goonys evil twin

I have nothing to add to the discussion, but I just want to point out that this has to be one of the strangest ways I've ever seen somebody mistype the word "that." :shock: I'm good like that.

I disagree. Teams settle for defense only catchers because they have no other choice. Many teams would love to get a player that provide what Barrett does offensively. AL teams in particular that could keep his bat in the lineup would be very eager. Already it looks like we're stuck with a defense-only SS in the lineup daily, so I don't think I want a defense-only catcher too. That would put a lot of pressure on the other six hitters to produce. Assuming you mean Izturis, I doubt he'll be in the lineup daily.

It's only risky in the sense that small-minded old people might question it.

Heh...maybe if they weren't 0-3. Didn't think so either. But I wonder if they would even talk. Despite the hot start, I'm not sure Angelo would be all that keen on leaving Orton as the backup to Rex right now. I have to believe Tampa stills wants to salvage something out of this season, which was supposed to be a playoff season.

Do you think the Bears could get Tampa's first rounder for Brian Griese right now?

It's actually quite a different situation. He signed Lee early in the season, when he had incentive to sign early (avoiding the risk that injury would hurt his negotiations). With Aramis the season is over. There's no incentive to sign early. Hendry is up the proverbial creek with Aramis. He's got to sign him and Aramis's agent knows it.

Things are not going well when you intentionally walk Ronny Cedeno in the first inning. The Cubs seem to have grounded out about 5 times already this inning.

I have to wait to see what sort of decisions Hendry makes before answering. Obviously, the way things stand now, it doesn't look good. But it wouldn't be that hard to change things around.

Likely. Maybe the Bucs can see what Major Applewhite is up to these days Great name, marginal QB skills. I could be wrong, but I thought I saw Major up in the booth for someone.....is he an OC now for some school? OC for Rice.

That was one of the worst officiated games I've seen in a long time. Was that the crew that routinely leads the league in penalties called? The announcers kept with the storyline that it's two divisional opponents knocking the crap out of each other drawing all the penalties, but by the 2nd half, they gave up on the at theory.

I can already see it, midway through 2007, the Cubs are struggling, Izturis has been on and off the DL a couple times. And Hendry says, "It's not an excuse, but injuries have really affected what we have been able to do this year." The only question is what word would the next manager (please be a next manager) use in place of "horses" when describing those injured players.

Brings back memories of the playoff loss. Carolina was coming off a blow-out against the Giants, just like Seattle. Delhomme didn't throw for a ton of yards, and it was mostly about the running game. In this case, Seattle didn't establish the run against NY, but Hasselback didn't throw for a ton of yards either. Seattle also turned the ball over yesterday, something teams can't do if they want to beat the Bears.

Fixed. Here's pulling for that homefield advantage to really be a factor! This game may have big implications on whose stadium we're playing in if we face Seattle in the playoffs. IF we win this one, I can't see the Bears going worse than 13-3. If we lose, I think our worse case scenario is 11-5. I have a hard time seeing Seattle doing any worse than 12-4. If they beat us, I predict they'll finish no worse than 13-3 at years end. You think 11-5 is worst case if they lose to Seattle? My first instinct was to say worst case has to be worse than that. But then I looked at the schedule. If they lose to Seattle, and 2 of 3 on the east coast swing, that's 3 totals losses. Leaving room for 2 more to drop to 11-5, and I'm not sure there are 2 more losses on the schedule aside from Seattle, a NY team and NE. You might be right. A win here sets the Bears up for 14-2 as a possibility. This really is a huge game, and I'm guessing NBC will be doing its best to promote the heck out of it. This is the type of game they were looking to get when they got back into football.

I'm also surprised Peterson hasn't been getting his one series a game. He averaged over 5 yards a game last year, you'd think he would at least have gotten a taste with how bad Jones was. Jones is completely on my crap list. he left 30-35 yards out on the field today. it's like watching late career Neil Anderson out there. inside runs go to the middle of a defenders chest instead of to the daylight two yards away, outside runs are strung out until he goes out of bounds when he could have had 3-4 cutting upfield. there haven't been alot of holes, but thost that have been there, particularly today, were missed. edit - it was good to see Benson in the middle of the congrats to Grossman after the TD. at least gives the illusion he's involved and not completely ostricized. Hapton's criticism of Benson after the game on WGN was over the top unnecessary. I get the feeling the coaching staff wants to go to Benson, but they are kind of saving his legs for a late season run while getting all they can out of Jones now. The coaches wanted to go to Benson before, but the players nearly revolted. So Jones gets his job back and the coaches are daring him to keep it. Hampton is a meat head. I didn't here what you are referencing, but I think I could picture it. I think there's a reason Hampton isn't in coaching (besides the DUIs), and it's because he's still got the veteran player attitude, and not the go with the best guy attitude that NFL coaches need.

