goonys evil twin

I think they'd like to win the WS, but they've said over and over that their plan was to build a team to contend within the division (or similar phrases). They've never shown any desire to build a dominant team, rather one that could enjoy some success if everything works out right. I think the fact that they are top 5 in payroll year in and year out shows they have a desire to win the WS. Now, whether the GM is competent enough to put together a WS team is a whole other debate. But I am 100% confident that Hendry is doing everything he can to get us to a WS. I don't think anyone can debate that. We can debate his moves all day long but not his desire for a WS. And I know everyone is sick of excuses, but injuries really have killed us the last 2 years. The payroll just shows ownership's commitment. Andy and Jim have repeatedly talked about the "contend in the division" stuff. They have shown a commitment to try and build teams that will compete with Houston and STL, and have never shown any desire to build the best team possible. When they had chances to make big splashes they've shied away, and have always been looking for marginal improvements. They are largely satisfied with what they have done, and don't think the team needs much help to be contenders. They aren't hungry for a 95-100 win team, they just want a team that will hang around by year's end. They don't risk failure while going for greatness, they settle for stable mediocrity repeatedly.

Not true. The Cubs outbid KC's reported offer to get Jones, which was a terrible mistake because he's a crappy rightfielder who doesn't deserve more than $2-3m for 1 year as a platoon guy.

Gould was not good. He provided a little more depth than Brien and a little more stability as well, but he isn't any good at kicking FG. He hit only 77.8%, and was only 3/8 from beyond 39 yards. Most guys even behing him on the conversion list were greater threats from distance. Zemaitis could be a decent safety in the pros, I don't think he's got much of a chance to be a top flight CB. I thought gould was better. my bad. You think Zemaitis lacks the speed? I think Z lacks the speed, quickness and cover ability to be a top flight corner, but he could still be a pretty good pro, possibly at safety or as a nickel back.

Gould was not good. He provided a little more depth than Brien and a little more stability as well, but he isn't any good at kicking FG. He hit only 77.8%, and was only 3/8 from beyond 39 yards. Most guys even behing him on the conversion list were greater threats from distance. Zemaitis could be a decent safety in the pros, I don't think he's got much of a chance to be a top flight CB.

I think they'd like to win the WS, but they've said over and over that their plan was to build a team to contend within the division (or similar phrases). They've never shown any desire to build a dominant team, rather one that could enjoy some success if everything works out right.

I wouldn't be upset either, I just wish they didn't have to spend a 1st round pick on a TE.

Most of this thread is about people upset with somebody for giving the Cubs a D, when in reality they think they deserve a C. People are upset with other fans and media for pointing out the failures of the Cubs management, and squabbling over arbitrary, made-up, subjective letter grades. I don't see the point. Whether somebody sees it as an F, a D or a C+, it's all a great big disappointment. And some people are going as far as saying that Jim did all he could do, and should not be criticized. So, to answer your question, yes some people are suggesting that they should just build a team to contend within the division, because that's been the Cubs stated goal for 10 years and people are defending their strategy.

Good luck trading up into the top 5. New Orleans should trade down. No top pick will want to sign him them.

I'd be quite happy with Pope. The Bears need to add another dimension to the offense. Clark was a huge non factor all year. I think the biggest reason he caught that touchdown pass against Carolina was because he was such a non factor all year, Carolina paid him no attention. A good hands TE for those 3rd and longs can sustain more drives rather than turn them into punts. 5 or 6 throws to the TE will also open those receivers up a little more. Now, if the good hands, good blocking TE is available via free agency or via trade, then I could see going after something other than a TE in the draft. Or if the top 2 or 3 TE's are off the board (unlikely) by the time the Bears draft. A pass catching TE won't make much of a difference on this team. A dominant TE like Gates would help, but I don't think any of these draftees are anything like that. This offence is going to be mediocre with or without a good TE. The current crop of TE's failures have more to do with the offense and the QB's than their lack of ability. A good hands TE isn't going to help out on 3rd and long anymore than a good WR would. Make this defense dominant, and address the depth of both lines. You can plug in about 90% of the TE in the league and get the same result.

