goonys evil twin

Are they really that proud, or is that a media creation? Or, are they proud of the record, but realize that having that record means players won't fear going to arbitration and risk having to settle for the lower offer if they lose? I think they are more interested in the cash than the record of no arbitration, nobody gives out prizes for never going to arbitration.

No matter how much of the text I included, the point still stands. The Cubs plan was to draft and develop pitchers, then trade for and sign big bats when the time came to contend. The time has come, they aren't signing the bats, and can't trade for them. That is the fault of poor management.

Soto and Jose Reyes are still on the roster. If Barrett got banged up, they'd start Blanco and call up a kid. If he went down for the year, they'd probably pick up some journeyman off the waiver wire (the way they got Neifi and about 5 other shortstops in recent years), or trade for some vet from a crap team.

Sounds like Jose Macias.

Maybe, but that is often where people let impressions take over reality. People who watch Jeter everyday claim he's one of the greatest with the glove. But nearly every other source puts him in the middle of the pack at best, and quite often in the bottom half. I'd like to see somebody break down video from every ball put in play. Take all the plays that went between the 2B and 3B, time every ball from the time it leaves the bat to the time it hits the OF grass (or is fielded), measure the distance from where the SS was. There has to be a way to translate that into seeing who really were the better fielders and which guys that may look flashy actually don't get to as many balls as they should. That'd take a lot of time though, and I'm not sure if it would work. this isnt really fair though. the shortstop might be able to see what pitch the pitcher is going to throw, or have a good handle on the batter's scouting report and adjust accordingly. i think bill james wrote about this is one of his old abstracts. i think he referred to it as "invisible range." Don't all shortstops have the opportunity to do that though? yeah, but i think it's safe to assume that some shortstops are better at it than others. therefore, measuring only how far the player had to go to get the ball would overrate a player with great visible range but poor invisible range, and underrate a player with great invisible range but poor visible range I don't understand how that's bad though. Shouldn't the person with the superior positioning be rewarded? either im wording this wrong or you're misunderstanding me. i am saying that the person with superior positioning should be rewarded. read it again, and if you still get the same thing, we'll just agree that im too dumb to explain this but that we share the same point of view. Maybe I am to blame for poor wording. The measurement should be more about where the ball is, and if the player gets there or not. In a simple form, if you take the field as 90 degrees, with 3rd base at 0, 2B at 45, and 1B at 90, then you can say a ball that goes into the OF at the 40 degree angle in X.X seconds should be fielded by Y% of SS. It shouldn't just be about how far the SS had to run. Although teams who think they are better at positioning their guys, might be more interested in the guys who cover more ground under that measurement.

That's what I want. The Bears have too many needs to simply take the best TE available, and a TE isn't going to be the difference between 1 and done and a long postseason run. They need defensive backfield help, linebacker help, pass rush help and offensive line help. Offensive playmakers alone won't get the job done, not without making the O line younger.

Maybe the Cubs thought he just got lucky and is due for a decline. Or maybe he doesn't catch the ball as well as they would like.

Perception is probably reality on this one B to B! Regardless of what the numbers and sabermetrics may actually show, there is surely a perception among GMs around the league that from July through October Jose Contreras was the best pitcher in baseball. carlos zambrano, a pitcher half his age, who had a better second half AND first half, and has for the last 3 years, would disagree with their assessment. I have to agree with Hoops. He didn't say Contreras was the best, he said there was a perception he was the best. Look no further than Steve Phillips for somebody who puts far greater emphasis on win totals down the stretch than actual pitching performance. I'd bet Phillips would take Contreras over Zambrano (who he has constantly bad mouthed as immature, unstable and unproven). A lot of GMs still come from the conventional wisdom crowd.

He's gone 130 or more 6 of the past 7 years, and 4 years in a row. And he's had very few DH or PH appearances the past 3 years, so he's catching most of the time. They signed Flaherty as a backup and have Josh Bard (Cleveland product) on the roster. I really think that 130 games is a thing of the past. If he can continue to do it the Red Sox will be in good shape but I see him breaking down a little this year. Just a prediction. I could see him breaking down a bit as well, but a 130 game schedule is not that much for a catcher. Full-time guys usually go around 145. He hasn't been used a ton in his career. I think with regular rest, he could get to 130 games again this season. That's enough for 5 days of rest a month. For precaution you could give him 6 or 7 a month early in the season, and see how he holds up. That way you should be able to get at least 120, and maybe stretch him a bit at the end if you're in a race, or rest him extra if you've locked up a spot.

That is weird, especially since he was replaced by a long snapper. The article says that Clark was mistakenly put on the team as a long snapper. I can honestly say Clark sucks. I would be one happy person if he was cut. He is overpaid for what he does if you ask me. I completley disagree on this sentiment. He does not suck. He's no stud, but the Bears offensive game plan completely ignores TEs, and the QBs have been awful the past couple of years. Most TE struggles are due to team struggles on the Bears.

In addition, 10 players are going to NFL Europe. I would like Frazier. He has a history with Rivera in the Philly system, as well as time served under Marvin Lewis when he was defensive coordinator, which is good experience.

The Cubs still have OF issues, and I wouldn't have a problem with Abreu coming to play LF with Murton heading back east. I'd also be interested to see if they want to get out of Burrell's contract. The Cubs are stuck. They have to try and get as good as possible now, because their farm system isn't good enough to be trying to build for 2007 or 2008. They need more firepower.

