goonys evil twin

I don't view it as black and white as that. I mean, if some GM got crazy and offered the mother load, you would have to consider trading anybody. You'd be dumb to go out trying to sell him, but you should be willing to trade anybody for the right price, especially on a mediocre team. This isn't an "if it's not broke don't fix it" situation.

Edmonds/Pujols are clearly in the same class. While ARod/Sheffield are right there.

Well, I understand the buy low sell high philosophy, you just have to know when to use it. I would have had no problem trading Sammy when he was good, because the team around him sucked so bad. Right now however, not only is DLee top 5 at his position, but ARam is top 5, and the Cubs have two elite level starting pitchers, and some other very talented arms. Ideally Hendry gets his head out of Dusty's busty and comes up with a plan to field a major league capable OF next year, and at least an average SS. I think it could be very smart to trade certain players coming off career years, however, it's a risky move in more ways than one.

You're basing that statement due to his batting average? There are far more important things to talk about than batting average. Anyway, here are his post ASB numbers: .293 .388 .578 That's well off his pre ASB numbers: .378 .452 .733 But it's still well ahead of his career numbers: .276 .363 .498 And near the top of the list for 1B. DLee is 29 years old, right at the end of the age range when players hit their peak. While it's highly doubtful he'll ever have a season similar to his first half 2005 numbers, it's highly probable he'll routinely outplay his pre-2005 career numbers. If you want to talk about trading DLee, you have to get some serious return. He has to be considered top 5 in the league at his position right now, with a few of those competing with him much older and closer to declines. A trade for Lee would be extremely complicated. Aside from the morale issues of dealing off a team favorite coming off a career year, getting equal or greater talent in return would be very tough. However, that has nothing to do with Neifi Perez. Neifi is a crappy ballplayer with little worth to a ballclub. Careers stats, 2005 stats, split stats, whatever, Neifi sucks. His presence in the lineup on a regular basis severaly damaged the club's chances this year, and the manager's inexplicable love for him means you simply cannot go into 2006 with him on the roster.

Who cares what he was signed for. He was used as a starter and failed miserably. Saying it's not his fault that he played that much hardly justifies his presence in the lineup on a regular basis. He can't return. SF dumped the guy when they had a far more potent lineup to hide him in than the Cubs did. The Cubs signed him knowing that Nomar was unlikely to play full-time, and if they didn't know that they were just too stupid too know how bad Neifi is (which is debatable). Why are people trying to gloss over how bad Neifi is? Prior to Nomar's hot August, the Cubs were at the bottom of the league in terms of production from SS, and Neifi accounted for the vast majority of that. He hurts the ballclub when he plays. He'd be a fine $500,000 25th man. But that type of player is a dime a dozen. But because the manager is so ignorant of the reality of baseball stats, you cannot bring Neifi back in any capacity next season if Dusty is still around.

The cookie cutter era was in the 70's. Riverfront, Veteran's Stadium, Busch, etc. are a thing of the past. The new era of ballparks blow those away, and are anything but cookie cutter.

This is why Andy's job is safe, and his thinking is key. I truly believe that Andy really wants to win with the Cubs. And I think the Tribune is very willing to do what is reasonably necessary to win. The problem lies with the old school mentality of the baseball decision makers. They are all about giving responsibility to good baseball people. And in this sport, "baseball people" is a euphemism for members of the good ole boy network. There is no new thinking amongst baseball people, because the primary focus of baseball people is the past. Stick with conventional wisdom, and you won't be led astray. This safe mindset generally keeps you away from 90 loss seasons. But when you take no chances you generally are incapable of 100 win seasons. At this point, the only hope the Cubs have to win under this regime is for Hendry to realize his mistakes and change his ways. Of course that is possible, it's just not very likely. It's either that, or luck. And no Cubs fan is dumb enough to count on luck.

For what it's worth, media types and fans in NY laugh at Baker, and they have since his SF days. Some people think of Dusty and remember lots of regular season wins. NY people remember a guy who was clearly outclassed by Valentine in one series, routinely came up short at the end, always makes tactical mistakes in games, jinxed his team by handing the starting pitcher the ball after a mid inning replacement, failed to calm down his young tired pitcher in game 6 after an emotional play and has basically been a joke of a leader. NY teams take the headline writers very seriously. There is no possible way they take Baker there after the complete choke job his teams have had in recent years.

Which is why I think you bypass Nomar and use the money/trades and pick up at least two studs for the outfield. I'm sick of seeing poor defense and lack of range up the middle. I wish we had a GM that saw the need for two small ball type of guys who have very good gloves who could play 2nd and short. The Cubs don't need small ball types. Bunting will not save this team.

.273 .298 .394 - that's just awful. Prior to Nomar's hot August, the Cubs had the worst offensive production at SS of any NL team, and that was 95% Neifi. Whether or not he's been as bad as some thought he might be is not the question (his line is nearly identical to his career numbers). The fact is, he's been awful and has received an incredibly large amount of playing time. Is he an adequate backup SS 25th man? Sure. But you have to do everything in your power to not let him play much at all.

