goonys evil twin

I'm not the originator of the term in this discussion. 10man used it, and you completely agreed with it. I think Beane is clearly the architect and Alderson is simply the professor who taught him. If it wasn't for the book and his methods, people wouldn't feel the need to claim the predecessor is the real architect even though his team was falling apart the last several years under his watch. It's like saying that Bill Parcells is the real architect behind Belichek's success. Parcells influenced him. Alderson influenced Beane. But BB and BB are the real architects of their team's success.

Yes master, whatever you say. He claimed Alderson was the real architect. I think that's a weak attempt to take credit away from Beane. And I think it all relates to how people have reacted to the book and the fact that he's done it differently than how you're supposed to do it. I really don't see what's wrong with expressing that opinion.

They won me money in Vegas last fall.

this makes me think Hendry will call him up. He can really "catch the ball" He can catch the ball and can't take a walk. He's perfect for Hendry.

I don't believe he's infallible. I do believe that you, and many others, simply can't admit he's a great GM and insistqualifying his accomplishments with comments that you would not use if it wasn't for the book and the fact that he did it differently than you are supposed to do it. Frankly, I think it's the same thing as saying Albert Pujols is a great baseball player but he still makes outs and errors and really isn't doing anything that others did before him. It's pointless and would only be included by those who have a negative bias against him in the first place. Yes, I just compared Beane's work as GM to Pujols' work as a ballplayer, and I really believe he's as good a GM as Pujols is a ballplayer. Reading is fundamental. Maybe I should have used the word without instead of and. I know you can write that he's great, I just see that it's very difficult for you, and many others, to not qualify that with a bogus claim like Alderson was the real architect.

FYI, Mabry has the most pinch hitting appearances*, by far, on the team, and has put up a line of .206/.317/.382. That is no value. *Bynum would probably have the title if he wasn't hurt. Back to the original point, Hinske is a guy that I wanted them to target as a backup 3B/1B for the past year. I believe that once he was demoted last year he became available for pretty cheap by any team willing to take his full contract, which is a bit steap for a bench player, but hardly back breaking. Hinske is probably what Mabry could have been if he was younger, and better.

Dusty had no choice. Regardless, a bench player has to be able to add something to the team. Mabry didn't do that before he became a semi-regular player, and he hasn't done it since. He was awful in 2003, good in 2004, awful in 2005, and even worse now. He's almost 36 now. He probably doesn't have any value. It's not a matter of misuse, he's just not good, although he's had his moments over his career.

I don't believe he's infallible. I do believe that you, and many others, simply can't admit he's a great GM and insist on qualifying his accomplishments with comments that you would not use if it wasn't for the book and the fact that he did it differently than you are supposed to do it. Frankly, I think it's the same thing as saying Albert Pujols is a great baseball player but he still makes outs and errors and really isn't doing anything that others did before him. It's pointless and would only be included by those who have a negative bias against him in the first place. Yes, I just compared Beane's work as GM to Pujols' work as a ballplayer, and I really believe he's as good a GM as Pujols is a ballplayer.

Depends on who filled those lower spots. Simply reshuffling the same guys into different spots probably wouldn't have made much of a difference.

It seems to me that he's been playing better, but not good enough to make his horrible season look better. I'm going to guess he'll get called up at some point, similar to how the Cubs eventually called up Kelton even though he was a huge disappointment following his one good season (although even he was better than Harvey has been). 2008 might be a bit early, but that to would be on pace to follow in the footsteps of Kelton. I'd hope that Harvey has a great year next season, and I'm guessing they'll send him to AA even though he really hasn't "earned" it. So if he does have a great year in AA, then he can start AAA in 2008 and get called up late. But the odds of him being any good in the majors are still quite long. Maybe he can develop into a power hitting bench player who sticks around for a while. But his k rate and lack of walks indicates he'll never be good enough to start everyday. Then again, the Cubs don't see interested in fielding an OF filled with guys who are good enough to start everyday.

You said Alderson was the real architect, and that Beane only followed along. I don't think I need to defend including you in the group that simply can't give Beane the credit he is due. I'm not commenting on how you judge him as a person. I really don't care. Maybe he is a jerk, and if you feel you have enough evidence to make that claim, go right ahead. I don't claim he's an infallible human being. All I'm saying is he's a great GM who did things differently and people just can't stand that fact so they pick at his negatives. I'm commenting on people's insistence on refusing to simply admit that he's a great GM, and/or insisting on qualifying the credit he is due to some "but" statement, including that Alderson was the real architect (even though the team was consistently getting worse and worse in the last 5 years Sandy was there). Sandy did a good job overall as the A's GM. But he does not deserve credit over Beane for what has happened since 1998. He's not the "real architect", he's simply Beane's mentor.

