goonys evil twin

I think you're reading it wrong if you think people are down on Murton. People are being realistic with Murton. I, and many others, would be more than happy to see him given a full time chance to start, all season long. And I expect him to put up reasonable numbers for a rookie LF, probably somewhere in the upper 700 OPS range, possibly a bit over 800. A good lineup can easily find space for a $350,000 rookie to put up numbers in that range. The problem is the Cubs don't have a good lineup. They have too many other questionable bats, and possibly some really bad ones. Because of this, and because Cedeno is also a rookie likely to be introduced to the lineup, and that Dusty can run-off a rookie in no time flat, I'm thinking this Cubs team would be better off getting more guaranteed production, and possibly replacing Murton, either full or part time, if that's the case.

I'm a Walker fan, and want him to stay on the team unless his replacement is a serious upgrade. But I wouldn't call him an excellent 2 hitter. He's a competent 2 hitter, and can be pretty good there, but he's not excellent by any stretch. He does a lot of things well offensively, but nothing great.

I do not like Soriano at all. But the way things are going, acquiring him for minimal prospects would be the best thing Hendry has done this offseason. They do need a competent 5th hitter, and while his putrid OBP shows he's not an ideal 5th hitter, he would bring more to the table than Jones.

I wouldn't say he was starting before he went down. It's true he started the day he got hurt, but he didn't even play the game before. He had started 2 of the previous 3, but only 6 of the previous 12. He was clearly in a platoon situation, which, like most of Dusty's decisions, was asinine.

If you trade for Giles (which I'd have a lot of interest in) you might as well be willing to give up EPatt. I'd throw them a bullpen arm or two, and Walker or Hairston. One scary thought is that Giles in the 2 hole probably increases the odds of Jones hitting between Lee and Ramirez, because Dusty isn't going to want LRRRLRRR.

I'd just install it for fun this week, partially to loosen up Orton, partially to give opposing DCs something extra to think about, and partially to screw with the Vikings. I'd like the shotgun, simply because it's a good idea. I think it would help Orton, because he would be away from the pressure from the snap, and wouldn't have to worry about his drop much. It would help Grossman, because he doesn't have great size to see over the line. I'm a big fan of the shotgun, myself. I think it would very much help the Bears. Turner likes play-action, of course, and it's typically not as good under a shotgun. I think the new look would give defenses a tough time, and would augment the effectiveness of play-action. Personally, I also think Grossman runs the play-action pretty well. But under Orton, it was pretty much a joke, but it's been better the last game and a half. I could go either way with shotgun. I think it's good for a few plays a game. I'd have it as an option, and use it quite a bit in a game like this, but don't think it's necessary for success. The quintessential Chicago Bears shotgun play is a handoff up the middle anyway.

I lease a domestic car. It fit my needs well, but has been a little annoying with maintenence (but free at least). I won't get the same car again, but will look domestic if it fits my needs at the time.

This is a serious question. Is it a warning only when a mod is called nuts or when any poster is called nuts? You can only call Jeff Reardon nuts.

Welcome to NASDAQ circa January 2000. The difference is those guys were free agents, and have better resumes than Garland. Prior to 2005, nobody would have thought Garland had a chance for 3/30. When value spikes that quickly I'd be concerned. Matt Mo's 3/27 mirrors all the 3/27m deals signed by that mediocre crop of last year. While Burnett's $11m per year is in line with what a lot of top arms get, even if he isn't really a top pitcher.

I'd just install it for fun this week, partially to loosen up Orton, partially to give opposing DCs something extra to think about, and partially to screw with the Vikings.

If Grossman goes down at all, you're probably not winning in the playoffs, so it doesn't matter. I'm not worried about backups getting hurt. It would be a shame, but not nearly as harmful as the starter going down.

That's my feeling. Maybe you do some max protect with Grossman early in the game, but pull him by the 2nd quarter. I don't think he looked rusty against ATL or GB. I think 2 weeks of healthy practice would be enough to have him ready for the first playoff game. Ideally you could get another full healthy game out of him before then, but all things considered, rest might not be bad. If he was anything short of 100% on the ankle before, even 95%, the time could help. And with Orton's confidence shot, it might help to let him go back and air it out for blips and giggles. Put in 2 WR 2 TE sets, and have him throw 10 passes to the TE and 15 to the WR. Put in the shutgun here and there. Have him loose and ready in case Grossman does go down in 2 weeks. And if Orton is crap, go to Blake.

What a blast from the ugly past. Wasn't he a Wanny/Spielman era pick? I trust Angelo and this group a lot more than that regime.

Benson doesn't sound like somebody who thinks he can go, according to the quotes I read this morning. I'd rather give him the 2 weeks off, same with Kreutz, Brown, Azumah and a few others. Give Ayanbendejo, Leon Joe and Cain plenty of time at LB. Let Haynes have a chance to show something at D end. Give Orton and Blake some time at QB. This team can make some noice in the playoffs if the defense is 100%, but there are too many banged up guys right now to get all excited about the team points record.

Apparently Turner said that Benson will get some carries....how much is a big question, but that could eat into the number of carries AP gets. well, if he gets the carries, he'll most likely be effective. I'd love to see him go 25/100 this game, and contribute a bit in the playoffs. Maybe somebody will offer up a substantial draft pick for him.

