goonys evil twin

The tribune has fired several management types during their reign. Continued failure will affect the bottom line, and these guys will be gone if this trend continues. If you're talking about the Tribune ownership you have to ignore the previous 70+ years of failure. You can't blame them for what happened before. And there are plenty of teams that have been as bad or worse than the Cubs since the Trib took over. Sure there are teams under individual ownership that have enjoyed success. I never denied that. What I am arguing is that fans have to get over the familar crutch of blaming ownership, and put the focus and the blame where it belongs, management. Andy and his crew brought this team from a perennial joke with occasional moderate success, to a team that could be a suuccess year in year out. Where they failed was taking the next step, and capitalizing on their earlier success. Hopefully ownership will make the necessary change to make that last step. But a change of ownership does nothing to guarantee success. Hendry, Hughes, Baker and the coaches have to go. If getting rid of Andy is the only way to get rid of those guys, then he needs to go. But I don't believe a new individual owner brings any greater chance of hiring the right guys to get the job done. This always has been a management issue. Bad personel decisions have derailed this team. That's where the focus should be.

They have a worse record and a manager who insists that Soriano is a leadoff hitter. I certainly don't see anymore talent over there. Although, yes, the Cubs are playing worse right now.

Because he's 24 years old, and Ronny is 23. Guys improve in their early 30's, unless they suck and flameout. I'm not guaranteeing these guys will turn great, but if they stick around it will be nearly impossible for them not to improve. Your numbers at 23 and 24 are rarely the same as your numbers at 26, 27 and 28. Peak age is something that's often debated, but I find the evidence compelling for the argument that most hitters reach their peaks at 27. Will Murton develop power? Will Cedeno remember how to take pitches? I'd expect to see signs of development with both sooner rather than later. They'd be nice complementary players on a contending team, but seeing as the Cubs are not a contending team - and appear to be several players short of being one - I'd be willing to trade either if another club overvalues them. Nothing what your wrote defends the claim that they are, right now as good as they will ever be. I'd trade either one in the right deal, no questions asked. I wanted Murton in the OF as the cheap, mildly productive OF to offset the cost of a real, productive OF on the other side. I like Cedeno as the cheap, perfectly acceptable middle infielder and bottom of the order hitter to offset the costs of other more productive hitters. That's why you employ guys like this. Poor teams have to rely on multiple guys like this to carry the team. Expensive teams like the Cubs should use them as a counterbalance in the payroll to the big boys. I'd trade either or both. But neither is as good as he is ever going to get right now.

I don't get why so many people fail to recognize this fact. When you go in that place it totally gives you the feel of one of those 70's monstrocities. To me it's no better than Shea with more flags. And both of those stadiums have a ridiculous amount of unnecessary and ill-placed bars running between seats. Terrible place to sit and watch a game.

Because he's 24 years old, and Ronny is 23. Guys improve in their early 30's, unless they suck and flameout. I'm not guaranteeing these guys will turn great, but if they stick around it will be nearly impossible for them not to improve. Your numbers at 23 and 24 are rarely the same as your numbers at 26, 27 and 28.

Disney brought the Angels to the World Series. They haven't exactly lit the world on fire since being sold to a gung-ho individual owner. The Braves have enjoyed great success under the ownership of Time Warner. Pittsburgh, KC, Tampa, Colorado, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Baltimore and Detroit have shown that being owned by individuals, or a collection of individuals is not the answer. Philly has been owned by a mysterious group of very quiet behind the scenes men and have done nothing for years. LA is a big market team owner by individuals and they've been a pretty stagnant franchise for a long time. Focusing on ownership as the problem is an enormous mistake. Ownership is not the answer. Ownership could help, but it won't necessarily. Remember, Reinsdorf was considered the devil for decades as the Sox owner until they finally pulled one out last year. He nearly drove that team out of town. Focus should be on management and the theories and practices of management. They continuously make predictable mistakes and fail to address glaring problems. New onwership doesn't guarantee better management, it just guarantees different management. Cubs fans should not give Hendry and Baker the excuse of bad ownership holding them back from great success. Hendry and Baker, and the men who surround them in management, are the reason this team has failed so miserably to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity to achieve great success. Few teams had the combination of high and consistently growning payroll, and talented farm system, that the Cubs have had the past 6 years. There's no excuse not to have done a heck of a lot better than they did.

