goonys evil twin

So wins shouldn't matter.

They already stay away in droves.

That is financially unfeasible. It can't happen. I think you have to provide him with young bench players, or guys he'll be less likely to give unnecessary playing time to. Instead of Macias and Perez, bring up somebody like Theriot and Fontenot. Don't go out looking for another Todd Hollandsworth for the 4th OF spot, use somebody like Kelton. If age is a requirement, put some consideration into using McClain as the 25th man, to backup 3B and 1B (instead of pretending Macias is an adaquate backup 3B) and provide at least the chance from some power on the bench. Or perhaps if your OF is fixed with other moves, think about using Bacon as the 5th OF, and see if his OBP and SB prowess can translate into a solid pinch hitting/running career. Don't give Dusty the crutches he is so ready to rely on. Don't give him a lefty reliever that for whatever reason is better against righties. Don't give him jacks of all trades who are not only not masters of any, but pretty poor at all of them. If you are planning on using a kid at a certain position, make sure his backup is a kid himself, or perhaps somebody like Jerry Hairston, who Dusty doesn't seem to fond of. Put the onus on Baker to use the proper players. Don't make mistakes elsewhere to counteract the mistake of keeping Baker. Just don't give him access to the garbage can he wants to rummage through.

He was supposedly going to be in great shape with his wife this year. It would not be stupid to let him go. I don't see how anybody can justify saying it would be. Nomar has been a complete bust in a Cubs uniform. He's not reliable. If they can sign him cheaply, it makes some sense, but if he's offered money elsewhere, they would be more than justified in not signing him.

I, unfortunately, do not share that opinion. I could easily see the Cubs go with Neifi, at least as a primary SS option. If Dusty has Neifi available to him, he will use him far more often than is reasonable.

No matter what happens, historic sites will have to be destroyed. There is no way to keep it the same. They should do what they can to retain the culture, but they have the opportunity to make it better if they move some stuff.

I'd venture a guess there aren't many people on this board from Hastert's district. Regardless, there is nothing wrong with bringing up the topic. I want to see New Orleans rebuilt, but only if it's done right. It's not about putting money ahead of people's lives and homes, it's about not being a freaking idiot. It might turn out that rebuilding isn't a realistic option. Hopefully that it not the case. But I'd be pretty upset if there wasn't a congressman who at least raised the question. Remember, there was only 1 or 2 who voted against giving Bush the power to go to war. At the time they looked like muchrakers to many, in hindsight they very well could have been the only right ones. The only way they should rebuild NO is if they can do it well. The federal government should pay for that, but so should the people who choose to go back there. There has to be some incentive to doing it the right way, and those who will benefit from the rebuilding should contribute.

I agree. There is some logic to the thought that NO shouldn't be rebuilt. But in the real world, that's just the wrong answer. Chicago was built on a swampy marshland, same with many parts of New Jersey. The entire west coast is a disaster waiting to happen with earthquakes. You can't force everybody to live in only the most safe and stable environments. They just have to do it right this time. Don't take shortcuts and use cheap options. Do it right.

Actually, Hollandsworth was told by Hendry that he was signed to be the starter.

You're freaking insane. Burnitz has to go. The least you could sign him to is about $4m, and you would limit your options to actually improving the OF. 1 - c (JH - b) 2 - a (JH - a maybe b) 3 - c (JH - b) - the only way I resign him is if Dusty and the incompetent staff is gone, and I improve the OF enough to risk his lack of production at the bottom of the order. 4 - c (JH - c) 5 - c (JH - c) 6 - b*(JH - a) - torn on Nomar, if he signs for really cheap guarantee ($1-2m) I would start him at SS and let Cedeno back him up, otherwise, he's gone. 7 - a (JH - a) 8 - b (JH - b) if he wants top dollar though, I wait until after 2006 9 - b (JH - b) if JH signs him to start he's insane, but if they sign a stud closer, Demp can set-up. 10 - c (JH - b)

punch and judy

Harvey has been a disappointment, for somebody picked so high and paid so much, more should be expected. Dopirak has taken a huge step back. Murton was not in any way shape or form developed in this system. He was traded for last year. Pie still has the same problems, and to some extent more extreme problems, that Corey had. His K/BB is scary bad. Production in lower levels does not mean the system has produced anybody. They still have to show it up here. Replace the names you listed with guys like Montanez, Corey Patterson, Hee Seop Choi, David Kelton, Ryan Gripp, Jason Dubois and others from a few years ago and you could say the same thing. This organization has been very bad at developing hitters. There's no way around that. Hopefully in a few years that will have changed, yet, to-date, there is no evidence they have. They still haven't produced a single good hitter.