I think he's got some upside. But he's been remarkably consistent in his less than spectaculiar performances in his career. He was the same in 2005 accept for reduced walks and a few less HR. I don't really see any part of his game that is likely to get better. If he started striking out 7 or 8 per 9 IP, he could become excellent. I think this signing was very smart by him. He gets his first big guaranteed contract that sets him up for life, and is young enough to sign another one later on. But for the Sox, I might have waited to see what 2006 brings. If he reverts to the same pitcher he's been his whole career, I wouldn't want him for 2/22. It's not a terrible signing by them, assuming an increased payroll. It's relatively short in duration, and he should at least be decent next season. If I was the White Sox, I wouldn't hesitate to deal Garland this offseason.

I think he would be an average #2 at best. He's had success here and there, mainly between week 9 and week 12. He's had just 68 attempts this year. I don't see him as a starter, and I'd rather have my backup RB be capable of taking over when the starter needs to be replaced. "average at best" is a bold statement concerning a guy who has 356 yards on those 68 carries, good for a 5.2 average. i wish all our rb's were that average. I don't think there's anything bold about it. He's an ideal #3, playing solid special teams and providing the occasional burst in short durations. But he doesn't always put up the numbers, as he didn't do much before this year and hasn't done much since that mid season string of solid games. He's small but quick, a better Dennnis Gentry.

I think he would be an average #2 at best. He's had success here and there, mainly between week 9 and week 12. He's had just 68 attempts this year. I don't see him as a starter, and I'd rather have my backup RB be capable of taking over when the starter needs to be replaced.

No pitcher has a floor of 200 IP. I'd say his floor is a 4.50 ERA, 4.6 k/9, 1.5 k/bb, 760 OPS against. No telling what that will mean in terms of record, since that is team dependent. The only things Garland did differently in 2005 was walk fewer people and give up a few less HR. He really doesn't have much of a shot of being an elite pitcher. He should be a pretty decent pitcher, but any small slip and he's back to being highly mediocre.

Don't get me wrong, I really like what Jones has done. I thought it was a very shrewd move signing him for relatively cheap (for a starting RB). He's not going to be a salary cap killer. He's also not good enough to hold out for a better contract. He's been a good RB for the Bears. And hopefully as soon as he's done Benson will be there to pick up the slack. I would have preferred Angelo draft a WR in the first this year, somebody who could help immediately at a major need position, as opposed to RB, which wasn't a big need. But Benson is here now, and they have to plan on him being the guy within the next year or 2.

There's no way they can take the cap hit, they just gave him $18m didn't they? Jones was taken in the 2000 draft, after Lewis and before Dayne and Alexander. Guys taken the year before are Edgerin and Williams. Thomas hasn't come close to the success of the best of this bunch. He has 28 career TD's, 2 more than SA has this year alone. He's 9th on the list for RB yards, even further down on YPC, much lower on longest run and tied with others for 9th on TD. He's not elite this year. He's never been elite in the NFL, and if you aren't an elite RB by 27, you probably won't ever be an elite RB. You might want to point to Tiki as an example of what Jones could become. He broke out at 27. But he was already a 4.5-5.0 YPC guy before that season, and Jones is still only a 4.0 guy now. I know you think I have an unfair bias against older players, but the longevity factor with backs is just a fact of life in the NFL. Nobody is looking to lock up Alexander longterm this year because they know it'll bite them in the ass in a couple years. Look at Priest Holmes. He started his career being used as sparingly as Jones (saving him for later) but after he turned 29 he slowed considerably and couldn't hold up. I'm betting Jones has a 2006 similar to his 2005, but unless he has a back taking on a good chunk of the load he'll be much less of an impact runner by 2007. RB is a young man's game. Larry Johnson can thank Vermeil's limited use of him early to time up well with his impending free agency and next big contract. There are very few Curtis Martins in the league. The Bears should not give away Benson and put all their eggs in the Jones basket. They especially shouldn't do it if they are getting lesser value than a #4 pick should normally get you. Aside from the salary cap issue, if they want to trade Benson in a move for Bush, fine. If they want to trade Benson in a move for some other superstar elsewhere, fine. But these TEs are being talked about as mid first round talents, not franchise guys. You don't give away last year's #4 for this year's #9.

Me either. And I've been perhaps his strongest supporter as far as Garland turning the corner. Then you're nuts. Look at what the AJ Burnetts and Kevin Millwoods of the world are getting. It's a below market value contract, especially given that it is only a three year deal. average $10m a year is not below market for a mid-tier pitcher who hasn't even hit free agency.

Jones, Gage, #1s in 2006 and 2007, a #3 in 2006 and #4 in 2007? I don't have any idea what it would really take, but I'm not sure the Bears are a deep enough team to shed as many picks and players as it will take to get him. I have a feeling New Orleans will have a really tough time signing whoever their #1 pick is, especially Leinert or Bush, guys looking to cash in on marketing deals. If they end up with the #1 overall they might be the most willing to trade down for lower picks who have less leverage to sit out.

Or a trade. Angelos has been pretty good with trades. oooh, what about ced benson and our pick to the cardinals for the likely #9. that way we can pick up lewis and forget all about the RB controversy? Jones is not an elite back. He's had injuries each of the past two year, and might not have more than 2 years left in him. You are basically saying the Bears should spend the #4 in 2005 and #25-28 in 2006 on a TE that many believe will be available later in the first anyway. No thanks. They need the RB depth (where is this controversy?) and would take a major salary cap hit on that deal. Draft picks lose significant value as soon as they are used. I wouldn't sell my new car right after buying it, and I wouldn't trade an early 1st round RB one year after drafting him. Don't get silly going after a need position unless that guy is a sure thing stud. This guy doesn't sound like a sure thing by any stretch.

They are a full year apart. Bedard has more major league time than Hill, but in that time he's been no more impressive than Williams.