goonys evil twin

Opening up in Green Bay, 3 straight division games.

The have been stable because they've won. And Hendry/ baker have a .525 record which is 25 games over on the winning side. There's winning, and then there's WINNING. Hendry and Baker haven't WON, Atlanta and NYY have.

The ICubs website is saying "TDB" for each pitcher. Maybe Hill was slated but they're planning on calling him up instead.

That's not true at all. Most of your best OBP guys are mashers.

I'll give it a go. Daily? Who the hell needs to make daily changes to their lineups? I'll tell you who, incompetent fantasty managers that can't think in advance, that's who. Weekly is where it's at. The true skills of fantasy sports management is in the longterm projections of........ Sorry, that's all I got.

To be fair, the front office has been relatively stable since the late 90s. There are always rumors of guys leaving, but once they started winning a lot, he kept people on.

That's not the choice. Most first pitches are not great pitches to hit.

The Cubs go the extreme in the other direction though. Barely anybody ever works the count. It's like begging for some objective analytical research to govern some of their personel decisions. I'm not asking them to be strict "moneyballers", I'm asking them to stop being such strict anti-sabr types. I'm not asking them to make every count go 3-2, I'm asking them to take some pitches as opposed to swinging at everything. Cubs pitchers put up with the most pitcher abuse, they give up some of the most walks. Cubs hitters take very few pitches and take some of the fewest walks in the league. They are extreme in one direction, that's never good.

Don't forget me: http://www.cheers-becker.de/coach-02.JPG

Not really. Sure it is. Case in point - Lee's at bat in the 8th inning yesterday. You would have preferred him to take that first pitch just to work the count and have the reliever amass a higher pitch count? That was a great pitch to hit, and he absolutely should have swung at it. I don't recall that specific pitch. But your statement that it's stupid to take pitches for the sake of taking pitches is wrong. You should be sitting on your perfect pitch. But I question whether a lot of these first pitch swings are perfect pitches. Aramis for one tends to lunge at junk off the plate and pull pop-ups quite a bit early in the count. I would say it's probably not a good idea to never swing at the first pitch, because sooner or later somebody is going to groove one on the first pitch. But taking pitches, and patience, have been huge problems for the Cubs, for years. And there would be a huge benefit to them taking pitches for the sake of taking pitches.

Not really.

So 2003 didn't happen? Didn't JH make moves that look like he's trying to win? Dusty Too? I say extend them both for at least 2 years. They didn't win the World Series in 2003 did they? They won 88 games in 2003 then collapsed in the playoffs. I don't care if they look like they're trying to win, I care if they actually do win. And so far they have not, nor have they done anything to make it look like they'll be any better than they were. Every GM and manager does things to try and win. The problem is lots of them fail, as Hendry and Baker have.

Frankie: You know what I hate? Willie: What? Frankie: I go into the kitchen, I open the drawer, you know? Willie: Uh huh? Frankie: And I take out a, uh-- Willie: Carrot scraper? Frankie: Right. And I stick it up my nose, you know, and I'm rootin' it around, and, you know, gettin' all the mucus membranes out o' there, you know? And then I take one o' them, uh--? Willie: Mentholated eucalyptus cough drops? Frankie: Right. And I stick it-- wedge it up there, you know? I take a couple o' whiffs, boy. Heh, ya feel like your head's gonna explode.

The Cubs winning percentage since 1990 .468 The Cubs winning percentage under Dusty .525 Looks like the Tribune and Cubs are moving in the right direction to me. Lets see how far they can take this. We've most likely already seen that.

This is true. Andy has been around for over a decade, and Jim has been a vital cog for nearly as long. This front office has had more stability than either the Yankees or Red Sox, and probably just about every other team in baseball. Yet they've done nothing on the field to deserve such stability and are due for an overhaul.

