goonys evil twin

What about the year the Bears had the first round bye. 13-3 season under Juron in 2001. I think he's saying if they host a dome team in January they could win, which would make them the more accomplished than the 2001 team that lost it's only playoff game. But really, that team had a bye, and this team would be playing the bye week before losing in the divisional round (assuming they even got there). If this year's team finishes worse than 13-3, and doesn't win in the divisional round, I can't see how we could call it more accomplished than 2001.

Forgot to add, the Bears are 2 or 3 point underdogs, depending on the source, and the over/under is anywhere from 34.5 to 36. I think I'd give the points and take the under. I'm not very confident in the team this week. Maybe if the Browns didn't have a bye last week I'd be giving the Bears some points just for having the extra rest and practice time for Orton/Bradley/Benson. 17-13 Cleveland.

I can to, and it most definitely begins with fixing the OF. They absolutely must find offense from the outfield. Last year LF, CF and RF were 12th, 16th and 15th in OPS among NL teams, respectively. That has to be priority number 1. Then figure out SS. There are options, whether it's Nomar, Furcal or Cedeno. The more offense you get out of the OF, the less you need from SS. Then, find some pitching. I don't care if it's a lockdown closer, solid middle reliever, or middle of the rotation starter, they need to add a little more than they have now. Finally, find a bat that can backup 3B (and hopefully 1B), who can provide some offense off the bench.

Yeah, and if they win 6 or 7 games this year, with Orton under center, he'll still go into 2006 as the most accomplished Bears QB.

I was not content. That OF had disaster written all over it. Basically, 3 of those guys were no better than 4th OF, and the 4th, Patterson, was still very much questionable (and they foolishly decided to use him in the worst possible spot in the order for his weaknesses to be exposed). I was a Dubois supporter long ago. I would have been fine with him getting a job, if, and only if, the rest of the lineup was solidified and left little in doubt. Once I realized there would be no solid hitting OF on the roster, I hated the idea of putting Dubois out there. Because you just knew that at the first sign of struggle, he'd be dumped by Dusty. Furthermore, he didn't even get a platoon job. Hollandsworth was the clear starter. Jason just got spot starts. And everybody in baseball knows Todd isn't a starter.

I don't appreciate the stat geeks label. I love Abreu, and one of the things I love even more is the "if you watched him every day" claim. This my friends, is why I think he'd be available.

If the Bears make the playoffs with Orton under center, it better be his job to lose to Grossman in training camp. I am tired of all this Grossman talk and if Orton can lead us to the playoffs, there is no reason why he shouldn't start again next year. If he stays healthy and looks decent, it'll be really interesting to see that competition next summer.

So if the Mets or Yankees wouldn't do it, it's stupid?

I think Angels fans love Scioscia (although I'm sure many can't stand his affection for Erstad the Terrible). I have to assume Astros fans like Garner. Bochy is probably well liked. LaRussa is worshipped by many (despite a pretty vocal group of detractors). Guillen has to have a lot of fans. Gardenhire? The first guy people look to when a team comes up short is the manager, and that sort of dilutes the argument against the true screw-ups in the job. But that doesn't change my stance on Baker; I'm confident in my assessment of his work.

The Bears picked him up last year. Obviously they don't want him, or else they would have signed him as the backup in the offseason.

They are also maxed out on payroll, littered with big contracts, and they've thought they were 1 pitcher away for 3 years now. At some point, they will get frustrated and want to try something else. Personally, if I were them, I would not trade Abreu. But this is major league baseball, where teams make dumb moves all the time. The very fact that he is underrated may be part of the reason he could be moved. I do not think Philly would erupt if they dealt him. A lot of Philly fans feel let down by Abreu's 2nd half (kind of like how Yanks fans blamed ARod last year). They are sick of finishing 3rd every year, or just out of the wild card. The aura of the new stadium will start to wear off soon, and they will need to generate excitement. They are far more excited about Utley and Howard than anybody else. It could happen.

Why? Neifi is an awful hitter who swings at everything and doesn't get on base. He epitomized what was wrong with this offense, and what has been wrong with this offense for years. Yet some people made it out like he was a godsend. I think complaints about Neifi (as well as those about Hendry, Baker, Macias, Corey etc) are more than justified. Neifi was not the only thing wrong with this team. But make no mistake, he was part of the problem and will never be part of any solution.

