goonys evil twin

Theroit and Bynum are both a little light in the prospect department. They are kind of old to be considered to have much potential. Both have utility guy written all over them. Theriot has a .355 minor league OBP, while Freddie has a .347.

Worked well there, I thought. I don't agree at all with the opinion either, but rolleyes as a response is stupid and immature, some might even interpret it worse than that. This is just part of the campaign though. Rolleyes doesn't do anything except aggravate people, hence my desire to see him eliminated. I like to use the rolleyes to show sarcasm in my post and I don't think that aggravates people. But I agree with you in the way the other poster used them. Brilliant post. :roll:

I read Aaron Gleeman's blog regularly. He's a huge Twins fan and he's been pointing out that the only reason no one knew about his throwing problems before was because he was in Minnesota. Now that he's in Chicago, the microscope is on him, so to speak. Scarily enough, it could be easy for the Cubs to not know about the problem, due to their relience on scouts seeing a handful of games to judge a player.

As is normally the case, rain is in the forecast throughout the game. Maybe the crap bowl will be flushed out tonight.

Closing in on 3 weeks since reaching the 16 under / 9.5 games back mark, and the Cubs are now 22 under and 12.5 back, having tied the previous mark once. The Cubs would have to go 20-12 to finish the season better than 16 games under .500, that's a .625 W%. Theoretically they could win 7 in a row starting now and beat the mark. 9.5 games back of the wild card is a little more attainable, but considering none of the front-runners have been any good of late and the Cubs are still losing ground, it might be a longshot.

The fear from me is he's too attached to conventional wisdom, and will blindly adhere to its practices if given a chance. I'm not saying he will, I'm saying it's a concern that I've had about him since his name came up and he's done nothing to answer the question.

Yes, but a pretty brief time. And Torre's disciples have a mixed record of success. Come to think of it..... Torre has a mixed record of success, no? Yep, he certainly didn't prove he could manage a big league team to any success until he came to the Yankees.

Yes, but a pretty brief time. And Torre's disciples have a mixed record of success.

Of course they would, they have to justify their inflated salaries, not to mention their own egos. I don't think it's all that simple to manage the clubhouse, I think it is pretty easy to manage a baseball game. The bad ones, Dusty, are the ones who make it complicated. Unnecessarily throwing in double switches, bunts, pitch outs, and other moves makes it seems tougher than it is. Dealing with the media, keeping players motivated and all that is certainly a tough task for any man. Telling your best hitters to wait for their pitch and then do with it what they can is not.

You can see Joe can manage the Florida Marlins. What he's done there this year tells you nothing about how he'd handle the Cubs next year, in comparison with any other manager. The Marlins job, no media, no expectations, all young players, is completely different from the Cubs job. If Joe comes to Chicago and decides he wants a bunch of Joe Girardis, ie, experience veteran gamers, the Cubs could be in just as much trouble. We don't know what he'll do. Managing isn't hitting. You can't just up and move and be pretty certain your skills will carry over to the new team. Maybe Joe can't handle a team with lots of very expensive veterans with big egos and a passionate fan base that demands improvement. And maybe he won't be able to handle the media. Fredi at least knows more about what it takes to coach a mix of veterans and young players. The point is we don't know Joe is the right guy for the Cubs. And it's far from the no-brainer people are making it out to be.

I don't really understand what it means to know if a guy can manage at the ML level. It's not like it's a skill, like hitting a curve ball. I think far too much importance is given to tenure as a major league manager, that's why so many guys are recycled through the system. I think you are severly oversimplifying things by saying managing is not a skill. Decision making, strategy, knowledge, play relationships, etc all involve skill. No manager search will be needed by your criteria, just pull somebody off of the streets. I said it's not like a skill such as hitting a curveball. I didn't say it took no skill. And I didn't come close to suggesting you could just pull somebody off the streets. I think managers are vastly overrated, and often times do more harm than good. The best managers keep their players in-line and motivated, then sit back and watch them play. It's not like football where designing and calling the right plays can determine the outcome of the season. Some managers are better for really young teams, some are better for extreme veteran teams. Most managers that have had any success, have also had extreme failure. The managers who hurt their team the most are the managers who try to put their signature on every move, looking to "make things happen" by constantly calling for pitchouts (as Dusty often does with pitchers who have control problems), stealing bases, bunting etc. Just keep the egos in check, keep 'em motivated. Rest them and use them properly and it's a fairly simple job, the outcome of which should be determined by the skill of the players on the field.

