goonys evil twin

Yeah, I'll worry about the depth when we have 3 players worth starting in the first place.

he's looking for an explanation that isn't shrouded cliche. i'm sure he'll acknowledge a decent answer to his question if that answer is offered. Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I didn't realize how cryptic this guy was. Not to mention how pointless it would actually be to post anything useful. huh?

Not to nitpick, but I think you've reversed them. Dr. Henry Jekyll was the scientist, while Edward Hyde was his deranged alter-ego. but i bet hyde had a better fastball. He was a clubhouse cancer.

The decline of the team is due mostly to the pitching, but what is important to remember is that the team wasn't that good back then anyway. And the recent they weren't that good was because hitting held them back. Even with a top pitching staff each year they only accumulated the 4th and 6th highest win totals in the league. All of their success was due to pitching, even as limited as the success was. As unimpressive as that 2003 lineup was, it holds up against the current group. The 2003 OF was much much better than what the OF is right now. And they finished 9th in runs scored, just like the 2005 version, and probably close to what the 2006 version will be. So basically we're counting on a return to glory for the pitching staff, and even then the team is at the mercy of the competence of the competition, because 88/89 wins is no guarantee for anything. So being 1 game away from the World Series = not that good? Can you ever give this organization any credit?? That club was real good after the additions of Lofton & Ramirez. 88 win regular seasons aren't really good. If you want to settle for 88 win seasons, feel free, but don't push that crap off to me and call it really good. When this organization does what it should I will give them credit, thus far they have not.

There's usually more than 1 or 2.

Starting pitching was good in 2003 and 2004, and bad in 2005. Offense has been bad every year. The decline from 2003/2004 to 2005 was due to the pitching decline, but the overall lack of much success is mostly due to the offense.

There's not much of an opportunity to do so. Rex is at the stage of his career where's he's either going to step up and become a good starter, or fade into backup status. Orton is a decent project QB and somebody I'm fine with as the backup next year. I'd like to see them draft a QB later. I have no interest in the usual cast of journeyman characters, and there is no really good veteran available.

Goony, you affirm this in spite of Van Dyck saying (twice) that Dusty actually said what he put in the Q & A story? Okay... Northwoods Fan I affirm that because I can read exactly what Van Dyck wrote, which was not a quote of Dusty, but his impression of what Dusty would say at the convention. And it still doesn't matter because while somebody took the quotes as Walker being the likely 2B starter in 2006, what they really were was a bunch of nothing quotes about a player who is going to be gone. The "he's still here" line has been used more than once with guys destined to leave.

They chose to overpay mediocrity. The Cubs have been a top 5 payroll team throughout Hendry's tenure. He's had plenty of cash to go out and make a great team, long before this offseason. You have to be able to accurately judge what the market will look like down the road. The Cubs should not be worrying about hampering further acquisitions. They sucked last year, and were in danger of sucking again without major improvements. The time for worrying about 2-3 years down the road was in the late 90's and early 00's. Now is not the time to be focused on the future. This regime should be gone long before any future is realized considering how terribly inept they've proven to be in the present.

I wish the Bears didn't stop playing it after the Atlanta game.

If addressed to me... When have I said that Hendry and Baker were idiots? I question their moves and approach to the game, I've also complimented them when I feel they've done something right. I took that statement at face value. Everything I've ever said about Hendry and Baker has been justified. Not addressed to you, UK. Only to those that fit that description. I've fit that description before with other issues. It is a very human thing to do. And the statement only applied to those who have called Baker and Hendry "idiots", or other equivalent names that are also disrespectful and inaccurate. You know who you are. If you disagree with my statement and would like to have a civil and intelligent discussion about it, I'm ready to learn. I think Hendry and Baker run this team like a couple of idiots, even though I don't think they necessarily are idiots. I don't get why people are making a big deal, the Cubs are obviously trying to get rid of Walker, but playing nice while he's still here, and in case they fail in their efforts to get rid of him. Van Dyck did not quote Dusty in the original article, he simply wrote what he thought Dusty would say.

Maddux. And who is EPatt's agent?

The decline of the team is due mostly to the pitching, but what is important to remember is that the team wasn't that good back then anyway. And the recent they weren't that good was because hitting held them back. Even with a top pitching staff each year they only accumulated the 4th and 6th highest win totals in the league. All of their success was due to pitching, even as limited as the success was. As unimpressive as that 2003 lineup was, it holds up against the current group. The 2003 OF was much much better than what the OF is right now. And they finished 9th in runs scored, just like the 2005 version, and probably close to what the 2006 version will be. So basically we're counting on a return to glory for the pitching staff, and even then the team is at the mercy of the competence of the competition, because 88/89 wins is no guarantee for anything.

The difference is the lack of walks, and therefore low OBP, and subsequently lower runs scored has been an ongoing problem that relates directly to a poor organizational strategy. The pitching decline was due largely to injury, and could be fixed with very little change. There's also several arms available from within the organization to help with that problem. There aren't many bats in the system that can help this team, and improved health won't do much either. The only reason pitching caused so much more grief last year was because people expected so much more out of that group, and just came to expect lackluster offense. The Cubs need to have both solid pitching and hitting. The pitching is right there and could be great with the current core, while the hitting is still a long way from being among the best in the NL, let alone all of baseball. It seems to me that the best way to improve the team is to improve the area of the team that his most consistently disappointing.

