goonys evil twin

I'm certainly not surprised that he's a lefty with what appears to be a live arm and control issues. The SS prospect doesn't look bad from the numbers, kind of comparable to Cedeno actually.

And they have 6 playoff appearances since 97, 5 straight .500+ seasons (9 out of 10). They've done all this with a significantly lower payroll than the Cubs. Houston's management deserves the benefit of the doubt that they'll make the right moves, much more so than the Cubs management. I'm not sure about a secret formula, but it doesn't have to be secret. Houston does a better job with their farm, they do a better job of maximizing results/payroll, they consistently get the job done. As of now, they are similar, but Houston has a far better track record, and therefore has to get the nod when thinking about how it'll end.

Jones is a crappy player, Rolen isn't. Rolen at 30 could repeat his career averages and equal Ramirez's produciton. Jones at his career averages still sucks. The fact is that STL was much better in 2005 and they got nothing out of Rolen. One has to assume they'll get something out of him this year, and they will probably get solid production out of him, which erases any improvements the Cubs made, by a wide margin. He doesn't have to outproduce Ramirez, or even produce the same as Ramirez, in order for STL to still be better offensively than the Cubs. Although my guess is he and Aramis will be pretty similar in 2006. And if Ramirez does have a higher OPS, it will be through superior SLG, and not OBP, which is the Cubs biggest weakness.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying your argument. You're basically saying Edmonds is the reason the Cardinals are significantly better than the Cubs in offensive production heading into 2006. The Cardinals haven't made any improvements to the daily lineup. And Bigbie/Encarnacion < Sanders/Walker, while Spivey/Cruz < Grudz. So they've taken steps backward at three positions. Meanwhile, the Cubs are improved in CF and lateral with all other replacements. You don't have to buy my argument, just look at the results. If you want to use the Lee/Ramirez matchup with Rolen/Pujols argument, then you have to throw in Edmonds, who outclasses any remaining Cubs. The Cards haven't made improvements, but they didn't have to in order to still be better than the Cubs. The Cubs are improved in CF, but they went from 16th in OPS last year, to the guy who led his team to 15th in OPS. In other words, the total production is still not there. And they are likely to put Neifi out there even more than he was last year, starting at 2B or maybe even SS. STL went in with a far better lineup. They may have downgraded a little, but a full season of Rolen could easily negate any decline. The Cubs went in with a far inferior lineup, and they've improved marginally. It just doesn't add up to anything resembling an even matchup.

I think Weaver has consistently shown he's not that good, and unless he's interested in a 1 year make good deal with the Cubs, I hope somebody else signs him.

Hendry adds names, but he doesn't make the team better. Houston has the luxury of money being available this year, money that still might go to Roger after May.

Soriano is only marginally better. And he doesn't have any potential, as a 30 year old, we've see the best he'll do, and it doesn't come close to living up to the hype.

I'll be very surprised to see decreased ticket demand this February, lower ratings or decreased attendance. Yes, that is usually the norm following a losing campaign for a normal team but this isn't the "normal" fan base. The Cubs have proven they don't have to win to have their fans flock to Wrigley and throw money at them. All they have to do is to be close. Is anyone here not going to games or not watching this year because of the way they performed last year? Fans on this board are the exception, not the rule. We constitute the core, die hard base. The fans that make the difference between a ho-hum season and record attendance/ratings are the bandwagon types. I'm not talking about normal teams. I'm talking about the Cubs. There has been a consistent pattern of attendance increasing the year following a successful season, and attendance decreasing a year following a bad season. 2004 saw greater attendance than 2003. Despite the lack of playoffs in 2004, people still saw a 1 win improvement in the record, and had great hope for continued success, plus they were still riding the euphoria of the biggest playoff buzz from the year before. This is why 2005 still saw high attendance. But the disaster that was last season, and the unimpressive offseason is going to cause a decline this season. Not to mention those bandwagon fans that will flock to the southside more often this year. I'm not saying the Cubs will go from 3 million to 2 million, and the CWS will go from 2 million to 3 million. The Cubs will still get close to capacity, and still be the team in Chicago, but the spread will narrow.

But the fact is they don't have a lineup to compare. You speak in generalities, like Lee and Ramirez stack up against Rolen and Pujols. Simply "stacking up" doesn't mean much. Comparing teams and lineups this way doesn't take you far. STL's lineup routinely outproduces the Cubs lineup, and their lineup is no worse than it was, while the Cubs is not significantly better, if it's better at all. But you are also speaking in generalities. St. Louis's lineup in recent has outperformed Chicago's, but not at the core of the team (3-4). It's the unexpected overproduction out of roleplayers in St. Louis, and the unexpected lack of production out of key or role players in Chicago. With the core of each team stacking up comparatively, all it takes is for the breaks to fall to the other side: Pierre ignites the Cubs in the same way Eckstein did for the Cardinals, Grudz returns to old Grudz, the OF fillers for St. Louis don't have a career years, and Murton finds his sride as an everyday player. I have no issue looking at both teams lineups on paper right now and saying they are close. I do give St. Louis an edge, but not a drastic one. I'm not speaking in generalities, I'm speaking toward specific trends. Saying that certain parts of the lineup "matchup" is meaningless. Those parts have "matched up" before and still led to consistently better offense from STL. The fact is Pujols is likely to outproduce Lee, and Rolen could easily outproduce Ramirez if he plays just as long. Last year Ramirez outperformed because he had more games, and Lee slightly outperformed because he had a career year, and the teams were still not close in the rankings. The Cubs don't have anybody who comes close to Edmonds. STL is significantly better offensively than the Cubs. They've been significantly better for quite a while, and they will be, more likely than not, significantly better in 2006.

