goonys evil twin

Yeah, it's not that big a deal, but, if/when they trade Walker for $0.75 on the $1.00 and platoon Neifi with Cedeno, or play a MI of Cedeno and Neifi, it'll just be another in a long line of missed opportunities. Most mistakes by Cubs management can be scoffed at as no big deal, but like overpaying Neifi/Rusch/Macias/Blanco and going with backup options in all 3 OF positions, they all add up.

More excuses. Hendry has had a top 5 payroll throughout his tenure, and thanks to much of his work as farm director last decade, he had a ton of talent at his disposal. All GMs have a tough job, but Hendry has not been in a tougher position than any other GM in the league. Fandom aside, I would have taken the Cubs job over just about any other the past 3 seasons simply because of what a great position they were in to succeed. A GM has to be judged on the collective results during his tenure, not individual trades, or just this year. I don't care about excuses about why he couldn't get a guy, or how a team wouldn't trade with him. Lots of people have known exactly what has held back this team from being great as opposed to above average (88/89 wins) or below average. And, SO FAR, Hendry has done nothing to fix that problem. It's up to him to solve the problem, not us to assume he'll get the job done.

Most sacks in the league is an arbitrary stat to define best team. I was not impressed with their lucky win vs the NYG. And for a team built on its offense and supposedly great at home, they've had some other close calls in Seattle, including 3 point wins vs ATL and DAL, as well as a poor showing in SF. I think they are good, but no team in the NFC stands out right now. I think the NFC playoffs could produce some great games.

That is interesting, and kind of strange. I understand not wanting to be haunted by your own player down the road, but wouldn't you just want the best package available? It's not like they have a chance in 2006, and by the time they are good again some of those guys' careers will be winding down or they could have been traded/signed by another NL team. In 99 I would have been pissed if the Cubs traded Sammy for a lesser package just to send him to an AL team instead of another NL team.

He sat on his hands last offseason, and while he might not be sitting on them now, he has not yet used those hands to make any meaningful improvement to biggest problem area on the team, and some options are beginning to disappear.

That's the GM's job. He not only has to get a guy to fill a spot, he has to get the right guy to fill a spot. Things don't just accidentally fail to work out.

From everything I've seen, Cedeno has not played at all at 2B this offseason. It is different, but not to the point where you can excuse Hendry for failure because he has more work to do. The fact that there are more holes in the first place is very much his responsibility. He's not stepping into this situation, he created it.

The problem is, the one guy who is clearly the best in that group is the guy most rumored to be dealt away this offseason. I don't have any faith in any of those other three to come close to Walker's production at 2B. Frankly I'm scared that they won't improve the rest of the team enough to offset the chance that Cedeno might struggle in his first full year.

Maybe, but they need an influx of offensive thinking to turn around that disaster. I don't think Millen will use up his last chance on such a coach as Rivera. And if somebody does take Ron, I'm not all that worried. Lovie is the mastermind of this defense. Rivera's influence is from Philly and Johnson, which is a blitz all the time defense, while the Bears don't blitz. I see Lovie finding a very good replacement if Ron leaves.

Sounds awfully similar to MacPhail's terrible strategy to "build a team to contend within the division". I'm convinced this franchise isn't trying to build a 95+ win team They would much rather finish over .500 in consecutive years and always be in the race in August than actually have a great season. If I'm ownership, and I'm giving my management team the payroll flexibility the Cubs have had the past several years, I'd be furious with the strategy and results of the management team.

Corey himself could easily make up a huge chunk of that improved OBP. He was at .329 and .320 the two years prior to 2005. Making upgrades from 2005 to 2006 is more than just trying to get better numbers than what you got in 2005. Making changes has to be about getting better numbers than what you can expect from the guys you already have in 2006. I don't think Corey will have a .254 OPB in 2006. I would not be at all surprised to see him with a career high .330 in 2006. Not that I expect him to be that high, or that I wouldn't trade him for Bradley, but keeping Corey should not be forgotten as an option.

Getting rid of him doesn't automatically solve it either. I think what is being expressed is that there is more than one option. If you have to keep Corey in order to make deals that create bigger improvement elsewhere, it's not a terrible option. Obviously replacing Corey with a great OBP helps, but if you then go small in RF, that improvement can be negated, or at least partially offset, rather quickly.

I think Hendry defending is the new Dusty defending. People pretty much gave up defending Dusty after repeated errors in judgement. I wonder how long the defense of Hendry will last. Why is it wrong to express disappointment when your team doesn't get a player that could help your team and was acquired by somebody else for not a whole lot? Castillo wasn't a must have in my mind, but again, if Hendry is insisting on trading Walker, there's only a couple guys out there who can replace him, Castillo was one. And if Walker is traded, and these other options are no longer available, that just makes it more likely that Neifi will see a lot of playing time next year. It's December and Hendry has yet to do a thing to improve the biggest problem on the team, people should be allowed to be concerned.

I'd trade Cedeno in a heartbeat if they were getting a star back in return and there was somebody other than Neifi to take his spot.