I wouldn't care how they got on base either if the OBP was there. The problem is there just aren't many players, and definitely not many teams that can provide solid OBP without taking walks. More walks isn't the goal, more walks is just the simplest way to get more guys on base (we can't really expect better AVG than what they've given), which is the best way to score more runs, which would lead to the ultimate goal of more wins. I don't want them to walk for the sake of the walk.

How do you suggest a team go out and acquire more clutch hitting?

If Zambrano was looking for a 3-4 year deal and Boras was trying to get him to settle for trying to max out on a series of 1 year deals before free agency, then this is a good thing. But I'm always concerned when players dump agents mid-negotiation. Even if the team "wins" the battle and gets a good deal, it often blows up in their face later when the player realizes the problem.

They didn't need 2 veteran relievers. And they didn't need a leadoff hitter. They needed multiple bats and starting rotation help. Leadoff hitter was just the Cubs limiting their options arbitrarily. They desperately needed RF help, and got none. They needed overall OF improvements, and got very little, if any. The starting rotation is still shaky. The lineup is still crap. They didn't need speed and defense, they just focused on that because they bought the BS that the White Sox won with speed and defense (when in fact they won with great pitching and homeruns). The Cubs had a chance to create a team that could dominate, and they failed miserably.

We will be fine cap-wise. We are 10-15ish mil under the cap. As long as we don't sign 2-3 big name free agents we will be fine carrying all three of the running backs. It's also not that efficient when you remember that Jones signed a very team friendly deal for a starter. I didn't want to draft a RB, and wish they looked elsewhere last year, long before Benson wasted his rookie season. I'd be fine trading Jones for a solid draft choice or some other impact player, but they don't have to trade him. The rest of the offensive salary structure allows for this kind of money to be spent on RB, it's not like the QBs are making much. But if you do trade Jones you have to address RB in the draft. Depth is a must at that position, and Benson/Peterson isn't nearly enough to be comfortable with going into 2006.

I like this site for future NFL schedule information. The Bears, as the NFC North Champ this year, play the NFC South champ at home and the NFC East Champ on the road (Tampa and NYG). That's 2 trips to the Meadowlands for me to attend. As well as a possible warm weather trip to Arizona.

Count me as one who thinks the need for a TE is vastly overhyped. I certainly don't want to see that be the primary target in the offseason. I'm going to go back to something I thought earlier in the season, focus on the defense this offseason. The D-line, while huge at times in the season, still struggles to create a consistent pass rush with just 4 guys. Hillenmeyer is a weak point in the linebacking crew, and the defensive backfield has holes. If the Bears are going to win next year, it's not going to be becasue they found a TE, or because the offense got better. If the Bears are going to win, it's because the defense will be elite. I think the offense will be fine if Grossman stays healthy and Orton improves a bit. Jones is fine, Benson and Peterson provide great depth. The receiver corps is not nearly as bad as some contend. And while they aren't great, a TE isn't going to change everything. I want to see more depth brought into the O line, a QB drafted late and some receiving help in the middle rounds. But I want a defensive playmaker in the 1st round if they can find one. The offense, as it stands right now, with a healthy Rex and slight improvements elsewhere, could be a 20 point a game unit. They'll never be elite offensively, or close to it, at least with the current regime. So they might as well make the defense as good as humanly possible. My ideal draft would be: 1) defensive playmaker - LB, CB 2) pass catcher - WR or TE 3) offensive line 4) other defensive help you didn't address in the 1st 5) QB And then just get let Angelo find a project at the end of the draft. In free agency I'd like to see them address depth on both sides of the line, and possibly a receiver like Randle El, or similar. And I'd like to see the kicking game addressed. Gould is not good, and Maynard was awful at times this year, including the playoff loss.

I think it's spot on and completely accurate. With some very glaring needs and a ton of cash to spend, the Cubs did squat. Bullpen improvements don't come close to the importance of everyday positions, which the Cubs completely botched, but they are what makes it a D instead of an F.

Time to put up or shut up. It's Friday afternoon. The Bears have been anywhere from 2.5 to 3 point favorites for this game. Last I saw was Bears -3. What are you taking? I'm taking the Bears and giving the points.

I agree wholeheartedly. People take a "show me" attitude in the playoffs, but that just means they are late to the party everytime. Once you've shown them, they will stick with you to the end.

We feel that it was largely a factor of timely hitting, we just weren't executing in key situations. Walks are nice, but they are not something you go up there looking to do. You have to be aggressive, we preach being aggressive at the plate and if you look at last year's world series you'll see two teams that got there with situational hitting and aggressive at bats, not a lot of walks. As far as plate discipline, we feel that the acquisition of one of the premier leadoff hitters in the game will go a long way toward fixing whatever problem there may have been in that area.