goonys evil twin

I don't agree with including Prior in that group, but Burnett is no more reliable, durable or dominant as Wood, and I wouldn't sign Kerry to a 5/50 right now.

I would take one more year of Patterson in the 8 hole if the other holes are filled with serious upgrades. I'm not worried about Bradley being a clubhouse cancern as much as I'd be worried about him getting himself suspended or injured. But I'd love the chance to see him play for his first big contract in Wrigley.

The thing is, nobody else is likely to come close to offering up a pitcher the caliber of Zambrano in Abreu talks. And Philly is likely to have to send money if a team takes on both Abreu's contract and Padilla's arbitration number. I'd much rather see the Cubs pay all of those contracts and pay less in talent.

I've been huge on the Abreu acquisition front for a couple years, but I would not have interest in trading Zambrano for him. Burnett isn't close to deserving of a 5/50, and is far less reliable than the combustible Venezualen. I can't justifty such a move.

The sad thing is this is the type of analysis the Cubs organization relies upon. Completely unproven "seems to" "usually" "always" statements with no actual facts to back them up can't tell you anything about your ballclub. Corey had 8 at bats with the bases loaded last year. Burnitz, Neifi, Barrett and Ramirez all had more. And others had more total plate appearances with the bases loaded. JB hit .176/.250/.353 with the bases loaded in twice the number of opportunities. Nomar actually had similar number of chances to Corey, and hit worse, with a line of .000/.000/.000. Perception is a killer when you don't have the willingness or ability to confirm your suspicions with a little fact checking.

No, it means he was not on the active 25 man roster.

I am not a Soriano fan. But if they have to deal Walker, at least Soriano is a productive 2B. I would hate to see him used at the top of the order though, so they better plan on batting him 6th or lower if they were to acquire him. And with that salary, it better not cost much talent.

I don't think he'll be anything more than fringe player either, similar to a Tom Goodwin, Neifi Perez or Jose Macias, but at the minimum cost. And players of that capable are currently taking up space on the 40 man rsoter for far greater cost. In an offseason where you are looking for overhauls in CF and RF, I don't understand just dumping a potential platoon CF. That limits your options.

Roger Clemens is 9 years older than Pedro. How is that working out for him? This idea that 34 year old players are washed up is just rude. The fact is that Pedro has learned to be a different kind of pitcher in the last 2 years than he was in the late 90's, and he is still very capable of dominating a game. The Mets pitching is respectable. But a 1-5 of Reyes, Beltran, Ramirez, Delgado, and Wright is downright terrifying. I think the Mets are dangerous, but I would say it's based on their 2-5, or 2-6 in the lineup, not their leadoff hitter. Bernabe has a .303 career OBP. He's young, but baseballreference.com lists Mike Caruso as the most similar hitter. Reyes has some upside, but over the past two years he's been no better than Kaz. And just one season ago he was the guy in the doghouse because he just couldn't stay healthy.

They should. They're better than the Cubs and doing a whole lot more to be better in 2006. The end of the Phillips era got really ugly in Queens, but they've been improving since bottoming out in 2002/2003, due to a lot of nonperforming contracts. I think there's a good chance they go into the season as a strong favorite for the NL East, and possibly the favorite for the NL. The offseason is still young, and there's a long way to go before next October, but do you think that their starting pitching behind Pedro is good enough to get it done in the playoffs? I also have some concerns as to who they will have pitching the 7th and 8th innings? They were a top 3 ERA in 2005. They have one ace, and then what I would call a bunch of #3 starters. At this point, I wouldn't say their staff is any worse than what people thought the White Sox had last year. They just added the best available reliever on the market. I think they might take a small step back in the pitching department next year, but they could be a better hitting team, depending on what they do with the OF. The way things are looking now, I'd say they can compete in the playoffs. I won't be putting money on them anytime soon, but for a Cubs fan to say the Mets don't concern you next season is a bit of an overstatement.

ARam, Prior and Wood can all be described as budding superstars. Lee was steadily above average earlier in his career, but he broke out as a superstar in 2005, and if he fails to repeat his superstar season (or come close), the 2006 Cubs will be in trouble. Burnitz was only steady at being mediocre, and it didn't do a darn thing to help the team. I don't get why people want to overcomplicate things, or romanticize players. This team needs production, plain and simple. They didn't get enough production last year. It wasn't due to too many flashy players or not enough steady eddies. It was due to a lack of good baseball players. They need more good baseball players, not more gamers, role players, scrappers or whatever else you want to call them.

They should. They're better than the Cubs and doing a whole lot more to be better in 2006. The end of the Phillips era got really ugly in Queens, but they've been improving since bottoming out in 2002/2003, due to a lot of nonperforming contracts. I think there's a good chance they go into the season as a strong favorite for the NL East, and possibly the favorite for the NL.

