goonys evil twin

With all these crippled players I don't know how teams can finish the entire tournament with a full squad.

How could anybody be inspired to play the game of their life with Bruce Arena leading them? He seems like a clueless accountant to me.

I hear the n word used far more frequently than the f word.

I believe it.

soccer players are pathetic

These intros are very lame.

Let's say he called someone in the media, say Dan Jiggets, a derragatory term for a black man (the same one Rocker used). What would the media's reaction be to this? To me they're all the same. Bigoted hateful words aren't any better than any other. Dispicable. that word can only be used in a racist way. you wouldn't call a white guy that out of anger and hatred for the guy. calling someone a [expletive] (and i can't stress enough how much of an idiot ozzie is for using that word, and he deserves to be shamed in the media for it) does not necessarily mean "i hate you because you are homosexual". i'm just answering the question posed in the subject. rocker's comments were made out of genuine hatred for the groups he was lambasting. ozzie's comments were made because he's a moron. That's absolutely ridiculuous. You're just making stuff up now.

Lots and lots and lots of teams treat the closer position like an internship, one year on and then out the door. How many closers did the white sox have last year? There is only one team that has been consistently successful with the same closer year after year, and that's the Yankees. Everybody else has either spent big on a guy only to have it not work out for the duration of the contract, or they rotate guys year after year. I said closer is overrated because teams are willing to spend too much on the position. I never said strong relievers aren't important. The problem is very few relievers are very good on anything close to a consistent basis. Last year's fantasy hero in the save category could be this year's overpaid mediocrity.

Who cares if there is somebody to replace him? You don't need a closer to win 70 games. At the rate he's going, you might have to replace him anyway by next season. Besides, Howry is having a much better year and could easily step into the role Howry is more affordable and has better peripherals. I'd rather keep him and deal Dempster, whose status as a "proven" closer might bring back more value in trade. How do you know Howry could step into the role of closer? He's only had one season (1999) in which he recorded more than 10 saves. Sure he's had a bunch of holds, but LaTroy Hawkins did as well and we know how that turned out. I agree with you that it wouldn't be a big deal to trade Dempster and that we could find somebody else to fill in, but I just don't want to ruin another perfectly good set up man. Who knows, I could be wrong and Howry could step in and be lights out, but for this year at least, why not try somebody else out as closer, maybe somebody from the minors if we trade Dempster? I don't really care who they put in as closer. It's an overrated position. I'd rather keep my best relievers for most important times, which are not to start innings with the bases empty against the bottom feeders. But Hawkins showed himself to be a head case before he imploded as closer. And his peripherals haven't been as good ever since. My guess is Latroy just fit the bill of the non elite reliever who is inconsistent and has a short shelf life.

While this is probably true, how much of an effect will playing in the AL West, namely Oakland, and moving to the hitter's paradise of the NL Central offset the benefit? Zito has not been a special pitcher for quite some time. His ERA+ was between 125 and 175 for 4 years, but he's been at just 105 and 116 the past 2 years. He might be off to a better start this year, but if he stays in that lower range he doesn't deserve the type of money people are talking about. It's interesting to note that baseball reference lists Mike Hampton as the most similar pitcher. Hampton signed his big free agent deal at the same age (actually a little younger) as Zito will be when he signs his deal. And he was actually coming off better years than Barry.

I still don't understand why we couldn't have made a legit first round pick though. Legit first round pick would have cost X, Cubs first round pick may cost X - Y.

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I wasn't in town when that was posted so I didn't see it. I just think that with all the talk of dealing Williamson and other bullpen arms, it's about time people consider trading Dempster. The idea that he'd turn into an elite closer is pretty much shot. He might remain a decent closer for a while though, and he does carry added value because of the label. You didn't hurt my feelings. Your post was much better thought out and written. I was just having a little fun riding on your coat tails. And I was just having a little fun back at you. O:)

It does seem that way doesn't it? Maybe it is me! Not a prediction: IF the Cubs win each series starting with Cleveland today, then they could possibily see 0.500 by Aug 2nd. Would Like like to see that? Yes. Will it happen....ahhhh sure. willing to bet the farm on it? No way! I'm a Cubs fan, not stupid!! Good, so you aren't going insane. Thanks for clearing that up. Winning every series between now and then would be a huge accomplishment. But it would also leave them very far from contention.

Replace designated hitters with designated drivers?

I don't get it. What is your prediction? You talk about making a valid prediction, but then say your statement is fact, not prediciton. We know what winning every series would mean. That's not up for debate. The question is are you predicting they will be at .500 by Aug 2? This just sounds like the 8 million other "they are turning it around" stories you've come up with. If you throw enough darts at a wall eventually some will stick. That doesn't mean you predicted anything. They've just gotten worse and worse since you started spouting all the positive rhetoric.

