goonys evil twin

Steal underpants?

Like I said, I don't know much about the game. If people think those guys can become elite, they should be solid in a couple years. I just get the feeling they'll be run-of-mill like so many other "supposed to develop" players.

Young talent develops in the NBA, both Deng and Gordon have All-Star potential, and your 3-year window is too narrow. I understand that young talent develops. But my question is to teams develop from sub .500 to championship caliber solely on the development of that young talent? I don't follow it much, and I don't really know basketball, but it seems to me like you have to either draft somebody who becomes elite, or trade/sign somebody who is elite, to have a chance in the NBA. Even Detroit had to go out and get somebody else's superstar, didn't they?

And he started doing that in his 20's. The decline came in his mid 30's as expected (and happened when he moved to an extreme pitcher's park). He's also missed a lot more games in his early years than recently, he only has one season with less than 150 games since 2000. 159 and 158 at 33 and 34. Boone didn't blow up until he was 32. It's very different.

Giles..! :shock: I've never had any reason to suspect him. There has been a little speculation with him. He's like 5'10, 210 lbs, all muscle. And he's been the same size and the same player year after year. He didn't experience massive rapid growth, or have an out of the ordinary improvement in production. I would be very surprised if somebody was able to be as consistently good as Giles all while using steroids. He was never a 60 homer guy, but he's always been a great OBP, solid SLG guy. He peaked in his late 20's and has slowly declined in his 30s, like a normal player would be expected.

Incompetent leadership has been the problem, year in and year out. Piss poor management decisions have killed this team. And I'd say there was less effort by ownership years ago than there is now. They put a ton of effort into turning the farm system around, and went after the top of the line executive at the time, MacPhail, and went after the biggest name manager available (not to mention, most overpaid). But they've made a bunch of terrible personel moves through the years. Because the revenue stream will not be largely the same. Greater success brings far greater revenue. More sub .500 seasons will hurt revenue. Ownership knows this. The 2006 team is just as capable of winning as the 2005 and 2004 teams, they have continued with the same effort. It's not a matter of effort, it's a matter of management efficiently utilizing the resources provided by ownership. Could they pony up a little more? Sure, every owner in every city in every sport could pony up a little more. But Cubs ownership is not any worse than 95% of the rest of the sporting world. Cubs ownership is not the reason why other teams have had more success. STL, ATL and HOU owners aren't putting in more effort than the Cubs ownership. The difference is the management of those teams have done a better job. You don't have to apologize for your frustration. We're all frustrated. But I think you can do a better job at aiming your frustration at the right party. The Cubs don't lose because of Wrigley. They don't lose because of ownerhsip. They lose becuase of management. Or should I say they fail to win enough because of management? Either way, the level of effort provided by ownership should be more than enough for competent management to make this a consistently successful team, and if that happens, they will win it all some day.

I was going to say he looks a little pissed that some strange dude is trying to hug him.

Ozzy doesn't need anyone to fire him up. Just wait Ozzy will wear out his welcome on the South Side soon enough. His team won the first World Series in this town in 88 years. I think he's going to be loved by at least half of the city for a long time. I'm not saying that he's not crazy, but he managed a World Series team in Chicago. He's the only person on the planet that is alive to say that. Maybe he's talking about wearing out his welcome with the players, and possibly even management. The first sign of struggles by that team will be very interesting to see how these personalities mesh. They've all become more and more outspoken after winning. The fans will love Ozzie forever, but the characters could all learn to hate each other.

FYI, this was addressed in the Buster Olney thread, around page 4.

The MiFi is portable, but inside the portable antenae is useless, so unless you have the means to hook it up to a base with a proper antenae situated near a window, I wouldn't reccomend it. But, the MiFi does come with earphones that can be plugged in directly. It also can be utilized through it's FM transmitter. So, while the MiFi would be idea if you wanted something portable, unless your class is outdoors or you could set up the base and indoor antenae in class, it would be useless for listening to Cubs games in class. Or, if you are inside bit near a window exposed to the south/southwest, it will work. My MiFi works indoors without the antenna in certain areas.

I agree with you, but he's been a mercenary for years now, it's to be expected. And it could be the perfect thing for him. Although he's still very effective, he's got very little stamina, and he wears down. He had an ERA over 5 last September, and for the past 3 years, his August and September have been his highest month ERAs. And of course he's got some bad history in the playoffs. It could do him a world of good to wait 2 months before beginning the season.

