goonys evil twin

Perhaps they should have tried that their first 5.5 months of the season. What a load. All that talk of kissing up to potential free agents has achieved absolutely nothing. Great free agents don't sign with teams based on how much the manager bends over for them. They sign with the team with the best combination of money/chance to win. It is completely hypocritical, and in my opinion moronic, to try and pound into the heads of the kids the need to play for the good of the team and ignore individual statistics, and then repeatedly sacrifice the opportunity to give some experience to the young kids so veterans can get a chance to achieve meangingless goals. There is absolutely no excuse for Mitre and Hill failing to each get at least 3 starts in September. Remember Dusty's stupid excuse for not playing these guys is a lack of experience. You can't get experience until you are given a chance to play. But the Cubs never give these guys chances. I'm not talking about starting a guy on fan appreciation day when you play all 30 guys. I'm talking about giving serious time to legit prospects who need to go through the struggles and learn.

It also sounds oh so familiar.

I don't know about the rest of you, but the things that are really upsetting to me are: Top 5 payroll, bottom half of the league results. 1908 - the drought, not the moderator. The lack of attention to the lack of walks taken by hitters and excess of walks given by pitchers - by far, the two biggest reasons for lack of team success. 74-77.

I'd keep both Greenberg and Hairston for the bench, unless either is required for a serious trade. Hairston is as versatile as Macias, but he at least gives you a chance to have adaquate offense. Greenberg would be an interesting option as a backup, and I would be intrigued by keeping Patterson as a 4th OF as well, if they can bring him back without a raise, and nobody offers much in a trade.

I don't believe a whole lot in "protection". But if there is something to it, I don't think great OBP forces a team to pitch to the previous hitter. If anything, the combination of OBP between the first 4 hitters in that lineup would give Ramirez a chance to flirt with Sammy Sosa's best RBI seasons. I'd be pretty happy with that lineup, but I'm not a huge Lofton fan. He's much more likely to put up something like his 2001-2004 numbers than come close to repeating his 2005.

I can't agree with that. It's the dumbest thing he can do. Who gives a crap about the freaking Marlins and Phillies? Dusty's first priority should be the well being of the Chicago Cubs. Putting Neifi at leadoff does nothing for the Chicago Cubs. Letting Rich Hill sit on the bench for 14 days, then making him relieve on back to back days, stretching him on the 2nd day, then relegating him back to the end of the line does nothing for the Cubs. Refusing to give a breather to Zambrano, and extending his pitch counts repeatedly in meaningless September games does nothing for the Cubs. Now that he's completely screwed up the 2005 Cubs, Dusty's only obligation is to think about the 2006 Cubs. He has to give starts to some of the younger guys. He has to minimize the risk for injury to Zambrano and Prior. He has to give the kids a taste of the big leagues. But no, Dusty's moronic theory is to make sure Neifi gets as many plate appearances as possible before the season ends, and once again try and help an aging breaking down veteran achieve a meaningless milestone.

Manny Ramirez's bimbosity has been repeated over and over.

Yep, that Jeff Kent, a man with great support in the clubhouse, and moreover, "a butt-kickin' winner". Corgan's been listening to too much sports radio. And correct me if I'm wrong, but neither Kent nor Biggio has a "big, diamond-covered, world series ring on their finger". Again, it's just another example of somebody making things more complicated. The Cubs don't need butt-kickers who yell at their teammates for trying to pull an 0-2 pitch. They need productive hitters and good pitchers.

It's not irrelevant if people want to try and fiction a history of Dusty Baker as a positional prospect wrecker. I wouldn't say he's a wrecker, I'd just say he's never shown an ability to develop young position players, and he's repeatedly given free passes to inept veterans who hold back the team. Those were two very important things to think about before he was hired, when this organization was filled with highly rated prospects and the team was poised to achieve great success if those players were developed into solid big leaguers.

