goonys evil twin

Without a healthy Wood or Prior we don't have good pitching. If you go with Rusch, you don't have good pitching. If you give a shot to the talented young guys you at least have a chance for good pitching.

pathetic

If this is true, I highly doubt the criteria will be get to or win world series. I bet the playoffs will be more than enough.

It's irrational for two reasons: 1) You said ALL his averages. Guys usually don't exceed all their averages except for in their best years. 2) He's old, some decline is expected. Last year wasn't a fluke down year, it was a normal decline for an old player. You don't expect 36 year olds to outperform their previous year when their previous year was up to expectations.

I hate reading all these ESPN personalities tell people they aren't allowed to judge this without watching the show. I don't need to watch a puff piece about Dick Cheney on Fox News to know it's worthless journalism. I don't need to watch a Barry Bonds produced show about Barry Bonds to judge whether I'm getting the true story.

This is revisionism however. The Cubs were coming off of an 88 win season, had Wood looking to be back to '98 form, had McGriff and presumably Mueller for a full season and had just signed Moises Alou who wasn't expected to mail in the entire season. On top of all that, Juan Cruz had an encouraging end of '01 and Mark Prior was on the horizon waiting to be added to the rotation That team was not on the verge of potential greatness. It is not revisionist to make that claim. The 2001 team had some things go their way, but they went from 65 to 88 wins with marginal improvements. I sure as heck wasn't thinking that 2002 team was poised for 95 wins. I thought the 2001 team was a .500 ballclub that got a little lucky. 88 wins was a fluke. Regardless, Hendry was asst GM that year, put together that deal and it blew up in his face.

Yes, at least that was my experience last year. I purchased EI this year. Yes, games are blacked out even if you have those stations. For instance, I have the sports pack and get Comcast Chicago. But I don't give a crap about the NBA so I'd never purchase the hoops package, and therefore, when a Bulls game is on CSN, it blacks out. However, I have found that occasionally you'll get a random game that shows up even if you aren't a subscriber and it's out of your local area.

By the way, I know that's who they got^^^ when they traded Valdez to the Dodgers, but didn't Valdez come in a trade along with Eric Young back in '99 or thereabouts? Who did we trade in that deal to get those two? Terry adams and fringe prospect(s) who never did anything. December 12, 1999: Traded by the Los Angeles Dodgers with Eric Young to the Chicago Cubs for a player to be named later, Terry Adams, and Chad Ricketts (minors). The Chicago Cubs sent Brian Stephenson (minors) (December 16, 1999) to the Los Angeles Dodgers to complete the trade.

Maybe they're all injured. Or the change in schedule as far as how they got ready for the season messed them up.

I don't predict a big drop off by Edmonds. But expecting him to exceed all his career averages is irrational. career .291/.384/.543 2005 .263/.385/.533 Career OPS+ 138 2005 OPS+ 136 I doubt he'll surpass all his average. My guess is he'll be a little below his 2005 numbers, but still very productive and better than any Cubs outfielder.

Ismael Valdez July 26, 2000: Traded by the Chicago Cubs to the Los Angeles Dodgers for Jamie Arnold, Jorge Piedra, and cash.

Burntitz was not adequate, and I have a feeling Jones won't be either.

A stolen base is tangible.

7-4 against forcing people to only make weekly changes.

I've maintained my doubts on Cedeno, and don't have anything like the faith I have in Murton that he'll make it as a productive big leaguer. But he's not crap.

Alfonseca sucked. He had one year where he racked up 45 saves, but didn't pitch great at all. He was a closer in name only. And Clement, was, remained and still is a walk machine who cannot be counted on. I used to follow the minors more then and was starting to like Dontrelle around that time. I didn't predict he'd be a Cy Young candidate by now, but I sure as heck had no interest trading away young talent to add those marginal veteran (expensive) upgrades to what was nothing more than a mediocre team still a couple years away from potential greatness. And I thought he had a very good chance to be a valuable major leaguer. Yes, I knew who he was, and no I didn't "know" he'd make it, but I liked his chances. While it's revisionism to say you knew Willis would be great, it's just as revisionist to suggest nobody knew who he was.

He didn't make the wrong decision at other times in this game, but he clearly did here. If Dusty thinks of Williams as a starter, and can't bear to use him as a reliever in a blowout when the bullpen is already getting used early, then what is the point in putting him on the roster as the longman when he's said he won't use him as a starter until April 15? I didn't get hot under the collar until people started making ridiculous justifications for not using a longman in the quintessential longman situation.

Yeah, one of the more famous figures from the French Revolution, but not the most famous. If the discussion was about politics, history, the current protests in France, revolution in general, or change in government leadership, then it's not obscure.

All news stories say the terms were not disclosed. Something mentioned that it was for less than $1million per season. My guess is that it's on a per year basis, but that's just a guess.

Your argument is that you get bored with daily changes by July, so others shouldn't be allowed to, and mine doesn't hold water? My argument is that only allowing roster changes in a very limited window is arbitrary and unfair. I don't see any reason why I, or anybody else, should be locked into a roster decision made days in advance. I just don't see the point. And since most people have voted for some sort of ability to change more frequently than once a week, I think others agree with me. FYI: The "not honest" comment was in regards to the idea that since you can set your lineups months in advance, it doesn't matter how frequently you get access to that. That's akin to suggesting we all set our lineups today and leave them the same way for the rest of the season. And what about people who ended up with a bad roster when they were away for the draft? If somebody has 3 good outfielders who can play everyday, but another person's OF is weak and needs a platoon to contend, why can't that person choose to platoon as the season goes on. This seems to doubly reward people who had a better draft, and I at least didn't even see this rule until after the draft.

Hendrickson's.

If Daily gets 3 votes, weekly gets 4 votes, and option 3 gets 2 votes, what will be the decision? Depends on who offers the biggest bribe. :D I guess it would be weekly in that case. Well, this seems unfair. It's like splitting the vote of people who think weekly is unfair. It's the summer, there are a lot of Sundays/Mondays when I will be unable to access a computer to make a move. I would rank them daily, option 3, then weekly if there was a ranking. And I'm guessing those people who voted daily to start would do the same. Clearly weekly is the less desirable option if the majority is voting for some sort of daily opportunity to make changes. You can set your lineup for each week months in advance so this isn't really an issue. I'm ok either way though. Then somebody who doesn't have daily access can set his in advance. I still don't see the point in limiting the ability to manage your team, especially to such a small window. Obviously most people want some sort of daily ability to change, as it 4 people have voted for that, compared to 2 for weekly, and it was 3-1 before the revote. And we all know things change on a daily basis, so pretending you can set your lineup months out and that will help is not really honest. As long as you get the change in before gametime, you should be able to make it. With negative points for negative results, it's not like somebody who constantly shuffles in reserves has an inherent advantage.

And does he have his own chicken?

It could, but several teams with players that hated each other enjoyed great success.

It's pretty obscure. One of several to have held power during the French revolution only to meet their own fate on the guillotine.