goonys evil twin

Only if what we need is another 25th man. Maybe there's a slight chance he could be included in a deal with several other much better players for a real difference maker. But this guy is not worth much of anything on the open market, even if he's healthy.

How in the world is in pessimism to point out that 9th in the league in runs scored is below average, and therefore bad for a team that should be contending? How is it pessimism to point out that the 4th best OPS was actually made up of really good SLG and really bad OBP, which was due to a terribly low number of walks taken? You can't look at facts and dismiss them as pessimism. Ignoring facts does no good. Would you like it if Jim Hendry said, "well, we had a good OPS and good batting average so obviously there's no wrong with the offense." I wouldn't. That would be ignoring the reasons why a 4th ranked OPS could result in a substandard 9th place runs scored ranking. This is absurd. The facts are the facts. 9th place in runs scored isn't good. It's far from good. The reason they were 9th is because they had a fatal flaw with their offense, they didn't walk. They were, and are, a very impatient team as a whole. This lack of patience leads to a poor OBP, which holds down runs scored and prevents wins. This isn't pessimism. It's refusing to ignore reality.

9th in runs scored in the 16 team NL. That's bad. Below average is bad. 4th in OPS doesn't come close to telling the whole story. The OBP side of OPS should weigh more heavily than the SLG side. The Cubs are good with the SLG, but absolutely terrible with the OBP. This offense is not among the worst of the worst, but it's far from good at the same time. It's an enormous problem. That's one (entirely pessimistic) way of looking at it. Take away the time that Aramis Ramirez missed, and the team would be above average in runs scored. Maybe even top 5. Pessimistic? It's the god's honest truth. Just the facts, no spin. It's tough to score runs when you don't get on base very often, and the Cubs don't get on base often enough. You're the one throwing around ifs. Yeah, if everything works out perfectly the Cubs would win every game. I live in the real world where the Cubs have had a real run scoring problem for several years that is tied to an OBP problem, which is entirely based on their inability to draw walks. But no, let's all pretend that's just pessimism and not the truth.

Never heard of Lennie Friedman. he played a lot of DT in the last game of the regular season. he's pretty much a backup OL that's somewhat serviceable in that he's versatile. I am really concerned that this is what the Bears are considering o line depth. I want them to get some younger guys who will be capable of being solid starters in a year or two. These guys are just roster filler.

Is it me, or does Rozner moonlight as Greg's agent?

9th in runs scored in the 16 team NL. That's bad. Below average is bad. 4th in OPS doesn't come close to telling the whole story. The OBP side of OPS should weigh more heavily than the SLG side. The Cubs are good with the SLG, but absolutely terrible with the OBP. This offense is not among the worst of the worst, but it's far from good at the same time. It's an enormous problem.

http://www.choiceshirts.com/images/PL/-0/PL-00129A-md.jpg

Pretty much the consensus division projected finish was: 1 - Cubs 2 - Astros 3 - Cards Our rotations was Morris (Injured), Carpenter (hadn't pitched for nearly 2 seasons), Woody Williams (Injured), Jeff Suppan (sucky), and Jason Marquis (Very little major league experience, none of it successful). You probably wouldn't remember, but I do. They were picked to be also ran's. Edmonds had a bad year. We lost Vina. Pujols was changing positions. We didn't have a right fielder after trading Drew. Izzy was coming off an injury plagued season. We lost our most versatile bench player in Marrero. But is that the same as saying they'd regress from 2003? They were also rans in 2003. People weren't predicting regression, just repetition.

205 win later? So are you saying people claimed the Cards regressed after the 2003 season? They won 85 that year, following 3 straight 93+ win seasons. I don't remember many people predicting the 2004 Cards would be worse than the 2003 Cards. I'm sure a lot of people failed to predict a 20 win improvement, but it's not like people were saying they go sub .500.

Um, the pattern is they've had a lot of success recently? Is this guy trying to say going from the WS to just the NLCS is a pattern of decline?

How are the Orioles "setting themselves up for disappointment"? They stink, everybody knows they stink. It's like saying the Rockies might not have as much success this year as they'd hope. Philly is a good call. They have some very good players, but a very messy pitching staff. They could linger at or below .500 all year, and then, I hope, trade Abreu to the Cubs.

I think most people on this board believe the team has improved. What is up for debate is the level of improvement. My disappointment with the team is based on my belief 5-6 years ago that this team should have been much better by now, and my belief that this offseason provided a chance for great improvement, not just the marginal improvement I believe they have made.

YEa, that will definatley throw a wrench in teams ST plans. The rules said something about teams reporting rosters 5 days before the first game. I assume they'll want their people to report before submitting those rosters. This schedule seems to indicate the non-asian/cuban national teams will report to a major league complex on March 3, training until the 6th before playing on the 7th. Cuba is probably training in Cuba, and the Asians are going to be playing in Tokyo while the rest are still practicing.

