goonys evil twin

Being 13-3 in spite of Grossman is not entirely inaccurate. Rex had 5 terrible games. The team "should have" lost all 5. They actually won 2, and you'd have to say that was in spite of him. So, you could say they'd have been 11-5 if it wasn't for the team twice winning in spite of Grossman.

Yeah, they may have changed after '03, but that was still a decade of Cubs prospects under Andy/Hendry leadership without a single position player. That being said, there's nothing wrong with shift to winning for the short-term at times, trading away some guys. The problem is if you have 10 years to build, you should have a better core already around that taking a year off shouldn't kill you. If they did the original play properly, the 00-03 teams should have been filled with multiple good young players from within the organization, and it should have been the perfect time to top it off with a trade for a guy or two at a position you couldn't fill internally.

Bingo. Andy and Jim said the same things 10 years ago. They had it, didn't follow through with it. I'm not sure it's so much "not following through" as it is just doing it wrong. It's not like they talked about building through the farm, then abandoned it. They followed through, they just failed.

I don't think he would. While AJ has had his own injury issues, he was coming off a 200 inning season. I think Prior would have gotten a substantial 1 year make good contract, with player options kicking in if he hit certain inning thresholds.

Bingo. Andy and Jim said the same things 10 years ago.

I believe he won't be a free agent until after the 2008 season, but I could be wrong.

Because he could still be a stud starting pitcher, I wouldn't deal him for anything less than a stud in return, even though it would have to be a package deal because he doesn't hold much trade value on his own. I definitely wouldn't even consider Prior for a couple decent prospects. I wouldn't trade him for a guy I expected to have for only 1 season. If Florida asked for him in a deal for Cabrera, or the Yankees wanted him in an ARod deal, then I couldn't say no.

I'll try to help out. Best of luck to you and thanks for serving.

That I can agree with.

The Daily Show was funnier with Kilborn.

If I had to pay 18 mil, it would be for Zambrano... and I cant think of another pitcher over him Johan Santana? Santana is a no-brainer, while Webb should probably also get the nod. Oswalt has a heck of an arguement, but I can understand being afraid of him longer term.

This is exactly my point. I don't think it's a matter of people exaggerating his stats, I think it's a matter of perspective. I just spent a few minutes on baseballreference. In his 10 or so prime years, Dawson was in the top 10 in the NL in OPS 6 times (I don't know where his OPS fell in the other years). So you look and say "his OPS was X - that's not great." Well, in his era, an OPS in the .850-.900 range frequently was top 10 in the NL. If you limit it to OFs (take away Jack Clark, Will Clark, Schmidt), he was even better, relative to his peers. If you want to judge every player based on today's standards, no one from the late 70s through early 90s is getting in. Whether it was just a down period for offensive stats or it was lack of steroids or whatever, I don't know. In the late 90s, there were frequently 4 or 5 guys in the NL with an OPS over 1.000. Does that mean if you never had an OPS of 1.000 in the 80s you weren't dominant? And this isn't a Jim Rice argument. I've only seen one poster here argue fear as a reason Dawson should get in. People arguing for him are saying Dawson was elite during his time. People arguing against him seem to be saying his stats don't add up. By today's standards, maybe not, but compared to other hitters in his time, I think Dawson's in. Your defense certainly doesn't defend the notion that he was elite during his time. It says he was really good for a few years but never elite.

If I was running a team with a $120m payroll, I'd have no problem paying $18m to the 1997-2005 version of Pedro.

While spring training stats are not a good way to determine who should get jobs, you should be able to get a good idea of Lee's power. It shouldn't take until midseason to make such a determination. If Lee doesn't have his power, or reverts back to his 2004 numbers, this offense is going to need mega-production from other guys to make it into the top half of the league. They need to get something significantly higher than his career .276/.363/.500 line, I don't even want to imagine what would happen if he's below that. Aramis didn't have his stroke going until May last year and he wasn't even coming off of a major injury. I don't think it would be a fair assessment to say that if Lee has a bad spring that he's "lost his power". But didn't Aramis look great in the spring? Considering how he looked after the injury last year, I think people in the know should have a good idea about where he's at by the end of spring training. That doesn't mean just having good stats in the spring. They should be able to tell if his swing is off, if his wrist is hindering him, etc.

