goonys evil twin

I don't see how anything you showed proved that he isn't bad. At best he's a good platoon player worthy of a 1 year deal. 2/12 is insane for that crappy production from a RF. He had mild success in his mid 20s, then a career year in Colorado, and has regressed in his 30s. He would be a terrible choice for RF. You are basically locking yourself into 2 more years of Burnitz like underperformance at a crucial offensive position in an already weak lineup.

He also mentioned that the first team to add the 5th year probably gets him. I say do it, he is still young. I disagree. Furcal is a 2nd tier SS and I'd rather not have him much longer once Hendry and Dusty are sent packing. :twisted: I could deal with 4/38M, but that's probably not an offer he accepts. Would you list the "top tier" SS in the NL then please! Also, list there availablity via free agency or trade! Thanks! AL/NL or availability don't matter when talking about who is top tier and who is second tier. Furcal is clearly 2nd tier. The list has been given before. But guys like Tejada, ARod, Jeter and a couple others are better than Furcal. Just because the others aren't available doesn't mean it suddenly justifies listing Furcal in the first group. That would be like calling Konerko a top tier 1st baseman simply because Pujos, Lee and the big boys aren't available.

Not excited would be an understatement. Wilson would be an absolutely terrible fallback option for RF. He's awful. You'd have to sign him for like $2m, and find a LH hitter to platoon with him, and find a serious impact bat elsewhere to even consider such a move.

He's been putting up great numbers for 3 years in a row actually. The save is the most overrated aspect of his game. He's a great reliever, whether it's in the 7th, 8th or 9th. He went from set-up man to closer flawlessly, so you can't question his ability to handle the job. He's far more reliable than Dempster, and much more dominant. $10m a year for him is not at all surprising, and he got a bit less. The years are odd, but hardly a certain bust. Giles at 5/55 is too much.

This is where you lose me in these discussions Goony. You show all these stats where Orton is so terrible, but you don't have any stats to back up the above statement. Grossman hasn't done anything any better than Orton so far in his career, and I just don't know how you can be so sure that he'll be better... Please note that I'm not saying that he won't be better, I just don't know how you can say it with such certainty. This is not baseball. There are no clear-cut stats to prove who is more worthy. I didn't show any stats about Orton, so you're distaste for my theory cannot be based on lack of stats for Grossman. This is my thinking on the situation: Orton has been nothing short of pathetic, and he's getting worse. He throws about 2-3 good passes a game, then chucks up a bunch of crap the rest of the time, if he even throws at all. The offense is hurting the team's chances right now. If you want a chance at all to go all the way this season, you need more offense. Orton has regressed, and hasn't shown any signs that he will be able to provide more. The RB situation is set, the WR situation is set. There is nothing you can do to improve the offense aside from upgrading the QB position. Can we be 100% certain that Grossman will be a better QB? No. But a reasonable human being would have to think he at least has a chance to be better, while Orton clearly sucks. Some ask, "why all the hate for Orton"? I say that question completely misses the point. I don't hate Orton. And I never loved Rex. I didn't even want to draft Rex, while I was 100% behind drafting Orton in the 4th round, it was an incredible value pick. I think in the long haul Orton may prove to be the better QB. Right now, however, Orton is a terrible pro QB. And this Bears team is in a position to win it all with just decent QB play. If this team was 4-7, I wouldn't beg for the change. Instead I'd just like to see both guys get some time, and then get ready for next year. I realize he's just a rookie and he's playing like a rookie. I don't blame him for that. Just like Neifi is a crappy SS and he's just playing like a crappy SS, so I don't blame him for that either. Every QB has to go through a learning curve that combines some sitting, watching and learning, with playing. Orton has had a ton of playing, but he hasn't watched or learned a thing. This could serve him well next year, after a full summer of practice under Turner's system and in the pro game. It doesn't seem to be doing him or the team any good right now though. Grossman was deemed the starter this summer. By all accounts he was taking to Turner's playbook well, and building a nice relationship with the receivers. Orton has the support of the players, but it's only a matter of time before those 10 yard overthrown passes start to piss off some guys, and a bad loss due to Orton's play could undermine a lot of the goodwill that's built up with the record. If you thought Grossman was good enough to start this summer, that means you had to think he was better than Orton. And that means you must have thought he was better than what Orton has shown so far, because Orton has not looked good at all. As long as Rex is healthy, and looking crisp in practice, it's mandatory that you go to him in the next couple weeks, unless Orton pulls something out of his butt and starts playing well. Outside of the Jonathen Quinns of the world, you just can't be a worse NFL QB than Orton is right now. He's not managing games. He's getting his butt saved by the running game and defense on a repeated basis. If this defense was anything short of the best in the league, this team is no better than 6-5 and neck and neck with Minnesota. They'd probably be sub .500 if the defense was merely good, and not unbelievable. The only reason Kyle has the job still is because the defense is playing so well. That makes no sense to me. Again, I don't like the stats comparison with baseball, where you can show clearly who is outproducing. Football is different. But sticking with Kyle now would be like sticking with a lineup that can't score any runs a game, simply because the pitching staff keeps throwing shutouts and scoring runs themselves. At some point you have to try other hitters, based solely on the fact that you can't get any worse than the worst. Sticking with Orton because you are afraid Rex might somehow ruin the team's mojo is akin to playing not to lose. It is far more wise to always try and field your best lineup whenever possible. It would be almost impossible for Rex not to be better than Orton. He's had plenty of practice time. He's been in the league. He has played in several games. If your talent evaluators are any good, and if you're coaching staff had a brain, you've already determined he's better than Orton, and Orton has shown nothing to suggest he's better than advertised. I say you make the change before Kyle's poor play loses you games, and loses you the bye/homefield advantage. They aren't playing to outpace the Vikings right now, they should be playing to win every game in hopes of a Seahawks loss.