There is no hot new manager out there. If so name one. But as far as stable, yes I would like to be excited watching the Cubs come down to the last couple games each year like during the Dusty Term unlike most if not all the years I've watched the Cubs. Dusty is 25 games over .500 as a manager as of last year. It seems thet Jim Hendry is an easier sell on this thread. I don't need popular names, nor am I satisfied with meaningful games in September. I want a World Series, and this group has not shown they are capable of getting the team there.

Stable mediocrity doesn't really excite me. Sounds a lot like sticking with the proven veteran who has shown over and over he's not good enough to help you win, instead of taking a chance on a young guy who might be terrible or great. I'd rather go for the gold and risk brilliant failure than settle for the slightly above .500 stability of this regime.

I scrambled around trying to find a way to put a ton of money on the Marlins to win games 6 and 7. I checked out internet gambling sites and asked people about bookies, but I didn't want to sign up to one of those sites and couldn't find a bookie (a girl in our office had connections, but she left on maternity leave a couple weeks before). I would have gladly lost a couple hundred if the Cubs won, but I was pretty certain they wouldn't. There's nothing wrong with betting against the team you root for, it's hedging your bets. I'm still going to root for them. And when it's a Bears game I know they are going to lose (which happened a lot the past 15 years), I'd definitely pick against them, but still cheer for a win. It's not like I'm putting up my paycheck against them and hoping they lose. Even though I'd do it without problem, I don't believe I've ever actually bet against Cubs or Bears.

The original claim was that nobody knew who he was. That's disingenuos. And who cares how many fans knew, they still gave him up. People want to applaud him for getting Matt Murton, who was a relatively unheard of prospect (and I think he does deserve praise for that). But then you also have to criticize him for giving up Willis. It doesn't matter if fans knew him, or if we thought well of him. Jim had the inside info. That wasn't the point of the convo as I remember it. In any case, you have to give value to get value. Clement was good during his stay with us. Willis has been for the most part better than Clement was (Willis' 2004 was, at best, average), but I for one won't kill JH for taking that risk. I am mainly upset with JH for the things he has failed to do. Well, I don't like to get bogged down into "this deal vs that deal" discussions for rating Hendry. I don't think you can ranks GMs that way, because they all have their good and bad deals. I still refer back to the two or three themes that piss me off the most. 1) They haven't won enough. Plain and simple. They've had enough payroll. They had enough resources. He's been around for a while and they're still not great. I want great. 2) The unhealthy distaste for all things modern in terms of analyzing the game. They hired a PR shlub to be the numbers guy. They're all about scouts and "baseball men". While the old ways bring lots of value, and and the new school is by no means perfect, the Cubs have refused to even think about having some sort of balance between the methodologies. They are extreme in the old direction. 3) The complete refusal to realize and rectify the problem of walks, both with pitchers giving them up and hitters not taking them.

The original claim was that nobody knew who he was. That's disingenuos. And who cares how many fans knew, they still gave him up. People want to applaud him for getting Matt Murton, who was a relatively unheard of prospect (and I think he does deserve praise for that). But then you also have to criticize him for giving up Willis. It doesn't matter if fans knew him, or if we thought well of him. Jim had the inside info.

I can't imagine any of them being good managers. I'm just saying I can't remember any young players he had that were good that he didn't play. No, he definitely gave playing time to his hall of famers.

I can't imagine any of them being good managers.

Jones sucks, but he hasn't looked clueless at the plate ALL the time. For the at-bats I saw in the first game 1) he went oppo on a soft liner fudged by Dunn 2) He went oppo to the warning track on another drive and Today he hit it on the button to 2nd bace. 3 pretty good AB's. He still sucks, he never should have gotten a 3 year deal, and he sucks donkey balls, but his AB's have not been ALL clueless. He misses pitches by a very wide margin.

Not me, I'm glad they are extended Hendry now. I'm curious why? Were you fearful that he would go somewhere else? Did you think he was would highly sought after by a team that could and would outspend the Cubs? Do you think he's irreplacable?

Never stopped moving toward home? Hey stopped, and made a feint move back to 3rd, which I'm guessing is when Ronny looked over. Oh well, like most little things like this, it had no repercussion on the game itself.