I don't understand why people can't just say he's a great GM but always have to find ways to slight him, including claiming that Alderson is the real architect. I don't care if you think he's a jerk. He probably is. I have no opinion on his personality, because I don't know him. But I do know that people simply can't accept the fact that he's great at what he does because he did it a different way than how you're "supposed to".

If Jim Hendry served as asst GM for 5 years, then took over the reins of the Cubs after 5 straight losing seasons, then went on a streak of 5 straight seasons of more wins, 5 seasons of 90+ win totals, 4 straight playoff appearances, a couple 100 win seasons, and did it all with a payroll in the bottom half of the league, there wouldn't be a single person on here talking about his faults, and acting as though Andy MacPhail was the real genius and Jim was just smart enough to follow him.

Billy Beane was given a little bit too much credit in the book, partly because he is an interesting personality and he did give the writer access to a lot of insider things. I still say that the real architect of that successfully built A's organization was Sandy Alderson. Billy was just smart enough to follow what he was taught. I completely agree with this statement. Even Beane would, I think. Alderson was the initial architect, but Beane did more than just show up at the right place and right time. If this was any other team in baseball, and the Moneyball book was not written and OBP and sabermetrics wasn't involved, people would be praising Beane instead of looking for every little thing to nitpick. It's that everlasting desire to hold onto the outdated thoughts of the past that causes people to poo-poo what Beane has done. He took over a team that had gone 5 straight seasons with a losing record. Then the team improved its win totals for 5 straight seasons after he arrived. They had their first 90 win season a full 3 seasons after Alderson left. It baffles me how much effort people try to put into belittling Billy Beane's work simply because he's somewhat of a maverick in this game. It's absolutely absurd that people still try to bad mouth what he has done. Here we go again. I didn't take a shot at your idol, Goony. I simply noted that I understand why some find him to be a polarizing figure, and never said he showed up at the right place and time. I agreed that Alderson should be given a ton of credit in terms of developing a philosophy that has proven to be succesful in the long run, and then mentoring Beane under that approach. I then credited Beane for being intellgent enough to take that philosophy and run with it, adding his own ideas along the way. I also noted that - based on the Lewis' book - Beane seems to be an arrogant, anti-social, and deeply flawed individual. That dosn't mean that I don't appreciate and respect his approach to what he does professionally. There's a difference, and that difference should be obvious to someone like you. So before you overreact and lump me into the Beane-hater crowd (I find it ironic that you who so often attack people for making generalizations would do this), take another look at what I wrote. I look at what you wrote and it's quite obvious that it's a backhanded compliment of Beane, or a slight. Just another attempt to pretend he hasn't done great things with that team. Alderson was the GM for about 15 years, the last 3rd of which he had a crap team. Beane came along and the team went on a string of 5 straight years of improvement. That's not a case of the previous guy setting up the current guy for success. People can't just say Beane is a great GM and has done a tremendous job. They have to qualify it in a way they simply would not do if it weren't for the book, or if the team did it the old fashioned way. I stand by my statement.

I would call Cincy decent. The Cards are decent. The Dodgers are more than decent, and despite the injuries, you can't deny that the Mets are very good. Most everybody else is mediocre. But the Cubs suck.

You're sure because of what? I think his problem was strictly rushing back from a broken wrist. All baseball players will go through rough stretches where mental struggles play a role. Derrek Lee included. Glendon Rusch is the same. All Mark Prior did was admit it. If he wasn't affected by his poor play, something would be wrong. Rough stretches? Yes. Rough years? No. There have been many,many people questioning Prior's heart and mental state from game 6 thru today. Maybe they're right or maybe they're wrong. But I believe Prior admitted to it last year, as well. Wait, players don't go through rough years? That's hilarious.