I don't dislike Kearns. I just wouldn't consider him a solution to all the problems without something to go with him, he's a candidate for bustville. I'd be fine with Michaels replacing some of those moves. Dellucci might have had a fluke season, but he's been close to that before, and his 2002-2004 splits vs righties (.251 .357 .477) would be fine in a platoon, not to mention his 2005 splits (.251 .369 .525). The key is not having him face lefties. Assuming either Mench or Murton would be available on the bench nearly anytime a manager brought in a lefty to face him, you should be okay. I don't like Soriano, but he clearly does not stink. Such hyperbole somewhat takes away from the rest of your argument. He's 30, and puts up good numbers for a 2B, while he also satisfies much of the desire for speed Dusty has been talking about for years. The lineup I listed has the potential for good SB numbers from 4 positions, and 1st to 3rd ability from all but Ramirez. That would be the most athletic Cubs lineup in years, and would, in all likelihood, score the most runs of any Cubs lineup this decade. Remember, this was about backup plans. It is not my ideal lineup. It was created in an attempt to make the best of what I consider to be Hendry's flawed theories, and Baker's misguided strategies. I'm not dying for any of these guys to be Cubs. But what they each provide is a sort of blueprint for the backup moves that a tools happy Hendry might be interested in. If you can't get a stud RF, get a platoon that could provide a near 900 OPS if used properly. This also helps the bench. If you insist on adding speed, make sure you at least acquire somewhat productive bats to go along with that speed, because you can't steal 2B if you aren't on 1B. If Neifi is the backup MI, make sure you solidify the starting MI, and keep Cedeno around, so as to minimize the need for Perez to be in the lineup. If you have to trade Walker, at least get back a productive 2B. At this point my goal is to avoid Neifi getting 400+ at bats, get Macias off the team, and prevent an OF situation of Murton, Pierre and Wilson/Encarnacion/Burnitz. It's nothing like I dreamed of early in the offseason, but it does avoid many of the nightmare scenarios we're all to familar with.

