goonys evil twin

You can call Nomar's injury new, but to call it unpredictable is intellectually dishonest. Nobody could have thought Nomar would play all year. There was a pretty good chance he'd get hurt, and a decent chance he'd be out a long time. Plus, the fact that injuries happen every year to every team makes it imperative that you plan for them. I count the payroll against him. It's not difficult to build contenders with top payrolls. If this team was anything less than an 88 and 89 win team the last two years, it would have been terribly unacceptable.

I have no interest in a rental regardless of how the team plays before the deadline. If they can acquire an impact long term improvement, they should.

You can break it down however you'd like, and criticize my line of reasoning as much as you want. But I still hold the GM accountable for the record, and I haven't been all that impressed with the record in his first 2.5 years. He's been adaquate, far better than other disastrous front offices both around the league and in Cubs history. But he hasn't built a dominant team yet, and I'm not 100% certain he ever will. I want a World Series champion, not just a contender. So if you ask if I have faith in Jim to do that, I can only say I have faith that he'll put together a good team, but he has to prove whether or not he can create a great one. He has not yet done so, no matter how you breakdown his trade chart.

That game was pretty memorable though for how bad one particular player played, and he admitted as such after. I got 9/10 but made educated guess on like half of them. The one I got wrong was the Lee homer thing. What did you guess? The one I got wrong I guessed blindly. I had to narrow down the one about the 11-6 win over Colorado between 2. I guess I didn't have to guess blindly on many others, but for a second I was thinking a different team for the "who swept the Cubs" question. It took a little while to remember who had the awful game, and then the homer off Clemens.

That game was pretty memorable though for how bad one particular player played, and he admitted as such after. I got 9/10 but made educated guess on like half of them. The one I got wrong was the Lee homer thing.

It's his responsibility to build a winner. Call it blame, call it whatever you want, the bottom line is what you judge him on. Injuries are part of the game. He took risks relying on oft-injured players. The Cubs were an 88 win team in 2001, and he built them to an 88 win season in 2003, and 89 in 2004. This year they should once again finish over .500, but we're a long way from knowing if they'll be closer to 94 than 84. There's nothing silly about holding a GM accountable for the results at the end of the year, especially when he hired the manager and acquired nearly all of the roster.

Note that I did touch on his failures, I just believe his successes (Ramirez, Lee, Hundley Trade, Nomar, Lofton/Simon) far outweight his failures (Bartosh) Ultimately you judge him by how the team finishes. Individual trades don't really matter. Sure, he's made some great deals, and he's made some head scratchers. What really matters is how many games his team wins.

I have faith in Hendry to the extent that I think he's capable of keeping this team in contention for the longterm. But the fact is he's fielded an 88 and 89 win team and did so with an ever growing payroll during a period in time when most of the rest of the league was cutting costs. This year's team will have to really turn it on to even get to those levels. And considering the goal is World Series, the inability to even field 90+ win teams with a top payroll is pretty disturbing. At some point we need some results. And contrary to some Cubs fans who are satisfied with merely a winning record, the results I'm talking about are much more. When Hendry inherited the job, he was blessed with the top system in the game. Of course, he built that system. Now the question is can he turn what was once the top system (and is now further down the line) into the top team, or is he merely a great minor league coordinator and not a great GM? I have my doubts, but that's not to say I don't think he can. Like everybody else in baseball, it's up to him to prove his ability.

I never hated the Ramirez trade, and I didn't bad mouth the Williams acquisition. I did question the Ramirez deal because I was hoping they'd lose somebody other than Hill. My big beef with the Ramirez deal was that he still needed to prove himself before everybody praised him. I was always intrigued by his ability and upside, and made a point to praise Hendry for at least going after a guy who had a chance to be a true impact player, and not the typical Cubs mediocre 32 year old. I don't have to eat crow on Williams. I said he hasn't impressed me much. He never has. I didn't predict doom and gloom with the guy. And remember, he's still got an ERA over 4 as a Cub and over 5 on the season. He's not lighting the world on fire. I'm also not badmouthing this deal, I just don't think it's all that great. But if it leads to something else, cool. Why don't you worry about your own opinions and stop trying to pick a fight with me? I've been wrong about many things, and I don't have a problem admitting it. But the fact remains, the Cubs have been nothing more than an 88 and 89 win team the past two years with a payroll at or near the top of the league, and they are barely on pace to win 83 games this year. Obviously the Cubs front office is not beyond questioning. If you're a Cubs fan I'd be a little more concerned with their track record than mine.