When was the last time you where in Pittsburg? I was there last year for a few Cub games over the couse of a weekend. The city is alive and well. The downtown is thriving and they have new shopping and tourism attractions. IMO, the problem is that they haven't been good in a long time. If the Steelers can cell out Heinz field, the Pirates can sell out PNC. Agreed. A decade of hopelessness is going to hurt any team's revenue stream (and before somebody says, "not the Cubs") the revenues from the post 98 team to now dwarfed what they saw in the mid 90s. Cubs fans have been teased with the possibility of greatness, Pirates fans haven't seen a 80 win season since 92.

But Burnett's risk is far greater than most anybody else. First, he's a pitcher - more risky than position players. Second, he's had several injury issues in the past, including surgery - the best predictor for future injury is always past injury. Third, he's never put together back to back good years, something the unreliable Wood has done (and he's older than Wood). Fourth, the limited success he has enjoyed has been in a pitcher's park.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a 1/$10m deal for Burnett. The problem is the rumors are for 4 or 5 years, which is absurd. Wood signed what was basically a 3/30 extension a couple years ago. Last year's free agent market pretty much set the price for pitching at 3/27. Only Pedro and Pavano got 4 years, going to crazy free spending big market teams, one of which was about to launch a new cable channel to compete with YES. But he's Pedro has been a great pitcher for years. Burnett has upside, and he's had 2 very good seasons, he's never been dominant for a full season, he's had his limited success in a strong pitcher's park, he's had a couple major surgeries, and he's been on the DL a lot. 4 years is extremely risky for him.

I'm sure it will be another interview where Hendry talks a lot but doesn't say anything. He's a master at that. I don't even know why the media does interviews with him anymore. They're always pointless. Because people watch/listen and they get a few hours of programming out of the follow up debates.

Probably not, but it could be. This defense has the ability to completely destroy GB and their shaky O line. But of course, Favre could make some crazy plays and pull it out in the end. Aside from postseason aspirations, I'd rather be the Bears in this game than GB.

Good point. Less money of course when you drop lower in the draft, but I would much rather land on a team like the Redskins or Raiders than on Houston or Arizona. The money between a top 2-3 pick and a top 10 is quite large. Also, who is to say the team that picks him 1st in 2007 wouldn't be better than the team that picks him 10th in 2006, just a couple years from now. That same theory would have meant people trying to stear clear of Cincy, Indy, New England, San Diego and St. Louis in the past decade, not to mention Dallas in 89/91. All those teams went from crap to good in relatively short time frames (in Cincy's case, they were bad for a long time, but became good in less than 2 years after picking #1 overall). Teams that suck now will probably suck a year from now, but the NFL is the easiest league to go from worst to first within 2-3 years. Getting drafted as an NFL QB is not about your rookie season, what matters is 3-10 years down the road. If I was a stud college QB with a choice, I would much rather get drafted 1st/2nd next year, get my $50+m, have a year or two to learn on the job without the pressures of winning the big games, than get $15-20m this year, and play for a below average team that expects me to make them great right now. Obviously there are other things to consider. I would like my team to have a good O line and a foundation for improvement. But would it really be all that better to be drafted by the Raiders this year, a team that routinely finishes in the middle of the pack and underperforms, over any team that might finish last in 2006? The mediocre team isn't a guarantee to be any better than the crappy team 3 years down the road.

It's not a pure trap game, nor is it all that similar to the Cleveland game. The Bears didn't really arrive until after the Car/TB wins, which means there wasn't a ton of buildup to those game, which lessens the whole letdown factor. Trap games usually come after a highly touted team plays an emotional game against a bigtime opponent at home, then goes on the road to face a feisty decent, but underrated team. That TB game wasn't all that emotional. If this game was in GB, I'd smell a trap. The Cleveland game was on the road. They also played somewhat sloppily in TB, which may have been more of a trap game, since it was on the road. I also don't think there's a lot of build-up for that Pittsburgh game next week. If next week was the ATL game, I could see it. But it's a non-conference road game. The thing they'll have to watch out for is the X-mas game in GB, the week before a potentially huge matchup against MINN and the week after a potentially huge prime time game against ATL.

The Cubs have spent the entire offseason so far going after marginal improvements at secondary need positions. The OF was, by far, the biggest hole on last year's team, and it's still the biggest hole. It's very possible the OF will once again hold back this team in 2006 if Hendry goes for the type of players I believe he'll be happy going with later this winter.

I was nervous about this game on Monday and Tuesday. But with all the talk of an upset, it's no longer possible that the Bears look past this team. I'm feeling pretty good about this game, at least as good as I felt about the other NFC North games. GB might be the best 2-9 team out there, but they're the worst "scored more than they've given up" team, considering that was all due to one game. They won't run the ball on the Bears, and they will turn it over. The only way the Bears lose is if Orton craps the bed and throws a pick or two for a TD, which is entirely possible of course. But I see both lines of scrimmage taking control of this game.

Oh, I would to. I'm not a huge Soriano fan. But the Cubs seem intent on dealing Walker, and they've supposedly been hot after Soriano ever since the first Sosa to NY talks in 2000. If Walker has to go, Soriano would be a solid option (although I'd prefer Marcus Giles or Castillo).

That's my problem. I'm fine with Soriano as the 6th hitter on this team. The trade is a little silly, considering Mench is no more than a platoon player. But Soriano can't be anywhere near the top of the order, or considered the solution for all OBP problems. He'll get on less than Walker, and this would lead to a possible MI that combines for no better than a .300-.310 OBP, something that should be unacceptable.