goonys evil twin

please no please please please.

That's all well and good. The problem is Rusch owns a $2m option, and is apparantly willing to decline that option, theoretically hoping for more. What if he declines that option, and asks for a 3/$6m deal ($2m per)? What if it's 3/$9m? What if it's 1/$3 or 1/$4m? If Rusch exercises his option, I have no problem with his return (although it would be great if they could trade him). But if Rusch wants more than a 1 year deal with $2m guarantee and nothing more, then let him go elsewhere to find it.

The Cubs don't care much for objective analysis, so I wouldn't expect him to care what a "non-baseball" guy thinks. That rotation is a joke. im sure you said the same thing about the white sox's rotation before the season. i mean garland , el duke & contreras stink right. just look at their career stats. El Duque had the worst year of his MLB career this season. Is that what you're using to backup your faith in Rusch? Garland is a talented 26 year old starter, it made perfect sense that he'd be better this season than in previous years. Rusch turns 31 next month. He's been a crappy pitcher thoughout his career but had a career season in 2004 before reverting to form in 2005. I'm not one to hope for guys to have a career year even though they've shown no signs of being able to do that? With a top 5 payroll you better construct a better rotation than one that includes Williams and Rusch.

The Cubs don't care much for objective analysis, so I wouldn't expect him to care what a "non-baseball" guy thinks. That rotation is a joke.

Good point. In 2004 they thought they lost because of chemistry problems and cancers, so they went on an extreme witch hunt to supposedly rid themselves of the problem. In 2005 they think they lost because of injury, so I can't see them taking on risks like that. Which could mean, no attempts with Floyd, Griffey, Nomar, Burnett etc. I could easily see them go after guys based on how many games they think they can play, rather than how productive they will be.

You don't see why? I guess we're not looking at the same player. Why are you arbitrarily removing bad games? Rusch was used almost the same way 2 years in a row. He went from reliever to start in 2004, why could he handle it then but not 2005. The only value he has is his supposed ability to be a swingman, which means going from the pen to the rotation, and vice versa. The fact is Rusch is not good. He pitched well at times, but got exposed and reverted to form. He's fine to have pitch in emergency situations. You never know what you'll get, but he's valuable, in that role, if he's cheep. If you purposefully go into a season with him as a starter, and you have a $100 million payroll, you are an imcompetent GM. A side question. Why do people always talk about win totals with pitchers, and not w/l ratio? You say he could get 12 wins (no way) with 32 starts. What if he went 12-16? What if he went 15-18? You could call him a 15 game winner, but that doesn't mean a thing. Just like Maddux's worthless attempt for another 15 win season, what good would that be if you're 15-15? 12-5 is much better than 14-14, yet many will just applaud a guy based on win totals. Rusch is a 4.80 career ERA pitcher. He had a career year in 2004, and began to revert in 2005. He's got a .292 AVG against. He's just not good. He's a dime a dozen, and if the Cubs are contemplating an extension, they're insane. This team needs improvement, not continued mediocrity. They don't need to lock-up the replacable players, they need to acquire impact players and fill-in with the guys you can find everywhere.

What do you think the odds of a 6 man bench are? I'm hoping that's how they go. Probably slim to none. Hinske would work in lieu of Branyan too. But I like Russell's power and BB rate much more. I've got no beef with Russ. Would that be via free agency or trade? If they go into the season with 12 pitchers again, despite all the early off days, I'll scream. It's one of the many inexplicable decisions this administration makes on a daily basis.

viewtopic.php?t=25980

What do you think the odds of a 6 man bench are? I'm hoping that's how they go.

My problem with incentives for Rusch is the same problem I had with incentives for Neifi. Basically every incentive you give them is tied to playing time, ie. the more they play, they more they're paid. The problem is, the more they play, the worse your team is. Rusch throwing up a 4.50 ERA for 140 IP isn't worth 4-5m. It's not worth a dime. If you can squeeze 80 IP and get a 3.50 ERA, maybe that's worth $2m. But what are the odds that Rusch can be good in 2006? Every "maybe he's figured it out" theory based on 2004 was blown out of the wather with his 2005. He's poised to go back over the 5.00 ERA mark again anytime soon. And if Dusty has shown anything, it's a willingness to keep going with a subpar veteran, building up his playing time no matter how well he's played. In fact, I could see Dusty purposefully giving Rusch more innings, and then explaining it by saying, "He earned that contract, I'm not going to keep him from his money."

Pujols has played 3B before, and did a decent job. And ARod can play short, that's the point.

I've been saying for a while I'd like to see Eric Hinske as the backup 3b/1b. He's a left handed bat off the bench with some pop, has started in the past with adaquate OBP capability for the bench, but probably isn't worth to the Jays what they're paying him. The Cubs best commodity this winter if their money, if they can get him for cheap, or as part of a bigger deal, that could be a nice fit. To make up for the cost, I'd like to see several spots filled by internal options, including possibly Fontenot, Theriot and if Nomar is starting at SS, Cedeno (who I would be sure to get 300 at bats). Part of me wants to see Bacon brought in as the 5th OF. For this to happen the starters would have to be rock solid (which should happen anyway). But Bacon offers an enticing blend of OBP/SB and your bench/role players should be very good at something. Guys like Macias, who are good at nothing, are not worth $800,000 and a spot on the roster.

not quite, but he did play in the same infield, and next to Ernie for his first two seasons... ronny

I've been pro-15/15 for a while, with one interleague matchup going on at all times. I'd have the previous year's WS participants, and runners-up, play each other early in the season. With the previous season's cellar dwellers facing off at the end.