I apologize for doing this, everybody has their "my roster" thread here. And much of what I'm going to write is just rehashing old news. But I've been all about going after Giles, or if not him, going hard after an impact RF bat to strengthen the lineup. I'm going to assume that doesn't happen, because very rarely do the Cubs do what I want them to do. After making that assumption, I'm going to put together a roster that I could live with, going strictly on what I would consider back-up plans to the preferred big RF stick. And I'm going on the assumption that Howry was the last pitching addition. First off, I'd sign Furcal. I'm not a big Furcal fan, but Hendry seems to have been gung-ho about the guy, and he is pretty good. If 5/50 gets it done, bring him in. If you can't get him, stick with Cedeno, and spend his money on pitching (again, assuming you can't get the big OF stick). OF is still a big issue though. And with all the rumors of Milton Bradley being out there for the taking for next to nothing, I have to believe something can be done. If Hendry can get Bradley for little cost, that would be a big move, especially if he goes to CF where he's a great bat for the position, compared to RF, where he's just good. How to solve the RF issue then? Lots of 2nd tier names have been mentioned. I'm not willing to accept going with guys like Wilson, Encarnacion, etc. And if Giles, Abreu or Dunn can't be had, then maybe the Cubs should look to be creative. I've heard the names of Mench and Dellucci a lot of late. Neither is good enough to man a corner OF spot everyday. But they do combine to form a very productive platoon. Mench owns LH pitching, while Dellucci is great against the RHP. Add in Murton to the mix and I think you have a chance to give 400-500 PA to each guy, and get upper half production from both corner OF spots. The Cubs seem to want to deal Walker, while Texas supposedly wants to get rid of Soriano's contract. I would put together a package involving Patterson, Walker, Williams + prospects for Soriano, Mench and Dellucci. I don't like Soriano at his salary, but if you find a way to keep him lower in the order, he can be a very productive player despite being OBP challenged. Here is the lineup and bench: 6 - Furcal 8 - Bradley 3 - Lee 5 - Ramirez 6 - Soriano 9 - Dellucci/Mench 7 - Murton 2 - Barrett Blanco Perez Cedeno Hairston Dellucci/Mench Mabry I think that OF is solid, but not spectaculiar, and the bench goes from poor to decent. MI gets very deep, while the only position without an acceptable emergency plan assuming an injury is CF, but that could be covered by Pie later in the summer. 3B would be shaky as well, but between Neifi, Ronny and Mabry, I think you can withstand Aramis missing 10-15 games. Ronny provides cheap insurance in case Furcal or Soriano don't live up to their contracts in the coming years. I wouldn't want Dellucci and Mench starting together very often, but it at least provides some insurance against a Murton flameout. The lineup relies heavily on Lee/Ramirez remaining beasts in the middle, but does allow for some return to normalcy for DLee, with production spread out from top to bottom and no black holes. Yeah, I know it won't happen like this, but it's a blueprint for a backup plan that I'd be willing to start 2006 with.

If it does lead to the dismissal of Macias, I'm 100% behind the signing. But as others have pointed out, Mabry is not a direct replacement. And Macias could still be here.

I said all along I'd go 3/30 on either of the stud left handed relievers. Looks like teams are paying similar salaries, but they just aren't that upset about going extra years, after a good 3 year stretch there when length of contract was a pretty big deal.

Dellucci is no more of a leadoff option than Walker, and if they wouldn't use Todd there, why would they use double D's there? He's also not the impact corner OF bat I would be looking for, given the current lineup. Fix holes elsewhere, and he's fine for a role player. But Dellucci is not enough to fix the problems with this lineup. Gooney, Actually, I believe that Delluci has better OBP numbers than walker does, plus he's a might faster than a Todd Walker (even tho he doesn't steal tons of bases). As for being enough to fix the problems with the lineup, I never claimed that Delluci could do that alone. But he would be a valid option in either centerfield or rightfield IMO. Plus, he could be had fairly cheaply in terms of price and prospects. Texas is always dying for pitching. Send them one or two middle of the road pitching prospects, and they'd send us their (so called) 4th outfielder in a hurry. I really think this Delluci can contribute. Dellucci vs Walker OBP Career: .345 - .348 2005: .367 - .355 2002-2004: .347 - .345 Dellucci has shown a lower OBP floor than Walker in the 2000's as well, with a .326, and a year where he split a .328 with a .263 (I'm guessing the season total was about .300*). The only advantage Dellucci has over Walker was 2005, but that's probably not a sustainable advantage. They are very similar, with the difference being that Walker is capable of being a solid everyday 2B while Dellucci is a platoon OF. *actually that season's total was .313 (2003).

If so, great. But I don't see the Cubs getting involved. I think they want Murton starting. And I don't think they'd have any interest in Manny or Murton in RF. They are looking for gloves this offseason, not bats. If they fail to find a bigtime producer for RF, then Delucci in a platoon with Murton and the other corner OF could be a good idea, as David can't hit lefties worth a crap, but he does handle righties.

I don't like the signing. But I will pick and choose the moves I actively bash. Neifi and Rusch are the two that have pissed me off this offseason.

Dellucci is no more of a leadoff option than Walker, and if they wouldn't use Todd there, why would they use double D's there? He's also not the impact corner OF bat I would be looking for, given the current lineup. Fix holes elsewhere, and he's fine for a role player. But Dellucci is not enough to fix the problems with this lineup.

I could see them having interest in guys like Williams, Mitre, Novoa, Wuertz and Ohman. I would give them Williams and Novoa along with some prospects, if they took on enough cash so that the Cubs owed only $14m per year.

I agree. Assuming Boston has finally reached the point of no return, I wonder how interested they would be in taking on several second tier prospects for Manny. After several years of trading away prospects for win now players, including their top guy this winter, they could use some fresh ammo for future deals. Would they take a package that included: Harvey/Dopirak, Nolasco/Marshall, Pinto/Ryu, Craig/Moore, Gallagher/Johnson, etc, along with some throw-in innings eaters like Mitre or Williams? If you could take off the top 3-4 guys you insisted on keeping, could you put together a package that would entice Boston to give up Manny without including major leaguers? While I would think Boston would be willing to absorb a lot of cash if they got back studs, I would think they'd be very happy to get 4-5 good prospects, and clear space for new signings.

chat highlights?