I assume CW equals conventional wisdom, which is what causes managers to foolishly give away outs.

I don't really understand what it means to know if a guy can manage at the ML level. It's not like it's a skill, like hitting a curve ball. I think far too much importance is given to tenure as a major league manager, that's why so many guys are recycled through the system.

I think Hendry would have fired Dusty at mid-season if he would have known that there was going to be a daily soap-opera with Dusty as the star. If he didn't know it would be a soap opera, he failed to do due diligence when thinking about hiring Dusty in the first place, and he would have had to ignore the past 3 years of soap opera.

Worked well there, I thought. Talking to a couple of guys who are around Gm's everyday, they tell me that to be successful, you have to take risk's. Risk's as in signing players like Dempster, Miller, Carpenter, etc. Guys who are coming off arm injuries, are a risk. I dont know what is so around to understand. A good example of this, is Kerry Wood. Some GM is going to take a RISK on him. No gurantee he will stay healthy, but there is always that chance he will stay healthy. That is considered a risk. Nobody said you can't take a risk. What was wrong was your claim that the best GMs are the ones that take the most risks. Every team takes a certain amount of risk. More risks does not equal greater success. If it did, it would be pretty easy to fix your team, just take more risks. Successful GMs build a significant amount of predictable production, and spice it up with some risks. But they don't put the hopes of the team on the shoulders of the most risky players.

The last thing I'm interested in is how big of a name the manager has. I don't want the enthusiasm to be built on the name of the manager, that should be determined by the level of player acquisition Hendry embarks on this winter. I, for one, don't really care about tenure. Whether the next manager is here for 3 years or 10, all I care about is they win. Some managers come in and win one, then leave, as they either wear out their welcome or lose the desire. Joe Torre and Bobby Cox are the only real staples of the managerial business. Scioscia is close with his 6 years and level of success. I really have no interest in getting a guy like Bochy to be there every year and pretty much maintain a level of mediocrity that does little to inspire. Stability is overrated in sports if it doesn't come with success. I'd much rather have a short and volatile era than a long steady, and ultimately unsuccessful period.

http://espn.go.com/photo/2006/0828/pg2_w_samardzija_195.jpg DJ Gallo's caption reads: Yes, that's a boy. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=gallo/060828 I laughed because when I first opened the page, my eyes scanned across the screen without looking closely and I thought, "I wonder what the story is about the female football player."

Buck Coats serves no purpose on this team. There's no reason to avoid sending him back down. Likewise, the Mabry/Nevin combo could be traded.

He's penciled in as my backup catcher for 2007. It would be stupid to spend money on a veteran cacther, unless Barrett is traded or moved to a new position.

It's actually quite different. It would be tough to say for certain which is the better NFL conference. It's at least much more of a debate. Carolina, Seattle, Dallas, Washington, Giants and Bears would all be in the running in the AFC. The NL has one team that could stand a chance in the AL.

Not enough. The offense is not going to just gel into solid group. It's been the weakness of this team for years now. If any part of the team stands a chance of taking what we have and turning into a solid core, it's the pitching. At least the Cubs have lots of pitching talent around. They don't have much in terms of offensive talent, and they desperately have to look outside the organization for help. Pitching is far too inconsistent to rely upon it to carry your team. Sure, every year some team comes out of nowhere on the strength of their pitching, but it's next to impossible to plan for such an event. The best bet is to build the best all-around team, which means the best offense and the best pitching you can find.

Thats a very Hendry-like philosopny. :lol: The most successful GM's, are the ones who take the most risk's. The most successful GM's are the ones who get the most guaranteed production by limiting risk and staying away from disasters. You give your team the best chance to win by making the smartest moves, not by putting your life savings on the lottery.

He's pretty much crying that he's not loved enough.

I think it was Mike Greenberg who said something to the effect of "I would be shocked if Girardi isn't managing the Cubs next year, assuming he leaves Florida." I'm not sure how much stock I put into his predictions/analysis.

If it weren't for the late season injury to Flash Gordon I think they would have likely made the playoffs that year. Seems hilarious now, but I recall the elation I felt knowing that we had locked up the division with the McGriff trade. I recall a decisive beatdown on the Cardinals that very weekend that further cemented the notion. The thing I didn't like about that trade was they were replacing one of the three productive bats in the lineup with a guy who was just a little more productive. It's not like they plugged a whole. Stairs was hitting, unlike a lot of the other guys.