He's gone 130 or more 6 of the past 7 years, and 4 years in a row. And he's had very few DH or PH appearances the past 3 years, so he's catching most of the time. They signed Flaherty as a backup and have Josh Bard (Cleveland product) on the roster.

I don't think the Cubs can. The problem for the Cubs is that the players that teams want in these deals the Cubs can't afford to give. This is what I have been saying all off-season as people bash Hendry for not getting that stud bat. In addition to not being able to give up the best pitching, the Cubs don't actually have the asked for value on the roster. That's just an indictment of Hendry's work as farm director and earlier work as GM. If they don't have anything that people want on the roster now, it's Hendry's fault. This is his roster, and the farm is mostly his doing.

Or risk having him just repeat his poor year and remove any doubt that he's not worth giving up much talent for. It's a tough call for them. Obviously if he starts out 2006 hot, he'll be a more attractive asset to sell in July. What would be best is to try and get a decent package for him now (reducing cost) from a team that believes last year was a fluke. If nobody is offering up more than marginal trash, hold onto him and hope for a good start, because you can always find marginal trash.

So is Pierre, Walker/Hairston, Lee and ARam! Who's in the 5 slot for the Sox? Nixon or Varitek. The Red Sox will be a top 3 run scoring team in the AL, the Cubs won't be a top 3 run scoring team in the NL.

Absofreakinglutly What is Williams doing, giving other GMs a date rape drug and then taking pictures? If this is in the works, it would seem to put some stock in the theory that Philly just wants to move Abreu to change the look of their team. It wouldn't make any sense to trade him for older players who are nowhere near great. Philly's hopes lie on the shoulders of Utley and Utley, plus maybe Burrell. The first two could provide top 3 in the league production from their position at a very far below market price. The pitching is what's lacking, but Myers and Tejeda are a nice start. I just don't think they are in any sort of position to trade Abreu for a pitcher like Contreras, who is not consistently good, or Dye, who is older than Bobby and far less productive historically. Is this like when the Cubs had Patterson and Patterson? :) No, that what's it's like when I am drunk and drunk. Obviously I meant Howard, but I got distracted with "work" while writing and must have lost my place.

Absofreakinglutly What is Williams doing, giving other GMs a date rape drug and then taking pictures? If this is in the works, it would seem to put some stock in the theory that Philly just wants to move Abreu to change the look of their team. It wouldn't make any sense to trade him for older players who are nowhere near great. Philly's hopes lie on the shoulders of Utley and Utley, plus maybe Burrell. The first two could provide top 3 in the league production from their position at a very far below market price. The pitching is what's lacking, but Myers and Tejeda are a nice start. I just don't think they are in any sort of position to trade Abreu for a pitcher like Contreras, who is not consistently good, or Dye, who is older than Bobby and far less productive historically.

I remember thinking the Cubs had a great farm system.

PSU? They've been no more successful than Iowa since joining the Big Ten. Yes but right or wrong they still have the perception. Hell Illinois is better over the last ten years record wise than Kansas, Indiana, Kentucky. Does that mean we are more of a powerhouse nationally than these teams? I think not. I thought you were talking about football and the conference with PSU. PSU will not "always be among the programs in the Big Ten" because they've never been in the class of OSU and MU. They are just another second tier team that can contend from time to time.

PSU? They've been no more successful than Iowa since joining the Big Ten.

Kind of goes along with popular opinion there. This organization has slowly deteriorated after several years of continued improvement. I'd have no problem with a farm system that was barren of top talent if the big club was consistently very good. But that's not the case.

I know what the reason is, it just isn't a realistic reason. There is no reason for Prior to take that deal when he can command as much in each year of the arb process if he stays healthy and can command much more once he hits the open market. From the Cubs point of view, assuming they know they can't take away a year of FA, locking him up would also be pointless. It's just not a realistic scenario, which is why I am sure it hasn't happened. And that's the whole point of why they haven't and why they shouldn't. He is not going to give up that first year of FA at this point and that is why they shouldn't give him an extension. This makes no sense whatsoever. It is too a very realistic scenario to sign him to such a deal. Prior does it because a) he could get a short-term bump in 2006 money and b) he'd get a lot of guaranteed money. Yes, he'd be sacrificing the chance to make a few more million a year the next couple years. But that's why guys sign these deals all the time. They weigh the guarantee vs the potential. There is a price somewhere in between that makes a lot of parties happy. As for the Cubs, it makes a lot of sense because if you can give him a little more money today, and lock him into a contract for the next few years, you get cost certainty. The risk of course is he doesn't live up to the deal. The reason it hasn't been done is because Hendry usually doesn't get to this type of deal until after all his arbitration guys have signed and because the magic number hasn't been met yet. I'm not saying it will, but it could easily be done, and it is very much a realistic option for both parties.

Dusty hit Walker in the 2-hole 254 times last year, and he has been primarily a 2-hole hitter in his 3-year splits (780 ABs, next highest AB total at lead-off, 234 ABs) and throughout his career. If we act on the assumption that Walker is a Cub to start the season, he is above both Perez and Hairston on the depth chart (yes, even Dusty's depth chart), and there is no reason to assume he won't hit where he is comfortable, produces, and where his current manager has hit him the most. 254 isn't a high number at all. If he matches that this year it still means somebody else, probably much less deserving, got a lot of time out there in the 2 spot.

I can't put any faith in a Cubs published list of top prospects.