I could see Cox putting Neifi out there to start. What I couldn't see is Cox sticking with Neifi after it became clear he sucked for 3 months, and there was a talented young player who looked ready to at least get some exposure at the spot.

Dusty has flat out lied on numerous occasions. He claims that performance matters, when it clearly does not. He claims that he'll never call out or cricitize a player in the media, although he has done exactly that with several young players, namely, Murton (wuss arm), Dubois, Patterson (both in the media and the middle of the field after a walkoff homer) and Cruz. He claimed to not knowing what is was like to not manage deep into October, even though 7 out of 10 years in SF he didn't make the playoffs and he had a losing record for 3 of his first 4 years, and didn't win a playoff game for 8 years, or a series until his 10th and final year. But for some reason he just hasn't been called out on the carpet for his non-stop lies, and my only guess is that people either believe this garbage, or think "Dusty being Dusty" and therefore excuse it. I can't imagine how much heat Willie or Torre would take in NY if either of them lied and made excuses as often as Dusty lies and makes excuses.

that will be fun

I wish I could remember the phrase I used back in the late 90's about the perpetual cycle of mediocrity. This might be where we are stuck again. This is what happens when you go on a never ending quest for proven veterans. It's inefficient management.

It's kind of funny that when this regime started overhauling the organization, they decided to concentrate almost exclusively on pitching, as they were going to try and emulate the Braves, who dominated with pitching. Yet in the process they ignored offense (or concentrated on the completely wrong aspects of offense), which is really where Atlanta did the most damage. Perhaps drafting and developing pitchers, then trading them off for bats wasn't the genius idea they thought it was. Perhaps you need guys who can hit to win baseball games, and perhaps you need to develop your own guys who can do that. I don't know though, I'm just a fan who hasn't "been there".

Something tells me that won't be an issue. If the Cubs fail to make-up any ground before September, and they keep running out the likes of Burnitz & Co. everyday, then perhaps the Cubs fans who still think this regime is doing well will change their mind. If the argument is you can't use kids when trying to contend, then what would be the defense for not using kids when you can no longer pretend that you are contending?

SI offered up a list of team's rosters without any trades or free agent movements. In other words, players are on the team they first went pro with. Cubs games would be 1-0, although they wouldn't have enough fielders to stop the other team from scoring at will. With Andy's group in charge since '94, and zero quality position players coming up since then (and really only a half dozen quality pitchers), it's becoming clearer everyday that this management team has failed pretty significantly.

Young position players are so shafted. You perform poorly at first, you never see the light of day. You perform well in a limited role, it's because Dusty put you in the right situation and will never expand your role. Anybody who believes the BS about it all being about performance should take note. It has nothing to do with performance. It's all about tenure.

Yeah, that .328/.418/.507 line will burn them good! Status Alert: 15 Day DL. 8/12 (Hamstring) Born: July 3, 1966

It wouldn't be worth it. The Cubs are still 5.5 games behind Houston, with several teams to pass. They are a longshot at best for the playoffs. If the Cubs aren't likely to make the playoffs anyway, I'll take my chances with Burnitz (or Murton) for the rest of the year and take my chances to get Giles in the offseason rather being stuck with Alou. it would be worth it to burn the 'stros If you want to burn the Astros, let them take him.

Pie isn't ready. Patterson hasn't proven he can hit well enough to be a relaible centerfielder, much less a corner outfielder. If that's our outfield in 2006, we'll be missing the playoffs again. Unless the infield is Aramis, ARod, Nomar, Lee, and the bullpen has Wagner, Wood, Ryan, Dempster, and the rotation has a healthy Prior, Zambrano, Maddux, Burnett

I think i'd take his 2004 numbers, 30HR - 99RBI is nothing to sneeze at with gold glove defense. HR/RBI totals don't tell you much. First off, if you are in the middle of an order and not getting 100+ RBI in this day and age, you don't belong there. But I'm much more concerned with his longterm steady sub 900 OPS, which is not impressive for a first baseman and not close to worth top dollar. If they signed him to a 4/50 extension, and he went back to a sub 900 OPS type of production, they would regret it. I'm hoping though that he'll find a happy medium between his career average and career year, hopefully no less than 950-1000 OPS.

If he goes out and repeats his 2005 season, then I think it would be a major blunder to not resign him. But if he reverts to his pre-2005 numbers, it wouldn't be that bad. Lee was nothing but a 2nd tier 1b before this season (offensively). Personally I'd like to see them agree on a deal similar to what Ram got as an extension - ripping up his 2006 salary as an incentive to sign earlier. But if Lee is looking for elite 1B numbers ($17m) after just one great season, then I couldn't fault Jim for waiting.

Without looking it up, I have to guess Dempster's walk rate is at least similar to Wood's, if not worst. I don't get why Wood can't close because he walks people, but Dempster can. I agree that Ryan should stay there for now. Personally I think the swingman 7th/8th inning role is far more important than the closer.

The Cubs have salivated over Burny for 3 years, they think he can do no wrong. I just don't get it.