Not in arbitration though. Start too high and you'll have no chance. The arbiter takes both figures and picks one. You want to aim high, but stay reasonable.

Maybe he should have done a better job preparing the team for this offseason that apparantly had nobody available to make the team better. Every move you make today sets up moves for the future, and Hendry's past failures may have just made his job all that much harder this year.

The team is improved from last year. Enough for the 30-40 game turn-around you demand? No, not likely. But the team should be good enough to fight for the division (which is weakened) and improve to a better than .500 season. The team also goes into the next off-season mostly intact and in position to moderately improve again. Moderate improvements aren't what a GM should be looking for 4 years into his reign when the team has fallen off a cliff. You act as if my demands for a turnaround are unrealistic. The problem is they shouldn't have been as bad as they were last year, and they wouldn't have been as bad if the GM did his job. Your demands are very high. Improving by 21 games (to a 100 win season) rarely happens. I don't know of a resource to look up how many times it's been done in the FA era, but it's a safe bet to say it is rare. Very high? First, I didn't demand a 100 win season, I demand significant improvement. Second, they shouldn't have been a 79 win team last year, Hendry and Co. screwed up, so any marginal improvement this year should not go on their record as a positive, it would only be improvement because they did so bad last year. My demands for the Hendry era were steady improvement and consistent success, including multiple 90+ win seasons/playoff appearances. It puzzles me why any Cubs fan would expect less than that. I'm not demanding Playstation numbers, with 100 win season and a streak of WS wins. This isn't a Yankees fan talking of a disgraceful season when you win 97 but lose the World Series. I'm demanding what any fan of an upper echelon payroll team should demand, which is more than a team that teeters around the .500 mark and hopes for better luck.

That's not accurate. They were 9th in '05, 7th in '04, 11th in '03, and 12th in '02. (I don't recall when Hendry started) This is the post I was talking about. I have no idea if it's accurate or not. It's not. I believe that goes off of the very poor USA Today numbers somebody else linked to, which, among other things, don't count the money they paid Baltimore to take Sammy, and don't properly account for midseason trades that increase payroll or contracts that are not evenly dispersed accross years. The Cubs were consistently around 12th in the late 90's and early this decade. By the time Hendry took over though, many teams formerly in front of them, Baltimore, Atlanta, Dodgers and others, were cutting payroll, and the Cubs were adding each year. The only teams to consistently have a higher payroll than the Cubs in recent years have been the Yankees, Red Sox and Angels. The Mets have been ahead of them most of the time, but had a year where they took a dip, during the turnover in ownership and switch away from the Phillips era. Philly popped ahead of them the first year in the new stadium, but they've been neck and neck.

The team is improved from last year. Enough for the 30-40 game turn-around you demand? No, not likely. But the team should be good enough to fight for the division (which is weakened) and improve to a better than .500 season. The team also goes into the next off-season mostly intact and in position to moderately improve again. Moderate improvements aren't what a GM should be looking for 4 years into his reign when the team has fallen off a cliff. You act as if my demands for a turnaround are unrealistic. The problem is they shouldn't have been as bad as they were last year, and they wouldn't have been as bad if the GM did his job. I still can't believe how much slack Cubs fans are willing to give this group. They've failed. The team isn't any good. Mediocrity appears to be the goal, and many fans are pissed at those people who want to point these facts out instead of the people who made these facts true.

The Cubs are not top 5 right now, but they have been every year before that, under Hendry. Seeing how much return they've gotten on their investment, I wouldn't be surprised if the ownership cut back on expenses. Oh, and the injury excuse is bogus. Any team can say "without injuries we'd have won ...." It's meaningless. You have to plan for injuries, and when you put together the roster that the Cubs had, you have to expect more injuries than others.