Just for the sake of persepctive.... the 44 players who entered Serena's Predictions Contest for the season guessed, on the average, that the CUBS would win 91.2 games, with a high guess of 99 and a low of 79. That's a good 10-12 games worth of Blue, Kool-Aid, eh? Predictions and hope are a dangerous combo. There's a reason why Vegas overvalues the Cubs every year, people buy for some reason. Cubswin. I really don't know what you want. I am incredibly disappointed in the work that Hendry has done as GM. It started with the deal he reportedly put together as asst. GM when he went hard after Alf, and it got much worse when he signed Baker. I was a huge Hendry fan when he was the minor league guy. I bought "we'll concentrate on pitching and trade for hitters" strategy, and I even had faith in the best hitters from that time (none of which have made it big in the bigs). I really wanted him to become GM, thinking that, unlike Lynch, he'd value the kids and not overvalue mediocre proven veterans. Since then I have not been happy with his work. You seem happy. You apparantly judge his work differently than I. In your mind, you've offered up a lot of reasons why he's done well. In my mind, you've offered nothing but excuses that any team could use when they fail. The bottom line is back in the late 90s, I expected great things out of the 2003-2007 Cubs, and so far I've been extremely disappointed. Hendry has been the primary architect behind all that has gone on between now and then, and because of that he take a huge portion of the blame. I think he's capable of being good enough to fix the problem, I just don't have any reason to have faith in him doing so. The rest of this conversation is pointless. I'm not trying to convince you he sucks, or is the devil. I'm not trying to advocate his immediate removal from the front office. I'm just pissed that this team sucks so bad, and I'm pissed because it didn't have to, especially given the amount of money headed toward payroll. I can't relate with somebody saying this season is just a series of bad breaks and unforeseen setbacks, not when so many of the troubles were predicted long ago, as long ago as the day Hendry hired notorious pitcher abuser and veteran fetisher Dusty Baker. To me, there's not much left to say on the matter.

That was the title, but not the contention of the majority of those who wrote in that thread.

No, it couldn't. Burnitz isn't good. Outside of Coors he hasn't been good. Many, many people predicted very similar numbers to what he has done. Should Hendry have known? Lots of people looked at this ballclub at predicted .500. Some predicted sub .500. Most predicted nowhere near the playoffs. I was not confident in the least, but I was hoping for a lot of breaks coming there way, but even still I thought 89 wins would have been a stretch. Perhaps nobody could have specifically predicted any of the individual occurences that went wrong, but many people did predict this would not be a contending team. The details do not matter, the overall picture tells the story.

What? What? Darn good? It's been awful. It's been awful for over a decade. They've produced nobody. They've been one of the worst in baseball.

You are really hung up on the word horrible. W-L is the only way you can judge a GM. It is all that matters. It's baffling to me why some people are trying to pretend there is some other way to judge a GM. This Cubs team is horrible. Jim put it together. Over the past three years this team has been just above average, what I'd call mediocre. Jim put them together. He's responsible for the mediocrity. Ramirez was injured last year, and that wasn't the first year he was banged up. Maddux's decline should not be a surprise. The guy had several "blow-up" starts last year, surrendering more runs than innings pitched. Going from a 4.02 to a 4.43 ERA should not shocking anybody. Any pitcher could see his ERA go up or down .041 and you couldn't get away with calling it an unexpected decline. According to Jim Hendry himself, Corey Patterson was not to be considered a leadoff option when he was drafted. He was a horrible candidate for leadoff. He is bad at drawing walks, and when he has had any success it has been as something completely different than the slap happy small baller that the team tried to turn him into this year. His failure to achieve what Hendry himself once said he would never be should not be a surprise to anybody. All this talk about unexpected declines in performance is just smokescreen. No players numbers are completely predictable, variance occurs from year to year. Hendry did not stumble across bad luck with everybody underperforming at once. What he did do was fail to produce a team that justified the money he spent on it. He's had a top 5 payroll for 3 years, and this team has never been close to top 5 in the league. The fact that they have failed to win 90 games just once should be an indictment on Jim's work. The fact that they might not even win 80 this year is inexcusable. Jim isn't the worst GM in the league, but so far he has failed miserably to achieve the goal that was set when he was hired. He has to produce an amazing turnaround next season to avoid wasting what was a golden opportunity to win with some of the best affordable pitching talent in the league.