This is my feeling on the matter. I think it's an "after the fact" complaint. Every player on every team makes mistakes. They really only piss people off after a loss, or more accurately, after too many losses. I've seen the saintly Cardinals actually make mistakes, and lose games. And I've seen them make mistakes and win. It happens to everybody. And for some reason, probably at least partially related to baseball's long history of writers who tend to philosophize, mythologize and romanticize, people like to lay blame for the loss on those instances when people don't play the game the right way, as if they are disrespecting the game itself. But they tend to overlook the more important factors that influence win-loss records, maybe because those cold hard facts aren't poetic enough to live up to the legacy of overly sentimental baseball people and their subjective way of reasoning out why teams win and lose. It's not the little things that are holding the Cubs back. It's the big things. The simple, easily quantifiable, blatantly obvious things. Little things never held Boston back. If they could, they wouldn't have won last year. They had an uncoordinated apeman butchering plays in CF, with a clueless bimbo screwing everything up in LF, and not having a clue on the bases. They didn't "clutch up", as their numbers in close and late situations, as well as scoring position 2 outs, were worse than their overall numbers. I'm not advocating sloppy baseball, surely that is an area to be addressed. You want guys to turn crisp double plays and run the bases smartly. However, it still boils down to the one big thing, and that is production. The Cubs just didn't have enough productive hitters or pitchers. And they didn't manage in a way to maximize that production. It really is that simple.

Why do you automatically equate fundamentals to bunting? I think of executing a run down properly, shifting your weight in blocking pitches in the dirt, turning a routine double play, hitting the cutoff man........ I agree, Dal. My view of fundamentals is much broader. My definition is much broader, but the definition used by many is pretty much what sulley was talking about. The two things I hear most when talking about fundamentals is clutch hitting and sac bunts. Clutch hitting is not a fundamental. Clutch hitting is more or less chance. And sac bunts are not a good thing. But those are, by far, the two biggest laments by fans and the media when talking about a lack of fundamentals. After every Mets or Yankees loss, I read and hear the media and fans complain about specific failures in "clutch" situations and times when people wanted to see a sac bunt, as if that would have guaranteed a run being scored and a different outcome to the game. Baseball is a game of failure. Most of the time you will fail to get the job done offensively. You will make an out more often than not, you will not drive in a run more often than not. Nitpicking specific failures is pointless. What matters is the collective production of your entire team over the 162 game season. I don't know why people want to make it seem so complicated, but the simple fact is this team struggles because the pitching staff walks too many people and the hitters don't take enough walks. Those are the two biggest problems, they'be been the two biggest problems for a while, and they will remain the two biggest problems until they are addressed and solved. And they can be fixed.

SanFran/NYY, two totally different situations. The level of NYY's "buying their talent" is so far above and beyond what SF is capable of. However, besides Jeter, Joe played a major role in developing Jorge and Soriano. He's also been willing to just hand jobs to guys like Robinson Cano even though big market teams aren't supposed to do that in a pennant race. Joe also showed a willingness to use kids from the system on the bench on a regular basis, like Shane Spencer. That's 4 kids he's handed the keys to the starting job to, and stuck with them, just in his 10 years in NY. I don't know much about his previous stints as a manager. You think Dusty would have ruined Soriano and Posada?? What players did Baker miss on in SF?? Come to think of it what hitters have the Cubs developed in the past 10 years?? Perhaps the Cub system just really suks?? Way to change the subject. The point is Joe gave those guys the jobs, while you insinuated he'd developed no more players than Baker. This excuse making for Baker is absolutely pathetic. Some hyperbole has certainly been used in the blasting nof Dusty Baker, but it doesn't chang the fact that he's done an awful job with this team and should be replaced immediately. All this other nonsense is just a distraction from that one very important point.

It doesn't matter whether they were awful or not. The only reason they aren't currently playing in front of Murton is because Hollandsworth and Lawton are with the Braves and Yankees, respectively. If they remained on the roster, I guarantee that Murton would not have gotten the number of ABs he currently has. I think it matters. Dusty would have wanted very much to keep them if they hadn't been totally awful, and Hendry wouldn't have had the cahones to trade them against Dusty's wishes. I object to saying those guys were slightly better than awful. They were both no better than awful, and possibly worse.

For me, he's done very little right. I was adamantly opposed to his hiring before it ever happened, and I've never thought differently since that day. He was absolutely the wrong man for this specific job, and he still is. The few things he has "done right" are completely overshadowed by the overall level of ineptness that has hung over this organization for over a year now.

SanFran/NYY, two totally different situations. The level of NYY's "buying their talent" is so far above and beyond what SF is capable of. However, besides Jeter, Joe played a major role in developing Jorge and Soriano. He's also been willing to just hand jobs to guys like Robinson Cano even though big market teams aren't supposed to do that in a pennant race. Joe also showed a willingness to use kids from the system on the bench on a regular basis, like Shane Spencer. That's 4 kids he's handed the keys to the starting job to, and stuck with them, just in his 10 years in NY. I don't know much about his previous stints as a manager.