Um, no it hasn't. It was not good in 2003 or 2004.

Unfortunately he's past the age of breakout time. If he was going to break out, he should have done it by now. The vast majority of ballplayers are at their best at 27/28, and he's already 27 and will be 28 shortly, without doing much. His 2005 OBP is solid, and so were his minor league numbers, but his 2003 and 2004 numbers were not. There's some hope that he'll be able to show off some of that OBP ability from his minor league days, but he doesn't have much time to improve on his career numbers, given his age and service time.

He's a retread because he was the odd man out in a terrible OF in Cleveland. He's an incredibly dull acquisition who does nothing great. I have no problem trading Dubois, but they needed an impact bat, not another excuse for Dusty to bench the Cubs bench leadoff option on a regular basis. Like many Hendry deals, this isn't a bad deal, but it's terrible redundant and barely helpful, at all. I guess he wanted a second chance to make up for that silly Bay trade. Hopefully they aren't stupid enough to send down a bat after this move. It's pretty clear, they don't need 7 relievers. Sergio needs to go down and get some innings. I'd have much rather seen Dubois added to a package for a more meaningful acquisition. Oh well, I've grown accustomed to pointless moves by the Cubs.

So if Dusty says it is, we must just accept it?

If Neifi gets hurt in the middle of the game, Macias or Hairston can play there temporarily, then you can call back Cedeno the following day. Or, you could just callup a couple guys whose future is probably no better than major league utility man, Theriot or Ransom. They sent Cedeno down earlier in the season because they said it wasn't good for him or the organization to have him rotting on the bench. Why is it alright now?

no it wasn't. the assertion was that the Cubs underachieved the entire year due to injuries. it was you who decided that the analysis needed to be arbitrarily confined to post June 11, for what reason I have no idea. however, looking at how the starting pitching performed from about June 12-24 compounding the over use do to poor starting pitching earlier in the year, it is not unreasonable to attribute some of our lack of success during the eight game losing streak to wear and tear on the bullpen caused by prior overuse. I don't think it's fair to blame those struggles on an overworked bullpen. Really, only Wuertz was overworked. It's hard to overwork an entire pen when they've had 7 or 8 guys down there all year. The Cubs bullpen has pitched the 4th fewest innings this season, and are in the top half in bullpen ERA. If the Cubs underachieved the first half due to injuries, it wasn't by much. They were over .500 when their more important injured players returned to health. Plus, it's their own fault for going into a season with so many already injured, perpetually injured, or likely to be injured players on the team. I think underachieve is the wrong word for the team. I believe, given the limitations put on them by their own personel decisions, as well as the self defeating strategies employed on game day, they've performed pretty close to expectations.

Can they? Sure they can. Anybody can. The problem is their chances won't be very good if they don't improve the team. They've proven for quite some time that they are basically a .500 team, +- a series or two. Even if they don't get anybody new, they're going to have to play much better the rest of the the way in order to get a record that would compete for the wild card. At just 1 over .500 right now, they'll have to play .620 ball, 17 games over .500, to win 90 games this season. And they'll have to hope another wild card team falters a bit, because two NL East teams are on pace for more than 90 wins already, and another is closer than the Cubs. You'd have to receive some tremendous good luck in order to turn a .500 team into a .620 team overnight. It'll take more than just Wood and Prior getting healthy. It'll take more than just Lee and Ramirez staying hot. They'll need Hollandsworth to play more like his June and July than his April and May. And it'll take Barrett figuring out how to maintain his recent plate approach. It'll take stronger bullpen performances than what we've seen year-to-date as well. It'll require players who have been on the team all year playing better than they did in the first half. Who knows if they will. It's happened before, but what usually happens is teams play as expected, or pretty close, and nobody was predicting this team to be a .620 team when healthy in the preseason, so I don't see how they can expect it now. Just like I said going into the season, it's negligent to go into a season expecting everything to go your way. You have to build your team to be able to withstand setbacks. Similarly, you can't just expect everything to go your way in the second half just because you feel you've had the worst luck in the first half. They could stand pat and still contend, but they're chances will go up if they improve the team. And if they can improve the team for 2005 and beyond, they absolutely must.