O RLY? It's no one's fault? It's just bad breaks and fate? I don't buy it. That's been the story for 3+ years now. The collapse was nobody's fault, it was just "one of those things". In 2004 you couldn't place blame on anybody, things like that just happen and you just learn and move on. The lack of offensive production hasn't had anything to do with the team, everybody has hit the ball hard, but at people. And you just have to tip your hat to the pitcher. The disaster of 2005 was so unpredictable adn nobody could see the problems ahead, it was a bunch of bad breaks. 2006 has just been tough bounces and a little streak. Any one of these excuses can be tossed aside at the time as just something baseball people say because they really don't know what they're talking about. But when they are repeated over and over and the results are the same day in day out, year in year out, it can show an overall lack of accountability throughout the organization. And on another note. Have you ever heard of a supposedly contending team go through a stretch like this and not have their GM out front saying something? Hendry's silence, lack of action and apparent ambivalence is baffling.

I mostly agreed with the notion that neither Cedeno or Murton are cornerstones and untouchable. But that 2nd sentence is nonsense. As good as they'll ever be? They're never going to improve? Agreed. Very few players peak in their early 20's and those that do are usually once-in-a-lifetime talents or total flameouts. Mortal players tend to show gradual improvement throughout their mid-20s. Of the two players I'm most impressed with Murton. He's having a huge power drain at the moment, but his patience and selectivity at the plate bode well for his future. It's doubtful he'll ever be an elite corner outfielder unless that power really develops, but I can see him putting up Mark Grace - type numbers for quite a long time. .286/.375/.393 is a strange line from a corner OF. But you can't deny the value of the OBP (even if his teammates can't take advantage of it). I'd be willing to sacrifice a little of that OBP for some significant SLG improvements. But even if he is a little lacking in the power, if you can get 3 years of his service time with a little improvements on those numbers it would be a terrific bargain, compared to the veterans who would get 10-20 times his salary for next to no improvement. If you took a player who was the opposite of Murton, with significantly lower OBP but higher SLG, you wouldn't be getting any more value, but you'd probably get hit higher in arbitration numbers, as those states still raise more eyebrows. I'd rather he get on 37.5% of the time and hit just 10 HR than get on 30% of the time and hit 25 HR.

I mostly agreed with the notion that neither Cedeno or Murton are cornerstones and untouchable. But that 2nd sentence is nonsense. As good as they'll ever be? They're never going to improve?

A good manager can probably only win you a game or 2 a year. A bad manager can lose a dozen easily. Dusty has lost games with his ridiculousness.

I wish I had the self control to not get disappointed by this disaster.

Are you kidding? They just do what we're doing for money.

Why? Just because Ozzie played for the Sox doesn't mean that's the answer. Francona didn't bleed Red. McKeon might be an old dude but he didn't win because of his knowledge of South Florida history. Same with Brenly in Arizona.

I couldn't care less if the next manager "knew" Chicago or what it was like to be a Cubs fan. I don't need a fan managing, I want to see a smart manager.

Terrible? 2004 they won more games than 2003. They were extremely talented. 2005 was talented, much more than a .500+ team. And how long are people going to use injuries as an excuse?

And perhaps the pitching coach has something to do with that.

It's one thing to say no other manager could make this a .600 ballclub. It's probably true that most managers would have a tough time playing .500 ball with this club. But do people really think every manager would get this little out of this club? The talent level isn't that low.

I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that I predicted in the season predictions contest that the Cubs would win 74 games this year. I'm sittin' pretty. They have very little chance of winning that many.

Neifi with a rookie mistake, but he brings so much more to the table.

Okay, fine. Reduce your chances to score, that is a brilliant way to scrape runs over. Especially when runs, plural, is what is needed.

What'd it say? I talked about the Cubs not being patient at the plate and it being an organizational philosophy to be aggressive and not place value on guys with high OBP And Santo's answer was confusing as heck. He addressed the issue, more or less, pretty well, but then he started rambling and confused the issue. Basically, he wants guys to be more patient but more aggressive.

And Santo was asking for more groundballs.

But sac bunting is not right. Not sac bunting is the right answer. Not foolishly reducing your chances is the right answer. Not giving up outs is the right answer. The right answer is to not repeatedly make the same mistakes.

No, sac bunting is wrong. Batting Neifi in the 2 hole is wrong. Letting Murton swing away is not wrong. It might not always work, because that's baseball. And a sac bunt might occasionally work, because that's baseball. But the odds are against you and it's absolutely foolish to keep sac bunting the way Dusty does.

Yeah that's probably the reason, rather than the 4th worst team OBP in the major leagues. I see Dusty fault because we can't get on base. When does the fault land on the players? You mean the players that Dusty requested? And who employ the same swing early swing often be aggressive walks are for women approach that Dusty preaches. No, Dusty has nothing to do with the bad offense.