You're excited? Feel my nipples!

I agree.

Yes, that part was great. Basically it's like being in a beer garden. It's a bar atmosphere, not a stadium atmosphere. It can be great to go to a bar with friends and watch a game. Having a view of the park adds to it, even if the view of the field ain't great. Just as long as you go expecting the right atmosphere, you'll enjoy it.

I added that for sarcasm's sake. The fact that they are merely journeymen relievers who offer very little sense of stability is very relevent.

I think the idea that Wrigley hurts the Cubs because it always sells out and therefore there is no motivation to win is complete BS. First off, it didn't always sell out, or come close really. That's a relatively new phenomenon. How would you explain all the pre sell-out failure? Second, the only way you could defend this claim is if the stadium kept selling out, and ownership stopped providing ample money for management to use to win. That's not the case. The Cubs have been one of the very few teams in baseball to increase spending on payroll each year this decade. Most other teams cut back, some very significantly (Dodgers/Braves). The Cubs kept spending. Third, the recent trend of sell-outs is directly related to the recent trend of the Cubs actually being a threat to win it all. 98 was a taste, but 2003 was the real deal that increased demand. The tickets sold in 2004 were because of the success in 2003. Fans in general still see this as a team that can make some noice, and that's why they will spend. Why do fans see this as a team that will make some noice? Because ownership gave management enough money to get some real players on the team. Ownership knows that if they return to the sub .500 seasons like 2005 on a consistent basis, that demand will diminish, revenue will diminish. They are never going to be a top 2 or 3 payroll ballclub. But they will be in the next group of teams. Personally I can live with that, and every other fan should be able to as well. The Cubs failures are entirely due to management failings, not ownership's lack of motivation to win, or Wrigley freaking Field. White Sox ownership and Florida ownership put no more effort into their winning seasons than the Cubs put into their disappointing season. It's not about motivation for ownership, it's about management decisions and execution by on field personel.

You had 50 people at your bachelor party?

It depends on the two players. If the Bulls traded Gordon and Deng plus their two first rounders for Garnett, would the resulting team be any better? Or would it be a borderline playoff team with a superstar? Seems more like the latter to me. Ford's suggested trade of Deng and the two first rounders for Garnett appeals, though. Garnett-Chandler-Noch-Gordon-Hinrich -- yep, that would work. skiles would probably play songaila over garnett in 4th quarters, though. Sulley's quest against Skiles is laughable. This team has the pieces and assets to make a run for a title in a few years. i'll believe it when i actually see a skiles-led team make a title run. Do NBA teams actually develop? I was always under the impression that you either win by drafting a great player and hope he develops into an elite within 3 years (doesn't look like any current Bull will come close to that), or you sign/trade for somebody else's superstar. Is there much of a history of sub .500 teams gradually getting better with the same group of players, without at least one of those players turning into a superstar, or trading for a superstar? I can't imagine the Bulls ever going far with Skiles as the coach. He seems to be more interested in sending messages than winning. That's fine, actually it can be great to develop some guys, but usually you have to change the coach to then go to the next level.

Link I think he'd gladly go to NY if the money is right and the team is winning. If the Astros are looking bad and/or offer a lot less than the Yankees, he could go to NY.

I hope he doesn't sulk the whole game.

Wrigley was bringing in tourists and marketed as part of the package long before all these modern parks started popping up.

How can you not like them as players? You might not like their price tag, but they certainly help the bullpen. They don't certainly do anything. They're journeymen relievers, and journeyman relievers are not consistent, and guarantee you nothing. They should make the bullpen better, but neither is a lockdown reliever, or anything special, or a right fielder with solid production numbers (the Cubs real #1 need this offseason).

overrated. I watched from a friend's window, before the rooftops all went commercial. It was fun, but not something you "have to do". I've been to one rooftop, and it was an okay experience. You're just so far away, I really don't think it is close to as cool as Wrigley.

Son of a BI*** I forgot my XM at home today.

Great health won't help a thing without a significant level of effectiveness. You can have 5 perfectly healthy Glendon Rusch's and you aren't going anywhere.