Are you guys just picking winners or looking at point spreads? The favorites are the home teams, of course: Seattle -9 Denver -3.5 Indy -9.5 Chicago -3 My early thoughts are all the home teams except Seattle.

I don't think Houston is better than the Cubs, but I think they are currently just as good, but they have also shown a much better ability to improve as the year goes on, so, starting the year even is as good as starting behind. I think MIL is right there with HOU and CHC, and STL is still the class of the division, even with an less than inspired offseason. In fact, the only real hope for Cubs success this year is the poor offseasons of the competition, just like the only chance for success in 2003 was the utter failures of the competition. Succeeding because your opponent fails is hardly something for management to hang their hat on. And as a fan, I'm not comfortable assuming the worst out of the rivals who have routinely outperformed the Cubs. The Cubs offseason has seen them improve the team slightly in the pen and OF. Houston has taken a huge hit to their team by losing Clemens. Houston finished well ahead of the Cubs in 2005, but I think they played above their heads last year and the Cubs played under their talent level. Play the year again and I think they'd be much closer, on average, than what we actually saw. Given my impressions of the offseason, I think the talent level on the Cubs is better than that of Houston. I'm not a big fan of Baker, but I don't believe so little of him that I think he'll be such a drag on results to offset that gap. But I would have more confidence in Houston making improvements down the line than the Cubs making improvements. So, while the current Cubs roster might beat the current Astros roster, I still think when all is said and done next season Houston will have the better team. I think Houston has also done a better job utilizing their farm system so I can see them improving internally a lot easier than the Cubs will.

That would set him up perfectly as next offseasons "must get rid of to improve the chemistry, and therefore our teams' chances" scapegoat.

But the fact is they don't have a lineup to compare. You speak in generalities, like Lee and Ramirez stack up against Rolen and Pujols. Simply "stacking up" doesn't mean much. Comparing teams and lineups this way doesn't take you far. STL's lineup routinely outproduces the Cubs lineup, and their lineup is no worse than it was, while the Cubs is not significantly better, if it's better at all.

I don't think Houston is better than the Cubs, but I think they are currently just as good, but they have also shown a much better ability to improve as the year goes on, so, starting the year even is as good as starting behind. I think MIL is right there with HOU and CHC, and STL is still the class of the division, even with an less than inspired offseason. In fact, the only real hope for Cubs success this year is the poor offseasons of the competition, just like the only chance for success in 2003 was the utter failures of the competition. Succeeding because your opponent fails is hardly something for management to hang their hat on. And as a fan, I'm not comfortable assuming the worst out of the rivals who have routinely outperformed the Cubs.

The attitude that Houston and the White Sox did it so the Cubs should be able to as well is quite misguided I believe. Those were fluke seasons. Houston had unprecedented greatness from their top 3 pitchers, as well as a better bullpen than the Cubs have. Lidge is much better than any Chicago reliever. No Cubs pitcher is going to get as good as Clemens was last year, and I doubt they'll have a chance of being nearly as good as those three were last year, given the assumption that Wood will not be ready to start the season. They need hitting. It's far more likely that a team with great pitching and good hitting will make it all the way than a team with great pitching and mediocre or poor hitting. Last year was a strange year in that two non-scoring teams went deep, but it's not the norm.

I think they'll most likely be over .500, or closer to 90 wins than 90 losses. I'll be upset if they are extended, especially Dusty. I don't like Hendry's work, but I still think there's hope for him. But I'm not sure the Trib won't fire them. If they are basing it purely on economics, they might be upset with decreased ticket demand this February, and the possibility for both lower ratings and attendence figures, which is what usually happens the year following a losing campaign. They might view it as if they were paying top dollar for a manager, and near top dollar for payroll, and not maximizing revenue through what a 95-100 win team would bring in compared to a 82-85 win team. I think we're in real danger of the Trib eventually cutting back on payroll if the same old uninspired results keep repeating. I believe Andy's job is safe (he's the guy in charge of making sure the business stays profitable), while the wasteful and inefficient middle manager types could still be at risk of job loss. Though I do think Andy will have Jim's back a lot more than he'll have Dusty's back.

I think it's largely Corey's fault. But Dusty and the Cubs haven't helped at all due to their constant juggling of their expectations of Corey's role and their emphasis on the swing early swing often, walks are for wimps attitude. As for Hollandsworth, everybody knew Todd wasn't a starter. Todd's been a role player his entire career, and whenever people thought he could start, he quickly proved them wrong over and over. But Dusty's ridiculous belief that players in their 30's are better than players in their 20's caused him to think Todd's decade long track record of not being able to handle full time duty should be ignored. I truly do believe that much of the LF failings were Dusty related, he went in saying Todd would get 140 starts, which guaranteed poor production, and took away Todd's biggest strength, which is as a part time guy.

