goonys evil twin

The Yankees don't make decisions based on finances, they base it on the level of Yankeeness and/or championships. It would be stupid, but I could easily see them dealing him, especially if they bomb out in the playoffs.

CC Paul Sullivan on this. Pauls points out the record, he just thinks it's because of karma.

but managers shouldn't "rock the boat". they're there to do a simple job--do whatever upper management wants them to do. unfortunately, in our case, that would be a terrible thing, as upper management is even more incompetent than field management. and while i think that girardi rocking the boat would help us in the short-term, the only thing that will help us truly is the deconstruction and reconstruction of the front-office with a team president like sandy alderson, a GM like paul depodesta, and any old ex-player they can find to do an easy job in the field. Too many managers let their ego affect their moves. They can't just put the guys on the field and let them play, they have to feel important so they call things like pitch outs, sac bunts, hit and runs, etc to put their stamp on the team. It's partially because they know the media laps that stuff up as a manager who is making things happen and doing the little things to be a winner.

Seriously, every single one of his suggestions were completely superficial and non-baseball related. 6 were strictly fan related. Not only did he fail to mention anything specifically baseball related (ie, fire Dusty), he couldn't even list a general baseball comment (get better pitchers). And to top it off, it wasn't even funny.

Jaws and Salisbury will pick the Bears. All 6 of sportsline.com's guys have us not only winning, but beating the spread. http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/features/writers/expert/picks I'm in the minority on this one. I just see this game as a heck of a tough battle. I think we can win if we play well, but I am expecting a dogfight. Hey-----here's to me being wrong :wink: Saying you expect the Bears to beat the spread is not necessarily the same as saying it won't be a tough battle. It's only 3 points. While giving up 3 points on the road is big in Vegas terms, in football terms, it's still a close game.

Because it's illegal to bench Pierre for even one game.

MacPhail era one of unfulfilled promise Bruce puts out what I believe is the first detailed accounting of how disappointing the MacPhail era has been. A lot of people have focused on the managers, or on Hendry. But Andy is the bottom line decision maker. He's greenlighted the moves that have been made, especially the hiring and non-firing of key members of management that have repeatedly failed at their jobs. He set the tone and gameplan in place, the rest of the crew just followed along. A key point: The Cubs were better before Andy, despite the overall sentiment that Andy did a good job moving the ballclub forward. That says it all. 12 years, and the only time they won 90 games was when they needed an extra game added to win the wild card. When your goal is to "contend within the division", this is the sort of mediocrity you will achieve. If your goal is to win 100 and be the best in baseball, a 90 win season and first round exit is a disappointment. When your goal is to contend within the division, 90 losses and last place is a disappointment. Disappointment is inevitable in baseball, it's up to the organization to decided what they will be disappointed by, and what sort of goal they want to achieve. If you don't try to win 100 and the WS, you probably aren't going to win 100 and the WS.

I think they're a joke.

The Smokies don't play in Knoxville, sadly. They play in Kodak, a small town outside of Knoxville that lies on the edge of Sevierville. Which is around the bend from Shelbyville.

I don't disagree with this. Here's hoping (and expecting) that your "if" comes true. A US Ryder cup victory, especially if it's interesting, might challenge that, as well as some more craziness in the NL west.

One good start in the postseason from Trax (already rehabbing his image by clinching the eastern division game) and a "clutch" homerun and Jim won't be able to stop himself. Is there a stick my fingers in my ear and yell to pretend like I can't hear you smiley? I don't want to think about this.

Holy crap, I need to slow down.

Mathews may be no better than Pierre, but if he's cheap he's also somebody you could replace with Pie pretty easily.

Then they will need to replace both CF and RF. Doesn't matter, either way they needed to replace 2 guys out there, IMO. I always come back to my idea of platooning Murton with Jacque with the idea he'd hopefully be able to take over RF after a year or two. Get big bopper for LF a la Dunn, C-Lee, etc. and haul up Pie. That, or Jacque in CF.

He won't lose if you watch tonight.

got any stock tips?

I'm not saying he should have done anything in particular. I was questioning the "pitchers didn't perform" line. And I do question adding another innings eating mediocre pitcher to a staff full of them, but if I was a WS fan, I wouldn't have much to complain about. Maybe he should have tried trading off 2 pitchers for 1 great one, and filling in with another mediocre guy elsewhere. But it worked last year, I see why he'd want to stick with them this year, it wasn't bad. He should have expected a decline though. And the team was very close to the playoffs even with that decline (and an overly dramatic decline from Buerhle that wasn't expected - although I've been thinking that guy would have troubles for years now, don't know why, just never liked him). In reality, they probably win a couple more games if Buerhle didn't absolutely suck, though that might not have been enough.

no, the biggest difference is that their pitching went sour this season. if their pitching was up to last year's par, they'd be coasting into the playoffs easily, despite the emergence of detroit, who'd be battling it out with minnesota for the wild card. kenny williams did a great job in the offseason, he even shored up the staff with vazquez as a 5th starter. the rotation just didn't perform. But that's only because last years results skewed expectations. They pitched over their heads in 2005, and were bound to decline in 2006. but you can't really demote anyone because you expect them to decline, can you? especially after a monster year. No, you probably can't. But I wasn't really saying they should have. KW put together a 90+ win team, that's his job, to give his team the chance. There's no surefire way to build a winner (excepting the Yankees spend way more than anybody else plan), but GM's have to play the odds.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/batting?seasonType=2&type=reg&sort=OPS&minpa=100&split=182&season=2006&pos=lf&hand=a&league=mlb&ageMin=17&ageMax=51

no, the biggest difference is that their pitching went sour this season. if their pitching was up to last year's par, they'd be coasting into the playoffs easily, despite the emergence of detroit, who'd be battling it out with minnesota for the wild card. kenny williams did a great job in the offseason, he even shored up the staff with vazquez as a 5th starter. the rotation just didn't perform. But that's only because last years results skewed expectations. They pitched over their heads in 2005, and were bound to decline in 2006.

I was a little scared with Dr. Z taking the Bears, but I like that so many others are picking against them still.

Did somebody equate beating ones wife with making a mistake?

I don't really care what the players say, I care what the results show. These are the same people who wind up in broadcast booths and anchor desks talking like Morgan and Kruk, jabbering about any and everything.

This is one of those cases where it shows that statistics shouldn't overrule common sense. What exactly is the common sense?

Or maybe he's not good at sharing the knowledge. Having the ability doesn't mean you can get others to learn to do what you do.