Last year at this time everybody had the Bears taking a WR in the first. It looks like everybody has them at TE this offseason. I'm hoping that switches before the actual draft.

At least if you did, those actually took place in the offseason, unlike Dempster. But I wouldn't include them when talking about either team making offseason improvements. The Sox offseason was filled with actual improvements to an already good team.

I don't believe so. A full year of Dempster at closer (with same performance as last year) is an improvement over last year's cadre of closers. It's the same as saying a full year of Murton is an improvement over Murton/Dubois/Hollandsworth combined, etc. How is that disingenuous? Dempster was the primary closer last year, and the team sucked with him in there. We're talking about making offseason improvements. Regardless of whether you talk about his full tenure or just this offseason, Hendry hasn't come close to fullfilling his duty. He's failed to make this team as great as it should be, and if somebody wants to give him an F, they are completely justified. If they want to give him a D, go right ahead. You can't say somebody is right or wrong when giving out a F, D, C+, it all suggests the same thing, which is he hasn't done a very good job. The level of failure really doesn't matter, because it's all failure in the end.

So re-signing a potential FA to the same team only a few weeks before season end can't be constituted as a 'future move' or offseason transaction equivalent? I had already prefaced the post bystating there were a few forced scenarios. Hendry got his future closer early. Hardly a stretch IMO. Huge stretch. He was the current closer, and signed before the season ended. He wasn't an offseason improvement, just like Rusch or Perez weren't offseason improvements. The Cubs finished last season as a bad team, and those guys were on the team, so in order to get better, which they had to do, they had to get other guys.

I don't sound anything like that, let alone "almost". The point is your chances are better if you win more regular season games. I'm talking about improving your odds. A GM's job is to improve his team's chances of success, because he can't do anything other than acquire the guys who ultimately decide the fate of the team. A GM of a very expensive team should be able to create a very good team. And a GM who has had a top 5 payroll throughout his tenure should have a 90+ win season under his belt at least once, and probably twice. I don't see the point in this question. They weren't a very good team last year, but they peaked at the right time and had the right amount of dominant starting pitching to sneak into the World Series, where they came up short. I didn't see them as a likely 95 win team, or anything close to great before the season (but I did place some money on them to win the NLCS last winter). They were a success in that they bounced back from such a poor start to have a respectable regular season, but they weren't great, by any stretch.

Dempster was on the team last year, it's ludicrous to include him in offseason moves. Hendry didn't get pitching, he got a couple of middle relievers. They needed starting pitching and got none. Grading should be done based on what you believe should be done. I'm not going to sit here and say that since he's in the business he gets a free pass to address whatever positions he desires. Hendry did go hard after a bat, unfortunately it was the wrong bat in Furcal, luckily he failed. But then he turned around and made more foolish moves.

Anybody check out Kiper's mock draft on ESPN insider?

I care how many games the Cubs win in the regular season because the more you win the greater chance you have of making the postseason and the World Series. 88 wins is not good because most seasons that usually means you are on the outside looking in. An 88 win season isn't that good. An 89 win season isn't that good. It was good enough 2 of the last 3 years. I don't care if we're like the Padres and win 82 games. As long as we get in and advance to the Series. The point is you won't get in the vast majority of the time. It sounds very noble of you to say you don't care, but you should, because without the regular season success, you won't have much of a shot at postseason glory.

I think you're 5+ to 3- is poor analysis. (who are the 4 very solid players he signed, I don't see 4) And I think D is perfectly reasonable. Hendry misappropriated his efforts. If you study for a test and end up spending 90% of your time on subjects other than the ones that will actually matter to the test, you're going to struggle and get a bad grade. That's what happened to Hendry. He mistakenly focused on less important positions, and because of it the team as a whole suffers.

I care how many games the Cubs win in the regular season because the more you win the greater chance you have of making the postseason and the World Series. 88 wins is not good because most seasons that usually means you are on the outside looking in. An 88 win season isn't that good. An 89 win season isn't that good.