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I wasn't in town when that was posted so I didn't see it. I just think that with all the talk of dealing Williamson and other bullpen arms, it's about time people consider trading Dempster. The idea that he'd turn into an elite closer is pretty much shot. He might remain a decent closer for a while though, and he does carry added value because of the label.

My point is they need to build an entire team for next year and beyond, and not just worry about bullpen stability. Dempster's past and present doesn't indicate he's much of a guarantee to help in the future anyway. Dempster is not a premier closer. It doesn't matter if he was really good for 5 months. He was never among the elite, and he never will be. He did a fine job. But loads of relievers have had great years as a closer only to prove unable to maintain that pace. Howry is better than Dempster, but just as your post shows, Dempster carries a perceived higher value because of the label as closer. I believe the Cubs could get more value by trading Dempster and keeping Howry. But I wouldn't have a problem dealing Howry. It would be negligent to refuse to deal Dempster if something big came along.

And it's a lot easier to find a reliever than it is to find solid starters and position players.

No way! My guess is 0.500 (+/- 0.050) (Yes engineering variance) Wait-are you actually saying they're going to be .500 by August 2? That is the very bold/(crazy) thing to say yes (+/- 0.050). If they win each series starting today with the Indians. If they drop a series, then they have to sweep the next series. It's the Win 2. Lose one Tango to 0.500! We know that's what would happen if they win every series. But are you actually predicting that will happen? I guarantee they don't win every series between now and then. +/- .050 is a huge copout

ESPN.com lists 10 ET as the starting time, on ESPN.

Agreed. Core: Lee ARam IMO, everyone else is up for grabs. Zambrano up for grabs?

I'd hold onto the core in either scenario. The problem is the core is extremely small. Or maybe that's a blessing since it allows you to trade just about everybody. Gonny who's in your core for next years team? Cedeno Lee Ramirez Barrett Zambrano Prior I am holding judgement on Marshall and Marmol before I lump them into next years core. Lee and Zambrano. Although I'd still trade Lee given the right deal. I'd deal Barrett if I felt I could build a strong enough lineup to live with a lesser offensive catcher (not Blanco). I'd hold onto Ramirez unless he was a deal breaker in an ARod deal. I'd hold onto Prior unless I was offered a pre-prime stud hitter for him. I'd deal Cedeno in a heartbeat for a significant improvement at SS. But I wouldn't be looking to shop him.

Who cares if there is somebody to replace him? You don't need a closer to win 70 games. At the rate he's going, you might have to replace him anyway by next season. Besides, Howry is having a much better year and could easily step into the role Howry is more affordable and has better peripherals. I'd rather keep him and deal Dempster, whose status as a "proven" closer might bring back more value in trade.

I'd hold onto the core in either scenario. The problem is the core is extremely small. Or maybe that's a blessing since it allows you to trade just about everybody.

The 2006 season is virtually over. The Cubs have to start thinking about trading veterans and building for the future. There has been lots of talk of trading guys like Rusch and Neifi. But you won't get much for those bums. There is a chance they could get something for Jones, and lots of people have talked about throwing in a bullpen arm to sweeten the deal (Wuertz, Williamson, Novoa) and maybe even Walker. Ramirez's name has come up in talks about ARod. But what about Dempster? He just signed a 3 year deal that pays him $5+ million in 2007 and 2008. He had a great year in the closers role in 2005, but 2006 has been shaky at best. His peripherals are scary, as his number 1 problem, walks, continue to be an issue. He simply allows too many baserunners to qualify as an elite closer. He's basically been no better than Williamson, except he's healthy and has racked up save totals, which aren't all that telling of a pitcher's success. I think he might still retain value among the GM crowd because of his past success and the save totals. And I don't think he's a necessary component to future Cubs success. People complain about the lack of good Cubs closers in the past, but the fact is their historical roster is loaded with guys who were great at finishing games, it's just that most of them weren't great for very long. I would hope Hendry would strongly consider moving Dempster if asked. And I'd like to see him dangle Ryan by the trading deadline when contenders routinely go crazy looking for viable relievers. The Yankees are desperate for guys that can bridge the gap to Rivera, not to mention they need OF help and starting pitchers. The Mets are already talking about relief help, despite having a couple guys doing well down there. Hendry needs to restock an ailing rotation and fill the enormous voids in the lineup. Staking your hopes on an improved bullpen was never the right move by Hendry, and he better be willing to chip away at some of the surplus relievers to help field a better team. My bet is that some combination of Dempster, Williamson, Howry, Eyre, Wuertz, Novoa, Jones, Walker and a couple prospects could net the Cubs some serious talent upgrades where it is needed. While some might instinctively say, "why break up the best part of the team", I say it's foolish to hold onto certain pieces because they are the most prominent of a bad bunch. The bullpen was never going to, and never will, carry this team. The rotation and lineup are far more important to the overall success of the team. Relievers have short shelf lives. Teams need to maximize value on these guys when they are good, and not be afraid to toss guys aside when opportunity arises for improvement elsewhere.