goonys evil twin

If sights were set too high this offseason, it's only because neglect from past offseasons was taking their toll and massive improvements were necessary. Andy and Hendry have shown they can't develop hitters at any reasonably acceptable rate, so if that's what you want, you better hope for a change at the top.

I don't even see much risk for 76-79 wins. I think 80-86 is the highly probable range, with 87-92 quite possible, with an outside shot at 93+. I think Philly is at a big risk for decline if they don't find some starting pitching. The Mets are going to be better than last year's 83 win team. I think all those other teams, plus Milwaukee will compete with the Cubs. And SF might be there as well if Bonds plays a full healthy season.

I'm probably among the most pessimistic Cubs fan after seeing what Hendry has failed to do the past 2 offseasons, but I can't agree with you here. For them to lose 90 they would have to have nearly unprecedented bad luck. I mean seriously, they gave 600 PA to Neifi last year and didn't get close to 90 losses. They started the year with the worst OF possible and didn't come close to 90. They could sleepwalk their way to a 75-78 win season. I don't think these guys are at risk of drafting in the top 5 next year. As I've said before, I think this team has locked in its mediocrity. I think they are a pretty safe bet to be around .500. The problem is not that they might lose 90, the problem is they've given themselves a very small chance of winning more than 90.

Andy and his boys have talked about emulating the Braves way for years, going back to the mid 90's. That's when the whole, develop pitching, then acquire hitters thing really took hold. The problem is they haven't developed enough pitchers, and they haven't acquired enough hitters. You can't just acquire 2 good bats when the rest of your lineup is weak. And even if you do develop all pitchers, and acquire other hitters, you still have to produce some of your own hitters, like Atlanta. The Cubs have failed there. Furthermore, when you have the chance to acquire difference making bats, you have to make the most of the opportunity and not settle on pieces of trash like Jones.

My feeling is that the 2003/2004 "success" was expected. People felt they arrived early with that series win over Atlanta, but really it was still just an 88 win team, followed by an 89 win team. They should have been that good, if not better. The problem in my mind is not just that they've taken a step back (which people are debating), but that they've failed to take a significant step forward. This team is no better than they were 3 years ago, when they were good but not great. This management group seems satisfied with being better than most. And when they go through a season where they aren't better than most, 2005, even though they talk big about sub .500 being "unacceptable" they do very little to ensure it won't happen again. This team is relying nearly exclusively on the return to health of oft-injured pitchers AND that those pitchers will dominate. You have to build a team to withstand setbacks, even from your better players. Small market teams don't really have that option, but GMs with a budget that Hendry has have no excuse. The philosophy that says known quantity always beats unknown quantity, even if the known quantity is a proven failure, also influences the team to strive for consistent mediocrity instead of risking big failure in the pursuit of greatness.

I refer to the regime as Andy, Jim and whatever other fill in the blank manager you want since Rigs. To me, Dusty is no better than Baylor, the blowhard ex big leaguer who always talks about "playing the game the right way" but never delivers the results. Personally I gave up on these guys long ago. I never wanted Dusty here, I saw him as a fraud before he signed. Hendry I once had hope for, ignoring his faults and just hoping all those hunches would work, they obviously haven't. But my patience has ran thin after two straight terrible offseasons. But I can understand why somebody would want to "let this year play out", what I can't understand is why somebody would even suggest we need to let this year play out, as well as let the following year play out. If this team is no better than a 82-85 win team, I don't see what else people will need to prove to them that Andy, Hendry & Co. will not bring this team to the promised land.

I don't see better offensive production, at least not significantly better. Where is the IF depth? And where are they better off than last year if somebody goes down? If Cedeno goes down, Neifi starts all year, and they're screwed. If Aramis goes down, they're screwed. If Lee goes down, they're screwed. They have the same 2B depth this year that they had last year, but this year they might make the mistake of getting rid of the top 2B on the team for no good reason. They could simply give a lesser player an undeserved platoon with him, or even worse, the full-time gig.

The reason for the discrepency between his post July 1 numbers, and his post all star break numbers were the two bad starts on July 1 and July 7. 9 ER in 9 2/3 innings pitched. Those were also his 2nd and 3rd starts after returning from injury. The fact that his post all star numbers were better has to suggest to you that maybe those two games were outliers, and that after injury he returned to the sub 4.00 ERA level he has always been. I don't know what is so "un-Prior like" with high pitch counts. In 2005 he averaged 16.9 pitches per innings pitched. From 2002-2004 he was 17.3, 16.1, 17.3. He threw 104.7 pitches per game, down from his career average of 106.4. I think you are failing to take into account the full picture on Prior. Certainly he's no lock for 34 starts, a 3.00 ERA, 20 wins 250 IP, 300 K and 75 BB. But the guy should be very good in 2006, and he's capable of being great this year. The problem is the Cubs need him to be great to have much of a chance to win.