Who says it's the 5th best? It certianly wouldn't have been this year. I don't really care about people whining that wild cards win the series. It's the playoffs. Teams play to get in, then they play to move on. Those races would not have been meaningless. First off, you'd want to host that 1 game playoff. Second, the wild card team would be that much more inclinded to go balls out for the division. You wouldn't just say, "well, win or lose today, we're in, it's just a matter of where we play". If the wild card team has to play one more game, it'll force them to throw their best, theoretically weakening their staff for the first round. I wouldn't call that a gimmick. They are playing the game. It's not like they went to a shootout or tried a homerun derby. Furthermore, it would have given Oakland, Minny, NYM and FLA, and more importantly, their fans, a glimmer of hope longer into the season. It's a win-win. Those who want to punish the wild card, force the wild card to play an extra game, screwing up their rotation, weakening the team in their first round matchup. That also provides greater reward for having the best record, giving that team a matchup against what should be a pretty exhausted team, minus 1 starter. It also gives hope and excitement to more teams, and therefore more fans, making more late season games matter, increasing attendance and ratings. The 2 1-game playoffs would make for great TV the Monday after the season ends.

Boy, you just love to get underneath people's skin don't you? Always taking it right to the edge......just without getting too personal. I thought it was incredibly rude for him to write what he did, ripping somebody for not being able to understand the sentence. I wasn't trying to pick on you. Lord knows I've written some indecipherable words. But this sentence: Cash in addition to at the very best our 2nd round draft choice Makes no sense. I think what was meant is: Cash in addition to, at the very least, our 2nd round draft choice. "At the very best our 2nd" is very confusing. There was nothing wrong with somebody asking for clarification. There was, however, no need for somebody to try and emulate David Spade in ridicule somebody's comprehension skills.

Actually, it was a poorly phrased sentence with at least one typo. "Failing to read" it was due to the writer, not the reader, and there's no reason for your smartass rip.

For a second I was really confused about that metropolitan area, thinking Seattle had moved or something. Didn't realize there's another Vancouver.

Pujols isn't that much better than many other 1B. ARod is much better than any other SS. If you gave me my choice I'd take ARod, no question. But if I couldn't have ARod, I'd take Pujos without complaint.

I have no desire to eliminate the wild card. In fact, I'm all for adding a wild card team to each league, and having the better of the two WC teams hosting a 1 game playoff just to get into the first round. That would not delay the start of the playoffs, or extend the break, and open up the WC excitement to even more fans.

I've been open to Griffey talks for a few years, but he's not as good a choice as Giles. Griffey's injury problems are very troublesome, and he's nowhere near Giles in the OBP department, which is this team's biggest need.

Um, it's not level when the other team has home field advantage. And why would the wild card team have an advantage having played another team in its division so often, yet that other team wouldn't have the same advantage? I think this entire discussion is ridiculous. There's no advantage to being the wild card. There's no justification for adding some more difficulties to their postseason run. They made the postseason. If you're so pissed about wild card teams making the playoffs, why not just go back to the old way of just letting 2 teams make the postseason, thus ruining the season for 80% of fans by July. The wild card is good for baseball. Having 12+ teams in it, or virtually in it at least to the final month is good for baseball. People need to quit looking for things to be upset about and just enjoy baseball. STL didn't have a birthright to the world series just for winning a lot of regular season games. Tons of teams have won a lot of regular season games and never made it to the playoffs, let alone the world series.

In 1945, when the population of the US was 140 million, we had 16 teams in MLB. There were no blacks in MLB then, no Asians, and few Hispanics. Today, with a population of approx. 280 million, there isn't a reason in the world why we couldn't support 32 good, competitve teams in MLB. Of course back then you didn't have all of the other sports bombarding you on TV, cable, and satelite on an hourly basis. If baseball was going to expand, there would have to be some sort of financial considerations. Right now you have a handful of teams that aren't being supported while the Yankees are spending over $200 million. Baseball is having trouble calling itself "the National Pastime" and I'm not sure they could support 2 more teams. Look at what happened to the NHL with expansion. Scoring records that were sacred for decades fell to mediocre players. Defensemen started scoring 40+ goals per year. Putting a team in densely populated north jersey (not the swamps of the meadowlands, but an easily commutable area of Hudson county), would spread the NY metro area revenue around.

I think I'd rather see two 8 team divisions. Repetition can be dull. But regional divisions isn't bad.

I love this topic, and completely agree. All the "it was so much better when" crowd can talk all they want about dilution. History forgets all the crappy ballplayers and teams from those eras. 32 teams is the way to go. Hopefully it's within 3 years. I have an early vote for Las Vegas and Hudson County, New Jersey, on the waterfront.