And I'd like to add, that if Angelo listened to all the experts and signed Warner or Fiedler, they'd be no better off. George doesn't guarantee a thing. Stick with Orton. The goal is the super bowl, not to sneek into the playoffs. If Orton gets them there great, but I'd rather learn what they have at the position, and be in a position for a real competition in 2006 than hope George gets them 8 wins and then start all over again next year.

Ever been to London?

Patterson's taken it pretty bad. Wood & Nomar not nearly as much. It's kind of hard to get people into a frenzy of anger at a player for getting hurt. As far as I can tell it's not like either of these guys broke an arm cleaning his truck. What about Maddux then?? Perhaps Neifi just isn't the villian some prefer to paint him as?? After all is said and done, you are the one talking about Neifi and his villian status more than anybody else.

Patterson's taken it pretty bad. Wood & Nomar not nearly as much. It's kind of hard to get people into a frenzy of anger at a player for getting hurt. As far as I can tell it's not like either of these guys broke an arm cleaning his truck.

It's 4.52. For his career it's 4.88. Only twice in his career has he been close to 4.00 or lower. I would be incredibly disappointed if the Cubs purposefully left Rusch in the rotation for next season.

The decision was made prior to Opening Day, before the injuries, and everything I heard said the exact opposite about him "asking" to bat leadoff.

I don't think anyone foresaw Patterson being so awful. Baker just showed too much loyalty. Of course, he never gives young guys a shot. *shrug* I knew he'd be an awful leadoff candidate. I didn't think he'd be that bad, but I knew that move to leadoff would lead to disaster. It was a terrible move. And sticking with him when he was obviously failing miserably made it worse.

What is a "pretty soft $100 million payroll"? The Cubs are top 5 in payroll. I can't argue much with that.

So improve your offense at SS, but offset that with a decrease of offense and 2nd, and all you end up with is a relief pitcher? I don't like that series of moves much. The worst part would be that guarantees some crappy hack veteran will be signed as a backup and be given Cedeno's job the minute he makes a "rookie mistake*" or hits a slump. With Dusty and the Cubs, a rookie mistake is any mistake a veteran makes all the time, but if it's done by a kid.

I actually had that in my sig for a while. It just struck me as hilariously stupid at the time, especially considering that Burnitz played at Coors. It's stuff like this that really makes me worry about the Cubs reported new interest in "numbers". When other teams were hiring Ivy League statisticians or Billy Beane disciples to help bring them up to date on the new ways of objective analysis, the Cubs hired Chuck Wasserstrom, a former PR or media relations guy if I'm not mistaken, to handle their number crunching and data analysis. They didn't go outside the team to hire an expert in the field, they just gave a current employee a different job. I don't know his credentials, and I'm not going to accuse him of anything, but when Hendry starts citing completely arbitrary BS stats like that one to justify making a deal, I can't help but wonder what the Cubs stat department is doing. I don't pretend to be an expert in the field myself, but I read quite a bit from people who know a lot. And nothing the Cubs have done in 6 years (about the amount of time I've paid attention to so-called sabermetric thought), leads me to believe they take it seriously. It's frightening to me that an organization with such a strong history of failure would assume they know more about their field than anybody else, and that they are too good for a new way of thinking. But that appears to be the case.

You've ruined my freaking morning.

He would because: 1) The Phils need young, affordable pitching. 2) The Phils have to move salary and Abreu could be the one. No one will want Thome's contract and Ryan Howard can't play the OF. Moving Abreu in such a deal still doesn't solve what to do with Thome and Howard. My guess is the Phillies will say Abreu is available to someone who will give players and take Thome. A team like Boston or the Orioles might bite on such a deal. If the Phillies move a big contract, and it's not Thome, I'd look for Burrell to be moved instead. The Cubs have to act as a middle man to get Abreu and send Thome to an AL team. Thome's contract would be split among the three teams, with the Cubs giving up the most young talent and taking on the fewest Thome dollars.

It's completely realistic. They have the money and the need. There's no reason they can't sign him. Any GM worth his salt could convince that type of player to come to Chicago with the available cash. Now, I won't predict it will happen, but there's absolutely no reason why it couldn't.