This regime, and its "context" has been around since 1994, how much longer do you need to come to a conclusion?

Wow, Montanez at 30? This system has fallen apart. Montanez has no value, yet he's cracking lists. His only decent production came as a 22 year old in freaking Boise, and a 23 year old in low A ball. He sucked whenever he played at his age level, and when he hit AA this year.

I can see why somebody would want to see this year shake out, but there's no way to justify waiting for after 2007 as well. Hendry has had more than enough time to make this team great, and he hasn't come close. More importantly, Andy and the gang have had plenty of time to turn this team from perennial failure to perrenial winner, and they have not done it. I don't care if their backtoback winning seasons was better than anything since the 70s, calling that some sort of accomplishment is just exposing your lowered expectations and accepting mediocrity. The time for change is now, not in two years. It's like looking at Neifi Perez. I don't need two more years of watching him fail as a regular to prove to me the Cubs need somebody else playing his position.

Except for most of the Rusch starts, and whenever Maddux has his 10 or more blowup games. Little factoid: Both Maddux and Zambrano each had the same number of starts (4) where 6+ runs was given up in 2005. That's a bit of selective memory regarding Maddux and blowup games. The difference is Zambrano had a lot more 0 and 1 run games than Maddux to bring that ERA down. That's not selective memory. I didn't just arbitrarily assign 6 runs to a blowup. First, you said a lot of 4-3 games. Maddux had 9 games last year where he allowed more than 4, Zambrano had 6 (Rusch had 5 in a lot fewer starts). In 2004 Maddux had 9 and Zambrano had 5. Another thing to look at for blowup games are games when you give up as many runs as innings pitched, what Tim labeled as disaster starts a few years back. Because there is a big difference between giving up 4 in 4 innings and 5 in 9 innings. In 2004 Maddux had 7, Zambrano had 2, in 2005 Maddux had 5 Zambrano had 3. Rusch had 5 and 4. Ok, so if I use your definition of blowup game, since it was your term introduced n the conversation, where are the 10 Maddux blowups in the past? Where is the trend that sets 10 as the 2006 predictor? 10 was your stated number. All I'm asking is that you recognize it was an exaggerated comment that isn't nearly as bad as made out to be. If Maddux clocks in at 5 "disaster games" in 2006 (the same as 2005), it'll be just a few more than the aces, and probably league average. Why do I have to recognize it as exaggeration? You brought up 4-3 games. Maddux has had 9 games in each of the past 2 years in which he's given up more than 4. I don't think it's a stretch to think he's capable of flirting with 10 this year, given his continued decline. As for the disaster starts, it's a safe bet he'll lead the team, again. I would be surprised if he had less than 5, and not shocked if he had more than the 7 he had in 2004. One thing is almost certain, he'll have more than Zambrano. On a team with such a weak lineup as the Cubs, so heavily dependent on pitching, it's a shame that so much of the workload is going to have to be put on guys like Maddux and Rusch, who just aren't that good.

Except for most of the Rusch starts, and whenever Maddux has his 10 or more blowup games. Little factoid: Both Maddux and Zambrano each had the same number of starts (4) where 6+ runs was given up in 2005. That's a bit of selective memory regarding Maddux and blowup games. The difference is Zambrano had a lot more 0 and 1 run games than Maddux to bring that ERA down. That's not selective memory. I didn't just arbitrarily assign 6 runs to a blowup. First, you said a lot of 4-3 games. Maddux had 9 games last year where he allowed more than 4, Zambrano had 6 (Rusch had 5 in a lot fewer starts). In 2004 Maddux had 9 and Zambrano had 5. Another thing to look at for blowup games are games when you give up as many runs as innings pitched, what Tim labeled as disaster starts a few years back. Because there is a big difference between giving up 4 in 4 innings and 5 in 9 innings. In 2004 Maddux had 7, Zambrano had 2, in 2005 Maddux had 5 Zambrano had 3. Rusch had 5 and 4.

Except for most of the Rusch starts, and whenever Maddux has his 10 or more blowup games.

then he's totally not good at it. Hendry is like the 12-year old kid who spends all his waking hours reading about fighter jets. He knows a whole lot of info on them, but when he builds that model, no matter how much time and energy he put into it, the thing still doesn't compare to the real thing made by General Dynamics. yep, for one, the mouth decal is upside down, there's glue coming out of the nose propeller, the wing is crooked, the bottom turret is coming off and the kid seems more and more enamoured with the tube of glue than the actual plane. But more importantly, it doesn't fly or blow things up.

then he's totally not good at it. Hendry is like the 12-year old kid who spends all his waking hours reading about fighter jets. He knows a whole lot of info on them, but when he builds that model, no matter how much time and energy he put into it, the thing still doesn't compare to the real thing made by General Dynamics.