Billy Beane was given a little bit too much credit in the book, partly because he is an interesting personality and he did give the writer access to a lot of insider things. I still say that the real architect of that successfully built A's organization was Sandy Alderson. Billy was just smart enough to follow what he was taught. I completely agree with this statement. Even Beane would, I think. Alderson was the initial architect, but Beane did more than just show up at the right place and right time. If this was any other team in baseball, and the Moneyball book was not written and OBP and sabermetrics wasn't involved, people would be praising Beane instead of looking for every little thing to nitpick. It's that everlasting desire to hold onto the outdated thoughts of the past that causes people to poo-poo what Beane has done. He took over a team that had gone 5 straight seasons with a losing record. Then the team improved its win totals for 5 straight seasons after he arrived. They had their first 90 win season a full 3 seasons after Alderson left. It baffles me how much effort people try to put into belittling Billy Beane's work simply because he's somewhat of a maverick in this game. It's absolutely absurd that people still try to bad mouth what he has done.

Baker should be gone, that's not even debatable at this point. It's worthless to even discuss the merits of such a move. My biggest problem is Roger's moronic belief that the Cubs biggest problem has been a lack of stability. Ownership has been steady for a few decades now. Andy MacPhail and his regime has been in charge for over a dozen years. The GM has been a major part of this organization for nearly as long. The Hendry/Baker combo has been working together for 4 years now. Yes, they had two interim managers after Baylor was booted, but that has nothing to do with the big picture idea of stability. They've had basically 3 managers over the past 12 years and have been much more stable than Boston. As stable as the White Sox or Anaheim. They've been more stable than the Dodgers and Mets. Stability is not what this organization lacks. That's just an ignorant claim that can only be made by completely ignoring the facts.

I'm trying to be nice. I'm to the point where I'm sick of bashing this team and ready to find another way to spend my time. This negative crap is getting me in too bad of a mood too often. Here here. I don't see the point in bashing Mabry. He's been starting a lot of the time and shouldn't be, but that isn't his fault. I don't see how that is a defense of Mabry. The guy has been brutal all year, starting or not. He had a sub 600 OPS for a while. Just because he's started more than expected doesn't change the fact that he's been awful, a terrible signing and a waste of roster space.

The funny thing is, the Cubs would probably trade him to a PTBNL, and then insist that Neifi be the PTBNL so they can get him back for next season.

Fred's rollin'

Which again, just proves the point that there is no risk in putting in the claim. The claim is riskless. Risk does not exist for making the claim. No team would be at risk for putting in a claim on Soriano. Any claim put in on Soriano would come without risk.

I do not agree with these statements. I would suggest that the combination of all of them in the same lineup is pretty bad, but any two of them (excluding Neifi, who should only see limited PT, as he has lately) in a better balanced lineup would be fine. For instance, Pierre has been excellent the last 2.5 months with an OBP well over .350 and 25 EBHs, yet has only scored 32 runs in 67 games, due to a variety of factors. Unfortunately things stack up such that the first 4 are likely starters next year. If we could find a way to upgrade 2 of these positions offensively (including Pierre simply maintaing his current and career paces), and see a return of DLee to at least .900 OPS, the Cubs could get back to at least the middle of the pack or better next year in runs scored. A big IF at this point, but just a couple of smart moves and good health away. You say you do not agree, but then you backup the statements with support. Of course it's the fact that all of them are here that is the problem. But we can't just pretend they aren't all here, or won't all be here next year. Just about any combination of two of those guys is tolerable in the lineup if other spots improve dramatically. The problem is improvement in other spots in unlikely to happen. Hendry still ignores OBP, and the lack of walks, which has been a huge problem for years now, is going to remain a problem.

Okay check it! If the Cards lose tonight we are 11.5 games out. When we sweep the Cards this weekend we are only 8.5 game out! Wow! How does it feel to witness a Cubs miracle in your lifetime!?!? GO CUBS!!!! Am I the only one with a bad feeling about this weekend series against the Cards? It seems everytime the media or fans dismiss a team as an "easy win" because of past success, it backfires right in our face. The Cubs have been living dangerously against the Cards at Wrigley. I would be shocked if we swept. The Cubs are playing a baseball game against another team, it's only natural to have a bad feeling.

That's 4 straight wins actually :D. If the Reds lose tonight, we will be as close to the WC as we have been this season in a while-9 games even, so that will eliminate the first two options of the poll. Like you said, if we win on Friday, we will satisfy the other part of the poll and be 15 or less under .500-let's go take those Cardinals again! Oops, I was just reading off the Cubs.com schedule and they hadn't put today's W up yet, so yes, we are literally right back where we started.