A couple differences. Orton has worked with a far better receiver than Grossman ever did in MM, as well as a finally emerging Gage (Rex's receiving corps was brutal). Kyle has also had a far more stable solid O line in front of him and a superior running game. Orton also has had the luxury of 11 straight starts to develop/improve/learn. Some might blame Grossman, in part, for his lack of consistent playing time, but there is nothing in the history of these two guys that would suggest Grossman would be a step down, or even the same as Orton. He will most likely be better. The question is how much better.

Even Loaiza is getting the 3/21 deal? He doesn't strike out many people, but he doesn't walk guys either. He had a bounceback year in 2005 after the letdown of 2004. HR have given him trouble in his down years, Beane must be hoping 16 starts in Oakland will help with that problem. I'm guessing he's capable of a 200 inning sub 4 ERA season, but I wouldn't lock him up for 3 years at $7m, especially as a lower payroll team. And he's only done that twice in a 11 year career.

Without question, while the comparison to the '85 defense is great a compliment I believe there's no comparison. It seems to me that this Bears defense gives up one or two big plays a game, in '85 that never happened, most especially during the last 6-8 games of the Regular Season and Playoffs. This tendency and the mistake prone Orton do not bode well for the Playoffs. I think last year's Bears D was good, but gave up one or two big plays a game. But this year's D is much better, and has cut down on those big play mistakes. I wouldn't have had any faith in last year's team stopping TB at the end yesterday. This year's team has had their fair share of collapses at the wrong time, especially against Cleveland. But for the most part they've stepped up in the big spots. Although they still aren't as consistently great as the 85 team.

I think Dilfer was clearly better than Orton is right now. But I'm not certain that Dilfer would be better than Grossman, if Rex played. I believe that game vs Atlanta might be a must win in the homefield advantage chase. That is why I'd like to see Rex start vs Pitt, to get his feet wet and back in the flow before the nationally televised game.

They were featured in NYC yesterday, while it appeared that Fox sent their A squad to the Philly/GB game.

The reasons for keeping Pie in the minors go beyond just working on his eye. He needs to work on his game as a whole. He's still very young, and has a lot to improve upon. He's fast, but not an efficient base stealer. Many people rave about his defensive abilities, but others consider him a bit raw in that department. And he's just not that great yet. If he tears up AA this season, then I wouldn't hesitate to call him up to the bigs late in the year, but he just hasn't done enough in the minors to warrent a big league job right now.

I think Orton has actually managed to regress. He looked brutal in that game. This team has a chance to make noise in the playoffs, but they need a decent QB to pull it off. Nobody knows where Grossman is at this stage of his career, but we know Orton is bad. He might not be losing games, but he seems to be trying. I just hope Rex can make an impression in practice this week, and hopefully start by the Pitt game. The Bears are 7 point favorites against GB, and I have no confidence in giving up those points with an offense that can't score, at all. I was pretty upset with Orton when he flipped on the refs for his intentional grounding call. The Bears needed some levelheaded play from their supposed offensive leader at that time, but he pulled an Alou out there. Maybe MM was in the vicinity. It looked to me like he turned in when Kyle thought he would turn out. But the call was not complete BS. If Orton disagree he should have just told the refs that. There's nothing wrong with the initial emotional response, but then you have to tone it down, not carry on for 15 seconds after the call. Turner was smart to call a run there. Orton was already erratic, they couldn't afford to have him make a bigger mistake. I'm really hoping Rex is starting by the Pitt game. I can't envision a scenario where Orton improves down the stretch, and I really don't think Rex can be any worse than Orton. You might as well go for broke and gamble that the former 1st round pick and annointed starter can be a positive difference maker down the stretch, and turn this team into a potential NFC representative in the super bowl.

The answer to your question is twofold, Hendry overvalues mediocrity and lefthandedness. But I don't think the Eyre signing made Rusch redundant. Eyre is a loogy/middle reliever. Rusch is a swingman. They are very different pitchers. Signing Rusch so quickly seemed completely foolish and unneccesary to me, it's not like he was a risk to sign elsewhere in a hurry. And it's not like he was irreplacable. The only explanation is that he wanted to lock-in his supply of arms so he can be positioned to trade others.

I don't think that says it all. The Cubs aren't exactly running on a record of superior decision making skills in this department. I think I pretty much agree with your take on the situation, but I wouldn't use that bit of information as any sort of evidence for support in your favor.