You'd have to retrade him, because he won't come close to living up to his next contract.

The lineup is not solid, at least by my definition of solid. It's probably going to be bottom half in the NL, again. It's weak, with very little chance to be top 5, or what I would call solid. I'm not asking for a record setting lineup, or even a top 2-3 offense. They should be able to easily put together a top 2 pitching staff, with the glut of arms in the system, and all the relatively cheap good pitchers on the staff. But they have to match that with a top 5 lineup. That's top 5 in the NL, not MLB. The Cubs have a top 5 payroll throughout MLB, it's 2 or 3 in the NL, so asking for a top 5 producing lineup from a payroll that's already top 2 or 3 is not asking a lot.

I need more than that. What you wrote is very similar to the longstanding Andy MacPhail mantra that the Cubs will be built to compete within the division. I think that's such a low standard of expected success that it's sad, or even pathetic, especially for a team with a top 5 payroll. I will not be happy with a team that just fight to the end of the season. This isn't about giving it the old college try and being happy with a bowl invite, or earning an invite to the tournament. There simply is no excuse for Jim Hendry to go 4 years with a top 5 payroll and not once put together a dominant ballclub. The Cubs should be a team that is a lock for 90 wins, has a good chance for 95 and is a threat for 100. It should be almost a given that they'll make the playoffs, and they should not be happy with merely accomplishing that goal. They should be a world series contender. That's what I need. If they put together a great team that wins 93 games but loses the division, there's not much you can say. If they put together a great team that does deep into October but fails in the end, so be it. But the point is they need to be a great team before I will be anything close to satisfied with the work they've done. All I can ask of ownership is to provide the payroll, which they've done. Then it's management's job to properly utilize those resources, to maximize production and efficiently build a winning team. Management has to come through, and as of now, they have not.

I don't think it feels right to be optimistic about a team that has done the exact opposite of what I wished they'd do, and has not come close to addressing the biggest problems that have plagued them year after year. I'm holding out hope that they'll surprise on the upside, but there's nothing going on to support such hope.

Arguably Washington could be included in that discussion. They finished pretty strong, though they didn't look real sharp against the Bucs. I think Washington is a fluke team. They finished strong, but they did it by beating some questionable teams, STL and Arizona at their worst, a very mediocre Dallas team that once again received way too much favorable pub before bowing out early, the aforementioned banged up, depleted shell of its former self Giants, and the let's get this joke of a season over with Eagles. That's 3 terrible teams, 1 good team that was already on a steep decline, and a mediocre team. Then they went into Tampa and won thanks to two bad review calls (worst officiating weekend I've seen in the NFL), you need possession with two feet for a TD, once that 2nd foot hits the plays is dead, and Pittman's leg was blatantly laying right across the body of the guy who returned that fumble for a TD. If just that first call was reversed properly I doubt they win the game. I hope the Skins luck into another win this weekend though, so the Bears can host the NFC Championship game.

The Panthers ran over a defense with no linebackers, and a thin defensive backfield. I think they'd kill the Bears if Urlacher, Briggs and Hillenmeyer were all out. But that's not the case. I was hoping the Giants could pull the game out with a fluke play or two, because they were in terrible shape coming in. That win doesn't tell us a thing about whether or not Carolina is different from the team that looked like crap against the Bears earlier in the year. They were facing an 11-5 Giants team, but it wasn't the same Giants team that was so successful earlier in the year. I think the first round of playoffs just reiterated how thin the NFC was this year. Seattle, Chicago and the Panthers were the best teams, while Carolina's inconsistency in the 2nd half created lots of doubts.

I think the answer was pretty clear here, it's not that difficult to look back and think of a better strategy. First, you send him to Daytona before AA. That's the entire 2000 season. You try and get him to duplicate or approach his MWL numbers in the FSL. He doesn't sniff Wrigley yet. Then comes 2001 in the southern league. In September you give him a call-up to let him see what it's like. 2002 starts off with a chance in spring training. If all goes well, his swing looks good and he is comfortable, he gets a shot at making the club at 22 years old. If not, start him in AAA, the call him up later. And on top of this, you address the need to take walks, from the top of the organization on down, you don't publicly laugh at the concept of walks being good for hitters. This would have been a much more realistic career path for Corey, and doesn't come close to your "keep him in AA indefinitely" scenario. The worst thing to do with a guy who had success despite flaws would be to let him skip levels, and then be yoyod in the majors, and have his role switched routinely.

I just wrote a 5 paragraph rant describing my reasons for questioning the existence of and their commitment to any sort of plan, both in the big picture and for smaller details. And I've felt this way long before the White Sox had their success. It felt good to write it down, but deleting it will probably serve to reduce the unnecessary bickering about the points within that rant. Needless to say, I think they've strayed from the plan, have completely rewritten major parts, and when all is said and done, absolutely bungled a fantastic opportunity.