The staff has to carry the team, because the lineup is practically a guarantee for subpar performance. I don't really have a problem with the pitching staff, it certainly has the ability to dominate. The likelihood of reaching that ability is the problem. And, while I don't blame Hendry for the staff, I do blame Hendry for his overall approach to the roster. If he was going with the "pitching wins" philosophy, he should have gotten more stable arms. If he was going with a more balanced approach, he should have gotten much better position players. As things stand, this team's hopes rely on recently injured players being completely healthy and very productive, as opposed to a team that can withstand some setbacks, injury or otherwise.

The problem with the Cubs drafting is they have strictly gone the scouting route, all tools and intangibles, no objective statistical analysis. Of course you need a balanced approach, but a balanced approach still doesn't justify $5m guaranteed for Neifi getting serious playing time. Personally I don't take the opinions of players that seriously. Listenging to guys like Joe Morgan, John Kruk, Rob Dibble and all the rest really shows you how being good at something does not equate to being good at describing how you do it. Despite human beings not being entirely predictable, stats can tell us that Neifi Perez is a terrible option for a regular major league position, we can reasonably predict that he'll make entirely too many outs most of the time.

And at the risk of getting way off track, it goes back to the Alou signing, when they were not a good team and still waiting for a lot of the young players, especially pitchers, to emerge before making their moves. They signed Alou, which guaranteed that LF and RF would be plugged for a few years, with several good corner OF coming on the market in the meantime. That signing served as their excuse not to go after any impact younger corner OF in 2003 and 2004. And it just shows you how important it is to have a realistic picture of what your team is capable of in the near team, and a pretty good idea of what the not-so-distant future will look like. And before anybody tries to say Hendry can't be held accountable for that, he was the asst GM, and very much a part of the decision making process that made that deal happen. An Alou signing would have made sense if those 2001 Cubs were like the 2003/2004/2005 Cubs, and despite the 88 wins, they clearly were not, as everybody on the team was old and aging quickly. They said all along they were going to develop their own core from within the system, and then go outside the team for holes they couldn't fill with their own guys. Now that they have that core from within, they can't find the guys from outside to fill those holes, and we're stuck with second, or more likely, third-rate fill-ins.

If you put Neifi in front of Derrek Lee he'll cost you way more than 18 runs. Look at Lee's monthly RBI totals from 2005: APR - 28 MAY - 18 JUN - 19 JUL - 18 AUG - 11 SEP - 13 Not surprisingly, Lee's one good month of RBI production was Neifi's hot April. In the other 5 months Lee averaged 15.8 RBIs, which is absolutely pathetic considering his other numbers. Neifi's presence cost us way more than 18 runs, and I have never come so close to wishing injury on one of my team's players as I was with Neifi last year. It wasn't just Neifi though, that held down Lee's RBI.

no kidding. did you see that usher? he had his hands all over her and she seemed not to mind. i swear he was copping a feel. lucky old fart. From what I can tell, she's quite the looker. But she also seems to be just a few steps shy of Mrs. Warner and Mrs. Christie in the full of herself pyscho sports wife category. Maybe at closing time when all the ugly girls have gone home. To each his own. In her time man, wasn't she Miss Illinois 15 years ago or something. She wouldn't be my first choice or anything, but for a woman her age, with kids, she's pretty attractive (at least I think, didnt' get a great look).

I think those three could be adequate this year in the 2 hole. The problem is none of them are locks, or near locks to put up those numbers, or even get a shot to put up those numbers in the 2 hole. It would be a gamble, but I'd prefer to go w/ youth @ the 2 and get a slugger behind the top 2 on base guys, Lee & ARam. I'd be a little nervous about Neifi batting 2 tho... Oh don't get me wrong, I'm all for one of those three, or a mix of those three getting the 2 spot. And obviously completely against Neifi ever seeing it. My whole hope for this offseason was on getting an adequate middle of the order hitter, so that Lee, Ramirez and X would account for the heart, in whatever order.

I think those three could be adequate this year in the 2 hole. The problem is none of them are locks, or near locks to put up those numbers, or even get a shot to put up those numbers in the 2 hole.

She's not pyscho, just an opportunistic wh........, flesh peddler.

I'm not sure if they have "plenty of adequate 2 hitters", but I agree about the lack of 5 hitters. The problem with Soriano is his price tag in terms of dollars, the amount of talent you'd have to trade to get him, and that he'd be replacing a guy that isn't any worse than him (Walker). And the fact that the Cubs might foolishly extend him to an inflated contract if they do trade for him is another worry. It's just too bad they locked themselves into such poor OF production, because your 5 hitter should come from eithe LF or RF, assuming 1B and 3B are your best guys.