Actually, prior to Nomar's return and hot start to August, the Cubs were at the bottom of the league in terms of SS OPS. They are still bottom half at about 679. They need more than that. Yes, but as bad as our SS have been our OF has been far worse. It's cheaper/easier to build a good outfield than to find a good-hitting SS, so that's where I would focus my offseason attention. If we can construct an average-good OF for 2006, I think our top-of-the-line hitters at C, 1B, 2B, and 3B could easily cover for a below-average starter at short. I agree with that assessment. I would be satisfied if they made improvements to the OF, and let Cedeno take over at SS. I cried like a little girl when I realized what OF Hendry was planning on going with this season.

Well, it was an easy decision not to trade Walker for the spare parts you'd get this time of year, so yeah, um okay, good job not screwing up Jim. Newsflash, Jim hired Dusty and has allowed him to mismanage this team. Something tells me they do agree on most things. The Chicago Bears are an inept organization. One of their biggest failings for years has been sticking with what wasn't and wouldn't be working. But recently, they've realized what all successful teams realize, that you must cut bait at times. They let Shea go when he proved incompetent. They went from Hutchinson to Orton when Kyle clearly outplayed Chad. Hendry has seen failure, but has stuck with it. If Jim fired Dusty this offseason and actively pursued targets who could improve the many needs on this team, then I'd give him all the credit in the world. But as long as he remains on the track they are currently riding, I will be critical of his work.

Oh I couldn't disagree more. It was kind of fun to watch Dusty get outmanaged back when he was in San Fran. Chris Russo, aka Mad Dog on the Mike and the Mad Dog Show, is a big Giants fans who would go insane watching the stuff Dusty did. I've never seen a manager so unable to prepare 2-3 at bats in advance. He's literally caught off guard almost everytime a matchup doesn't result in the desired result. He doesn't get guys warm in advance of a starter falling apart, he waits for the wheels to start falling off before he does anything. I would say he is easily in the bottom half in terms of strategy. just wanted to add He's always calling for pitchouts, so much so that of course occasionally they'll catch a guy, but more often than not, the runner isn't going, and all he does is put a pitching staff with control and pitch count issues deeper into holes. He hit and runs with batters who have severe contact issues and slow runners. I could go on and on. He's truly awful in this regard. The only thing I give him credit for is his reported ability to get guys to like playing for him, although 2004 and 2005 really muddies the water on that supposedly clear-cut Dusty strength.

Are they kidding? They are thinking he might get a start before the season ends. This organization is completely inept. Losses don't just happen by accident.

Actually, prior to Nomar's return and hot start to August, the Cubs were at the bottom of the league in terms of SS OPS. They are still bottom half at about 679. They need more than that.

I find it somewhat hilarious that my vote gave Dusty his highest rating. That's coming from one of the very few people who was adamantly opposed to his hiring long before he was officially a Cub. Perhaps that is because things have worked out pretty much as I feared: many of the Cubs pitchers have been hurt, at least in part due to overuse, kids have rotted on the bench, bad proven veterans have had playing time handed to them on a silver platter despite not earning it, etc. etc. etc. I never thought he was anything close to an elite manager, despite all the accolades he received upon being hired. I think, given the right team, he can be fine, but he won't win you any games. Actually, he might be a good manager for the US team in that World Cup. For some reason, players think he's great and will respect him (unless all those reports are just blowhard BS, which I kind of think is the case), and he'll have nothing but elite veteran players to work with.

Why? He hasn't. He hasn't been as bad as some feared, but he's been awful. His presence in the lineup significantly hurt the team's chances. He's not a 2 hitter, he's not an 8 hitter, he's a defensive replacement with no offensive value. As for putting the ball in play, I'd love to have seen 17 more strikeouts instead of his 17 GIDP.

I'm sorry, I was unaware this board was lacking in Corey bashing.