Something you've got to consider is that Cameron has spent his entire career in pretty rubbish ballparks to hit in. At the time that Cameron was in New Comiskey Park (1995-98 ) the Baseball Reference park factors were 97, 95, 96 and 98, Cinergy Field was 99 in 1999, and Safeco Field from 2000-03 was 91, 93, 92 and 97. Shea Stadium in 2004 was 99, and I doubt it's much different this year. So, weighting those park factors, assuming plate appearances are split evenly year-on-year between home/road and saying that road park factors are 100 (which is a pretty big assumption, because a lot of the ballpark in the AL West and NL East are pretty pitching friendly), Cameron for his entire year prior to this year had effectively spent his every day hitting in a ballpark with a park factor of 97.8, and that could be an estimate on the high side. That's got to have had a negative effect on his numbers, meaning that his natural level perhaps isn't done justice by his .250/.340/.440 line, and that he's actually been more valuable than that. I kind of buy that theory, but the other thing to consider is he's going to be 33 next season, and he's coming off a crazy head injury. It's the type of thing that could cause vision issues and other things that could affect his game in 2006. I would take Cameron as a temp replacement for CF, but the Mets would have to more or less give him away for salary reasons. And I would have very little hope of him outperforming his career numbers: .249/.340/.442

Actually, Nomar's body breaking down is why he was out most of last year.

No. I wouldn't mind having him on the team, but not at the price he'll get. I see him reverting to the .290/.352/.432 career numbers he's put up, with crappy defense, and that's nowhere near worthy of $8-10 million per year for 4-5 years. And when he goes on cold streaks, he's absolutely terrible. I'd much rather have Brian Giles for 3/30.

And always start on the road, and always have that stupid friggin "Monday-Wednesday-Thursday" series. I HATE THAT! :evil: I could be wrong, but I believe the reason the Cubs always start on the road is weather. The league likes to give the Northern teams an extra week for Spring to kick in. Cincy isn't that much warmer than Chicago though. It's pretty northernly(word?) in it's own right. But it's tradition (one that hasn't been followed of late) Cincy is supposed to be the first game played every year. It was this way until the Yankees or Sawx had to go to Japan or Mexico to make the first of 85 ESPN games... Rant over. I always thought that was one of the most pointless traditions ever.

Let me see......I'd take Wilkerson. Dunn power is unbelieveable, no doubt, but when I see Wilkerson, I see a player who can help a team win in many different areas. Power, speed, hitting, defensively, or flat hussling, he helps a team in so many areas. Whereas Dunn, well, if he can't hit the homerun, then he is pretty useless ballplayer. I like Wilkerson versatility over Dunn's power. This makes very little sense to me. Wilkerson is somewhat similar to Dunn in the avg area, but he lags in the patience department and it nowhere near in SLG. His speed is suspect considering he's been thrown out more times than he's been successful stealing this year. Dunn blows Wilkerson out of the water offensively, it's not even a debate. Wilkerson is obviously the better defender, but not enough to take away from Dunn's enormous lead in productivity.

End of the season? There's still plenty of time left to accomplish the most important goals, like seeing what that kid Maddux can do for us next year, and rewarding the veterans like Neifi who got us here, and getting the kids like Murton to learn from real pros like Burnitz.

Why don't we just get Vlady, Tejada and ARod as well? Geez, man, you can't get a unicorn and a leprachaun, you greedy son of a gun. If you spend on a unicorn you'll probably have to settle for a couple gnomes at best. But stay away from the daggum gremlins.

Would we? Yes. Would Hendry or Baker? I doubt it. He's doesn't swing enough for either guy and he doesn't steal enough for Dusty. Remember, Dusty wants everything, and Wilkerson isn't an all around toolsy player. I think he could become available, as an arby eligible player coming off a down year.

Depends a lot on cost. Staight up, no questions asked I'd go for Dunn. But if Dunn cost a ton and Wilkerson came easily and the Cubs could find an impact corner OF bat elsewhere, I wouldn't mind settling on Wilkerson.

Are you saying that Murton in 2 years will be as good as Giles in 2 years? Or are you saying Murton in 2 years will be as good as Giles now? I don't think the 2nd one stands a chance of coming true. And I doubt the 1st as well. Regardless, it's not a Murton or Giles situation. The Cubs need to solve both LF and RF. They've gotten abysmal production from LF this year, but they haven't gotten much from RF either. They could go with Murton in LF and Giles in RF, and be pretty well off. But Murton's presence should not influence the decision to sign Giles. You need 2 starting corner OF, and if you want to go with Murton in one spot, then you absolutely have to get a difference making impact bat in the other spot.