Isn't this just semantics? It can't be taught but in can be improved? Well, that undefined mental aspec tot hitting shows up in the kids who can't go from tee-ball to little league no matter how hard they try, or from little league to high school. Those without the undefined mental aspect are weeded out early. A combination of natural ability and teaching will determine how far up the weeding out ladder you climb.

I don't hate the Cubs, I hate the way they are run.

IMO the biggest surprise about the Aram deal is that no one else was willing to give them anything better. I still find it hard to believ to this day that B Hill and company was the best Pittsburgh could get. And the Cubs are an interdivisional rival no less. At the time he looked like a fat lazy bum with no motivation. He was a big liability in the field and showed next to nothing at the plate. And he was guaranteed $6 million the following year. It truly was Jim's best buy low move in his career, because about a year and a half before, Aramis was looking like a fantastic young player.

Anybody can be moved. I just find it patently absurd that people are talking about the likelihood of Jones being traded. He's not likely to be traded. He can be traded. Hopefully he will be traded, but GMs don't sign players with a plan of trading them later.

Less scouting and more stats isn't the same as "pure stat scouting". They believe that baseball was far too obsessed with the subjective opinions of scouts and wanted to bring in more objective analysis. And the LA organization was not in great shape when Depo came in, it's absolutely the right of any GM to fire scouts, and either replace them with new ones or deplete their ranks when he takes over.

I think you just answered your own question, even though it wasn't really a question. A 100% Cubs staff could dominate the season. But a 100% Cubs staff is going to be next to impossible to have come to fruition.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, while the switch described in the original post, i.e. putting a pitcher at a position for only one batter and then switching him back in the same inning, can't be done, but as long as it's done only once per inning, the switch of a pitcher to a field position is legal as long as he isn't switched back into the pitcher spot until the next inning/ The part that says "other than pitcher" makes me think he can go back to pitcher in the same innings. He could not go from pitcher, to LF, to RF, back to pitcher. Or, he couldn't go from pitcher, to LF, to pitcher, and back to LF in the same inning. But he could go pitcher, LF, pitcher.

To me the rule book says you can move a pitcher to another position, let's say LF, but you can't move him again in the same inning to another position unless he's going back to pitcher. So, if 5 guys come up in an inning, for each batter he could be P, P, P, LF, P, but not P, P, LF, RF, P. But I'm no lawyer, or word reading person either.

booooooooooooorinnggggggggggggggggg I need to go on vacation until baseball starts, nothing is happening now.

The problem with this plan of attack is there really are extremely few spring training trades of any significance. Your team has to be set by February. And once the season starts, you will hear the same "people aren't ready to deal yet" line we hear every year when obvious needs are not addressed in a timely fashion. Once he gets significant spring training feedback on these guys, it will be too late to make trades unless some team becomes desperate to cut payroll. And with revenue sharing help available for the poorest teams, they are unlikely to show that desperation so early. So, we're pretty much stuck with the team we got right now. If it turns out that a lot of the arms are ready to go, the Cubs will become the team that has to trade or risk losing guys for nothing. But that is better than having everybody injured.

I'm wondering if this Super Bowl will prove to any doubters that you don't need a $100 million QB, or a super QB performance to win the big game. Very few of the SB QBs, win or lose, have been great ones this decade. Only Warner and Brady were MVP types, with Kurt being in the right place at the right time flash-in-the-pan and Tom not being much more than an elite game manager (sorry, I hate that phrase, but it fits with Brady whose job has been to put his team in a position to kick a late field goal to win it). It would be nice to see the media stop putting so much of the focus on Rex's arm. But more importantly, I'd like to see Angelo and Co. try and build the best team possible without focusing too heavily on any one position. Yes, it would be nice to get some more weapons for the QB, but the Bears hopes do not lie solely on Rex Grossman's progression. They could have won this year with the same Rex, and they can win even if Rex doesn't improve much next year. Don't get complacent thinking the defense is set and doesn't need any help or that the offensive line is perfectly fine and doesn't need tinkering. Don't think one offensive weapon, in this case a TE, is going to be the difference next year. Get a receiver or two in the draft and free agency, but add a defensive playmaker whenever possible and get some youth and depth on the line. My hope is that they make the defense even stronger next year, and just add some all-around modest improvements on offense, because no one big threat will change this from an at-best, average offense.

Don't forget Rusch will be given a job just because he's a veteran lefty. So it's probably just 2 spots to fill. Maybe by next season a better lefty option comes along. Hendry (if it is still Hendry) likes pitching, so I ahve a feeling he'd open his wallet for a quality lefty and leave Rusch in the pen. I could see him giving precedence to Hill, or similar internal option, but with the other pitching contracts that will have to be paid soon, I can't see him going outside the organization for a quality lefty.