Early line has the Bears giving 2.5 points, a very low number for a home team. I'm guessing the experts go hard after the Seahawks on this one. My early feeling is that the Bears lose this one, but that might change.

And probably much, much better that whatever free agent acquisition they get this offseason.

Nobody is counting on them, people are thinking of ways to include them in case they do come back.

That's oversimplistic. Every decision doesn't have a 50/50 chance. The point is many decisions are overly risky, high risk low reward. The better thing would be to not make the moves. The problem is most managers feel they need to prove their worth (and smarts) by overmanaging, which can hurt your chances.

True, but the referenced post spoke of "good records or not".

Sadly, this is the most likely course of action brought up so far in this thread. I don't think that is most likely, because I don't think that would be very profitable. Ratings would plummet, attendance would plummet, all revenues would plummet, and the fan base would dwindle. They built up the present fan base during a time when people didn't have many other options. Baseball was the number 1 sport for years, it was the only worthwhile thing on tv, and there wasn't much but tv. I could see them leveling off at the $95m level, and failing to bump it over $100m. I could see them drift to about 10-12 range over time, if others spend more. But a drastic cut in payroll would hurt their revenues way too much.

I did the math, Kerry Wood has made $14,171.51 per pitch the past two seasons. And considerably more per strike. This year he has made $53,140.10 per strike. More than most people make in a year. I'm not saying all this because I dont want him back, I would love to sign him as a reliever...I just thought it was interesting. It was calculated that the casino guy who is ranked 3rd on the Forbes money list made over $1 million an hour this past year, based on how much higher his net worth increased.

There's more to that article if you want to read more. But there is no clue in there that they might sell the Cubs. The Cubs make them money so why sell it? My guess is that they restructure the Tribune Co, sell what isn't needed, but keep the Cubs. It's the best of both worlds. Well, if everything is on the table, then they might sell the Cubs. Furthermore, the fact that it does make them money is exactly why they might fetch a good price for it. Plus, it's not really a strategic asset.

Ticket sales are just a portion of game day revenue. It's a big deal that those people didn't come. It's not the retirees bussing in from Iowa that spend another $75 on beer and hot dogs. You can count on those attendees. Furthermore, those empty seats this year are going to mean less demand next February. The memory of eating those tickets is going to cause some people to not be so eager to purchase when they go on sale. I know this February was the first time in many years I didn't even try to buy any tickets. And I know several people who were giving away their tickets for much of this season. The trib knows that succcess breeds revenue. That's why they kept increasing payroll in the late 90's and early 00's, when many other teams were pulling back. It wasn't until Hendry's plans started blowing up in his face that they pulled in the spending reins a little (this season).

I understand your point. This year though----there's got to be a drop in revenue. Those stands are looking pretty empty these days. Who knows how many hot dogs are going cold, replica jerseys remaining unsold.....advertisers complaining about the dropping viewership. Trib will never tell us. But some of that has to be happening. Fan interest in this team has dropped through the floor this year. The money was being made despite the losses because throughout the late 90's and early 00's, there was a ton of hope based on the belief in the farm system. Ticket sales increased based on expectations for future success, and the playoff entries just fueled the fire. Those empty seats are hitting home right now, both in terms of a loss of revenue this year (concessions), and expectations for a drop in ticket demand next spring. People bought tickets early when they realized they would be so expensive, and hard to come by, later in a successful year, and nobody wanted to be left out of a championship year. 2004 had high expectations. 2005 were just as high, despite the late season collapse in 2004. 2006 was a case of being forgiving one bad year. But 2007 is a big question mark. The team is in dissarray. Revenue is far from guaranteed. There has to be something to spark expectations, which is ultimately what drives preseason sales demand. A change in managers probably isn't going to do it. The Trib's options are to overhaul the front office, or invest in some big time players, or at least names.

Amazing young talent? Is this a joke? Reggie Abercrombie? Dan Uggla (a utility infielder and career minor leaguer before his 2006 anomoly?) Willingham? Mitre? Nolasco? Come on, these guys aren't "amazing talent". Sure, you can say that about Hanley Ramirez, Miguel Cabrera, Willis, and possibly Amezaga, but not the entire team. Not even close. Yes, amazing young talent, much more than the Cubs.