I still like him. I'm not gaga, but would be happy if he became a Cub without giving up a whole lot. Looper and Floyd would be nice. What goes back? Mitre, Sing, Wellemeyer, Remlinger and Hollandsworth?

I can't see Glavine beating Smoltz, but you never know.

Actually I don't think he'd make a very good personel man. I disagree strongly with his statements about clutch players, the usefulness of guys like Hairston, and his occasional small ball mentality. I do believe he's a very good television analyst. I wouldn't call him a second guesser, you can't if you actually listen to what he says. I don't deny his arrogance, but then against 95% of people in sports are arrogant SOB's.

He's a freaking monster. I'd like to see how much of a dive they'd take in they were in the batter's box. That's cool that those guys came to Wrigley, I didn't even think about that even after reading they were in town.

What is laughable is all the consternation about Stone. What constitutes unnecessary and necessary shots? The Cubs have deserved all sorts of shots. They've played terribly for long stretches, they've made stupid decisions, repeatedly, and can't seem to see the things that most everybody else in baseball can see. I'd call an analyst incompetent if he didn't point this stuff out. I apologize for the hijacking of the game thread into another pointless Steve Stone debate. I just don't get all the paranoia that surrounds the man and his words.

He was a rookie in 2003. Yes, he won 10 last year, but he didn't pitch particularly well. He stunk earlier this year and hasn't been impressive as a Cub. Don't know if you are mixing up your years, but Williams was outstanding in 2003. 3.30 ERA, OPS against of .668. Since joining the Cubs this year, his ERA is 3.68. granted that is in 22 innings, but that puts him between Prior and Z in terms of starters ERA. and you know the facts about earlier this year, so can't you make an exception? go ahead and prefer one guy over the other, but don't diminish the guys accomplishments and adversity to make your point. I don't believe I confused a thing. 2003 was his rookie year. Last year was 2004, when he won 10, but had an ERA well over 4, a WHIP of about 1.3, a k/bb under 2, a k/9 under 6. What exception am I supposed to make? The guy doesn't impress me. He hasn't been a bad pitcher. I'm just not impressed with him. I don't have to diminish his accomplishments to feel that way.

It's inflammatory because you can hear the smirk on his face as he says it and he stops to get a laugh afterwards. I just don't see the problem with it. He's not pulling a Woody Paige or Jay Marriotti just blasting Wood with no regards for facts and trying to outscream the next guy while insulting players for the fun of it. He was making a legitimate point. Kerry was in danger of ruining his career without change. He could have said "sell insurance" which is the standard quote for guys who might not last in sports. He could have said "go coach high school," or, "retire to the beach with all your millions and your beautiful bride." It doesn't matter. A point was made, and I believe it was an accurate point with substantial support for his opinion. I think people should worry much more about how the Cubs play than how the announcers describe the play.

It's been more than just a moment. SS has been scrapped for years, and isn't returning.

To each his own... There have been some bright spots this season. Stone's sarcasim is legendary. Telling a guy that he should change his mechanics or go "sell cars" just isnt necessary. I don't get why that was so inflammatory. Sure he could have chosen different words, but why? He had a point he really wanted to emphasize. It's been repeated a billion times that Wood had mechanical issues and needed to improve. Stone highlighted it by saying something that might stick. I've been an enormous Wood supporter his entire career. I can't stand the 14 win talk or the trade him garbage. I brushed aside most criticism of Kerry the past few years noting his backtoback 200 inning seasons that most people ignored, and figured his development was bound to come naturally, just like most stud power pitchers. However, I neglected to acknowledge that it wouldn't just happen, it would only happen with hard work and some change, and I think Stone's insistence on pointing out Wood's faults, even as harshly as he did, helped to clarify the sense of urgency Wood and the Cubs should have about their future. I like Plesac, and he offers a different product than Stone. But that doesn't make Steve's work any less accurate or appropriate.