goonys evil twin

Kalas is great. But was he calling Brenly Bren, or mispronouncing Len's name?

The area itself is conducive to making this conference better. If kids want to play where their families can see them most of the time they can stay here in the untapped East. We are now starting to get those Virginia kids that Tech and Virginia once had a lock on and have the talent rich Florida. Rutgers has just as much or more history as a lot of the Big Ten teams and both they and UConn went to a bowl game last year. NJ has a huge talent base and if you have read the rivals.com at all Rutgers is now in with many Jersey kids if not most. I admit you're stadiums are much bigger, Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State than ours but in time your going to see something special out of this conference. People also thought the BE was crazy for taking a small school with no history called VTech too and look at them now. Untapped east coast market? Rutgers has as much history as a lot of Big Ten teams? There isn't much talent out here. Dilution from others sports is huge. The east hasn't competed in football for a very long time for a very good reason. Outside of PA, there is nothing to contend with the southeast, midwest or west coast. Jersey always has top prospects and as does Mass. NY always has some top guys, not the numbers as Ohio, Florida or California but some good recruits. JoePa owns Jersey recruiting And Iowa gets the leftovers. Going back to at least the Hayden Fry era, they've had a handful of Jersey guys on the team every year. I always found that an odd fit. Anyway, I'm not saying they don't have any players there. They just are not anywhere close to an untapped market.

I don't think there are a lot of people here who think Ozzie is fresh and funny. You are talking about the reaction of one group to Ozzie with the reaction of a completely different group to Dusty.

You may be right about that. I hope not. Maybe Hendry will be gone by then. I'm guessing that an equally poor 2007 season will mean Hendry is canned before 2008 (Andy may be gone by then as well). But anything around .500 or better and Jim will get all of 2008 as well, and he'll have to sign or get rid of Izturis before the 2008 season.

No, but I don't believe Manny Ramirez is worth $20M per year and I don't believe Carlos Beltran is worth $17M per year. You either overpay for top talent, or you settle for second-tier players. The Cubs are apparently content doing the latter. Manny Ramirez is a top 5 offensive player. Barry Zito isn't a top 5 pitcher. I'd struggle to put him in the top 20. It's one thing to overpay a guy who's clearly in the top tier at his position. Zito isn't close to being a top pitcher. Yeah, Ramirez and Beltran are elite. Zito isn't elite. I'm all for overpaying superstars, Zito is not a superstar.

This is true. This is probably not true. Hendry is probably going to try and keep Izturis around as long as possible.

The obscene year not likely to repeat theory is the same with Soriano, no?

Fred needs to stop with the game threads, or else we risk the Cubs falling out of the race on this losing streak.

I don't remember it that way, at all. Yeah, that isn't anywhere close to the truth.

The initial post was a joke....I hope. I thought so too but then you have responses like Yeah it was obviously a joke, but other then the Murton for Trachel trade, I can see that trail of logic occuring. Trachsel is a free agent. I got Murton and prospects being traded for a guy like Westbrook once the Cubs sign an outfielder like Cameron or Hunter.

Murton came into it with a great approach. Cedeno doesn't have one, and is not going to learn one with these guys.

I spent too long and lost it. in short: 8 Pierre 8.00 6 Izturis 4.20 3 Lee 13.00 5 Ramirez 12.00 9 Jones 5.00 7 Cameron 7.00 2 Barrett 4.00 4 Cedeno 0.35 Blanco 1.50 Counsell 2.00 Ledee 1.00 Pagan 0.35 Theriot 0.35 Prior 4.00 Zambrano 10.00 Lidle/Batista/Radke/Trachsel etc 7.00 westbrook 7.00 Marshall 0.35 Wuertz 0.35 Ohman 0.75 Guzman 0.35 Howry 4.00 Eyre 3.00 Dempster 5.00 Novoa 0.35

And yet you're all about Juan Pierre.

If the first post talks about a Baker quote, and you don't want to partake in the discussion, the wise thing to do would be to clicking out of the thread. It takes more time to read the thing, and send a reply, than to simply wander somewhere else. That is my plan from now on...I felt that that someone needed to bring up the redundancy of this thread, however. That's it from me. We're talking about the Cubs. Everyting about it is redundent. You aren't going to find any profound new ideas to discuss. There is nothing new under the sun.

If the first post talks about a Baker quote, and you don't want to partake in the discussion, the wise thing to do would be to clicking out of the thread. It takes more time to read the thing, and send a reply, than to simply wander somewhere else.