But I don't think Romo makes it if there's a clear viable alternative. As silly as Romo looks in there, there wasn't an obvious other choice. If Grossman had made it, or if Vick had made it, there would be the same arguments that they didn't deserve it. With the Coach of the Year, I just don't see how Payton gets overlooked. I agree with Banedon here. Romo didn't really belong in the Pro-Bowl. On the other hand, in the NFC he was just as good a choice as the others. Vick and Grossman had their flaws as well. Had they made it, there would be detractors saying they didn't deserve it. The arguments would be different, but there would have been arguments nonetheless. I don't see how Payton isn't Coach of the Year. I don't think most people who actually watch the games will choose anyone else. No. He clearly wasn't. That's the point. He was inconsistent, like the others. But he'd done far less.

MLB had rules against using illegal drugs. Guys had been suspended for using illegal drugs. That's what I was wondering. MLB had rules on it, and MLB took action on it. MLB, however, had no such policy on steroids prior to a few years ago. They didn't test for drugs, but, as much as they were illegal drugs, steroids fit into the category of drugs that could get you in trouble if you were caught with them by the law.

While spring training stats are not a good way to determine who should get jobs, you should be able to get a good idea of Lee's power. It shouldn't take until midseason to make such a determination. If Lee doesn't have his power, or reverts back to his 2004 numbers, this offense is going to need mega-production from other guys to make it into the top half of the league. They need to get something significantly higher than his career .276/.363/.500 line, I don't even want to imagine what would happen if he's below that.

MLB had rules against using illegal drugs. Guys had been suspended for using illegal drugs.

yep

But I don't think Romo makes it if there's a clear viable alternative. As silly as Romo looks in there, there wasn't an obvious other choice. If Grossman had made it, or if Vick had made it, there would be the same arguments that they didn't deserve it. They wouldn't be the same arguements. Romo had played far fewer games and had far fewer good games.

I'm not saying they thrive on it, I'm just saying their winter weather troubles have had more to do with snow than temps, and that was just one game. I don't think they are truly a finesse team, because a true finesse team isn't going to hit as hard, or create as many turnovers as the Bears defense. And the offense is clearly not finesse. One might question the wisdom of building a Chicago team that struggles in the snow, but the reality is a bad track isn't going to doom them. They went into a very wet Meadowlands and outplayed what was then a good Giants team. Plus, if they do make the super bowl, those are either warm weather or domed sites. I think they have a team that is neither helped nor hindered by any specific weather conditions. They've had bad games in snow, but they've looked awful in clear sunny days as well. They can win on the road in December, as they showed last year in Green Bay, they can win in extreme cold, they can win on bad tracks, they can win in domes. They are susceptible to great running games and teams that efficiently pass the ball. But they are also capable of lighting up the scoreboard at any time, offense, defense or special teams.

Interestingly enough, yup. Considering how large the outfield is there, it will probably always play as a hitter's park. Even if the ball isn't going out at a high rate, there's a ton of room for hits to drop in. I always wanted to see them bring in the fences, and raise them higher. Cut down on the singles and the gap shots, even though you might get a few more HR. If you allow the OFers to cover less ground, it might help a lot.

I don't know what happened during Bayless' brief time in Chicago as a sports writer, but something must have happened to make him hate the city so much. He was run out of town in about 8 months wasn't he? That probably pissed him off.

Since when is that "very nice"? That's barely better than the Cubs team average last year, and worse than every other NL team. There's nothing special about that number.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-0612280242dec28,1,7268686.story?coll=cs-bears-headlines