the Yankees claims that they won't trade him is just a way to drive up the price. Basically, they aren't going to foot the bill and not get talent back. I think if you take on the bulk of the salary, they will settle for less than equal talent. But it will be more than just prospects. Chiefly, I think they'd love to get some middle relief. Throw Eyre and Aardsma/Novoa into the mix, and I think they'd listen. Include a starting pitcher prospect as well, and one good prospect. Eyre, Aardsma/Novoa, Marmol and Pie for ARod and $3m per year, dropping the cost to the Cubs to $13m per year. You got yourself a 900 OPS for the next several years