Well then you just don't read his quotes very much. He said, that was just a young, very young mistake. He routinely talks about young mistakes, failings of youth, rookie mistakes, etc etc. But his veterans just hustle at the wrong time, or were trying to make something happen. It's a pattern, and if you can't spot it, you are purposefully ignoring it. I believe the horse is officially dead-we can all stop beating it... If some people are still trying to claim the horse is not dead, I'm going to stay here until someone puts the horse out of its misery.

OPS+ 2003-2005 Giles - 140, 112, 112 Soriano - 128, 98, 110 If you want to make the case that Giles' injuries are a concern, fine. Or if you want to say Soriano's 2006 is just too far beyond Giles to compare the two, fine. But Soriano doesn't have any better of a history of "staying at 100%", he's had his ups and downs. Soriano is also 2+ years older. Throw in the fact that Soriano will likely cost 5/65+ this offseason, while Giles might be acquired for relatively little talent in return, and there's at least room for debate. I see that 2006 is conveniently left out of your comparison. I didn't think OPS+ numbers were available until after the season. And I did address their respective 2006 seasons. The point was you insinuated Soriano is a much more stable producer, when in fact, both players have had their ups and downs.

I can't imagine Boras scratching anybody's back unless he's using the other hand to pick up a check. He's not going to stear anybody toward the Cubs as a favor to Hendry. In all the years that we've heard about the good relationship Hendry and Boras have, Jim hasn't once signed an impact Boras client.

I too prefer Murton. But your argument is based on the idea that the Cubs only option is to sign one free agent (who, by the way, they most likely won't even come close to getting). There's also the little issue of whether it makes any sense to move Soriano back to 2B, or if he even would. He seems pretty comfortable out there now, and if money isn't the issue, I could see him wanting to stay in LF. Then again, if you do sign Soriano, you could let Pierre go and move Jones to CF, allowing you to keep Soriano out there. You could also trade Izturis and put Cedeno back at SS. All I'm saying is it would be foolish to get locked into the notion of having to replace Cedeno because he was bad in his first extended stay in the majors at 23.

OPS+ 2003-2005 Giles - 140, 112, 112 Soriano - 128, 98, 110 If you want to make the case that Giles' injuries are a concern, fine. Or if you want to say Soriano's 2006 is just too far beyond Giles to compare the two, fine. But Soriano doesn't have any better of a history of "staying at 100%", he's had his ups and downs. Soriano is also 2+ years older. Throw in the fact that Soriano will likely cost 5/65+ this offseason, while Giles might be acquired for relatively little talent in return, and there's at least room for debate.

Well then you just don't read his quotes very much. He said, that was just a young, very young mistake. He routinely talks about young mistakes, failings of youth, rookie mistakes, etc etc. But his veterans just hustle at the wrong time, or were trying to make something happen. It's a pattern, and if you can't spot it, you are purposefully ignoring it.

I think if he doesn't show any signs of adjustment and improvement the odds will keep getting longer that he'll get better in the future. And if the Cubs keep the rest of the roster as is, then they can't go with him at 2B. But there's no reason they can't improve elsewhere and stick with Cedeno for another year.

I think that's a cop-out. First off, guys are not always taken where they should be taken. They are taken where teams think they can justify taking them. Baseball is not a best player available draft, otherwise you would see a straight line down in terms of contracts offered. Secondly, just because a consensus decided A was higher than B, that doesn't mean you can get off scott-free for taking A if B turns out better. The draft is not a crapshoot. If it was, nobody would hire scouts to judge players and they'd just pick names out of a hat. There is a skill and thought involved, and the Cubs have repeatedly shown to be lacking in those departments.

Yes, he has been trending downward, but that is not necessarily a sign a player can't handle it. We're looking at a snapshot of his first season, at age 23, a year and 4 months younger than Matt Murton. Many of us are quick to support Murton, despite pointing out his weakness and the likelihood that he will never be a star corner OF. This is based on nice, but not spectaculiar minor league numbers. But Ronny's 2004 and 2005 at AA and AAA are very comparable to Murton's 2004 and 2005, at high A, AA and AAA, and Murton was older at each level. Ronny can't stay where he's at, and he can't decline. But we cannot make a final judgement such as "he can only be a utility player" based on a downward trend in his rookie year. Guys need to make adjustments, but they don't necessarily have to happen in their first year for them to have a chance. I think Ronny was probably rushed a bit and could have used some more seasoning along the way. You can't end a guy's progression because he's not doing very well at 23 in the majors.

Consensus or not, the Cubs took a guy high who has been a major disappointment, again.