They've also never won a World Series since well before WWI. At some point, they have to get over their supposedly responsible stance on contract length and actuallly acquire impact players. They've also never pitched an entire game with firstbasemen. Your response was illogical. There are a number of things the Cubs have never done since they won the World Series. I seriously doubt that not offering 5 year contracts had anything to do with that. Besides, it's only recently that the Cubs have become a big-market team. My response was illogical? In what way. The Cubs have a stance against longterm deals, going to arbitration and hitters who take walks. While it's fine to try to be responsible in contract deals, sometimes you have to be willing to go that extra year to get a real impact player. Their current methods have obviously not worked. Would it really be a bad thing to get in on talks for guys like Guerrero, Tejada and the like just because you have a rule against going over 4 years? There are a limited number of opportunities to get guys to sign for less than the biggest deal out there, and you can't field an entire team every year with only guys you lock up early to team friendly deals. Sometime you actually have to get in the bidding for studs. Of course you can try and get lucky from year to year with just the right mix of those cheaper players, but when you have a $100+ million payroll, there's no need to handicap yourself with such overzealous frugality. How can you be willing to overpay guys like Neifi and Rusch just because you can, and then not get in the bidding for guys who will make a difference?

They've also never won a World Series since well before WWI. At some point, they have to get over their supposedly responsible stance on contract length and actuallly acquire impact players.

Other than the fact that Yankees fans are quick to turn on guys, yes, he would be a good fit. And they have talked about him as a fallback plan. Damon and Cameron were more popular names. While they like Pierre because of how the 2003 WS ended. But Patterson is in the discussion (among media and fans, not sure about the decision makers).

It's irrelevent just because you didn't bring it up before? That doesn't make sense to me. Ryan is as good as Wagner, and younger. Unfortunately for your scenario, Ryan was a free agent this year, not next year. Why does he need 1 more year? His peripherals are outstanding and they did not take a hit after moving to closer. He blows away hitters, keeps them off base and doesn't give up runs. He did it as a set-up man and as a closer. He doesn't have to prove anything. Dempster got the job done, but he was not dominant, often teetering on the edge because he walks more and lets more guys on base, without being able to dominate with the strikeout. He relies on his defense, and is far less proven than BY Ryan is. BJ can dominate on his own. He's better.

And that is exactly my point about CYA. It's a play not to lose mentality, and a terrible decision making process for a coaching staff. I'm just hoping this staff isn't so scared of having a decision backfire that they would rather make the wrong decision if it meant preventing criticism. What happens if they lose with Grossman? Well odds are they would have lost whatever game it was with Orton anyway. And why would 1 loss with Grossman be all that bad? They've lost 3 with Orton, and 2 were against bad teams, the third being a blowout completely on the shoulders of Orton. The bottom line is Orton isn't winning games, he isn't making it any easier to win games. The only reason this team is winning is because the defense is the best defense this league has seen in several years. Without that defense, this team stinks, which would make the decision easy. The only reason you stick with Orton is if you think luck is what brought you here, and that changing the QB will somehow change your luck.

A 79 win season last year leads me to believe Jim doesn't always get it done. I will worry about this team until he does something to drastically improve it.

You don't pay a guy for the job he's done thus far, you pay him for what he's likely to do under the new contract. Ryan's peripherals suggest he'll have no trouble maintaining dominance over the next few years. He was not paid too much money. If you want to argue years, go ahead. I would have gone 3/30 on either Wagner or Ryan. Their numbers are great, and blow away Dempster.

No, that should be their #1 priority last offseason. You must change your priority list based on the current year's WS champions. This is why I'm concerned about the apparant need for speed, they are 2 years late since Florida hasn't won since 2003. If the Cubs win in 2006, everybody will want ivy in the OF, wrist bands on the manager and drunks in the stands. It's the only way.

I agree. I think it's more of a CYA route though. I fear that the staff is looking for a really bad game by Kyle, a loss, or an injury to make their decision for them. That is how the Jauron regime would handle things. But this staff might be different. The way they handled the FS and FB situations makes me believe they are solely interested in putting the best player out there, and not all that concerned with potential backlash for making an "unnecessary change". I cannot believe that with all the faith this regime (from the GM down to the QB coaches) placed in Rex, that they are impressed enough with Orton to have changed their minds. With the bye on the line, homefield advantage in question, and even the playoff spot in jeopardy, I don't want to see this team wait for a loss to suddenly say it's okay to make a change. The team is winning, but Kyle is making it very hard. The players will understand such a move, even if you have them buying into the "just enough to win" mindset.

I think Hairston at 2-2.5 is slightly overpaid, but not by much. And I'd keep him. I do not see the Cubs finding a better bench player. He offers solid backup ability for 2nd, as well as the ability to start a few games in the OF and get on base a little.

Ryan was much better than Dempster. While you might think it's been shown time and time again that no matter how well you pitch in the 7th and 8th, the 9th is different, I will contend the exact opposite and say that most pitchers who are able to dominate with great peripherals in the 7th and 8th can adjust to do the same in the 9th. BJ has done just that, with far superior numbers to Dempster. If a great pitcher comes in in the 9th and shuts down the heart of the opposition's lineup 1, 2, 3, it would be worthless if a second rate pitcher already gave up the lead in the 8th. Games can be won and lost in any inning. Ryan has been a great pitcher for 3 years, far superior to Dempster and there is no indication that he can't handle the supposed pressures of the closer's role.

I would wait as well, but I'd be prepared to make the move. If he's healthy, Rex should be the backup this weekend. And unless Kyle has a great game, a healthy Rex would then start against Pitt.

I get that feeling as well. I think he'd be a good utility man. But Dusty hated him, and it's possible they would let him walk.