goonys evil twin

I'd hope so, but that just doesn't seem like Lovie's style. But then again, the pieces are in place. 1. Month of indifference 2. Reminder of last year 3. Vs. Green Bay 4. Lots of doubters (but maybe they want it this way) 5. Prime time It's hard for me to really put a finger on what Lovie's style is, with regards to this situation. Obviously last year they treated the last game like a preseason scrimmage. But that doesn't mean Lovie is stuck on such a plan. The one theme they've had down the stretch is extreme caution as it pertains to guys who are already banged up. If you're the least bit questionable, you're sitting. Lots of guys who sat probably would have played if there were more meaningful games. But I have to believe most of those guys are healthy now. I could see Lovie wanting the DC and OC to throw in a couple wrinkles to make the opposition think about what might be in store come Jan 13/14, but I'm guessing they'll keep the overall strategy rather plain. But that's really all you need to beat the crap out of Favre and the Packers.

I'm getting the feeling the Bears are going to try and go all out this game. They've been in cruise control for about a month now, and have rested plenty of guys down the stretch. They'll want to go into the playoffs on a high note, and nothing would be higher than really destroying GB, which they are obviously capable of doing. I'm looking for a Briggs INT return for a TD.

Yeah, Rivera was their 2nd most productive bat last season, even though he had less than 500 PA. I'd think they would want significantly more than Mathews and Hillenbrand to add to the lineup. I'm not sure if you meant to bring up potential Vlad to the Cubs scenarios, but I wonder if there could be anything the Cubs could do to tickle their fancy. I know there are quite a few highly touted Angels prospects, but I believe a couple have fallen from their high perch and I'm not sure if any are poised to help them in 2007. That team seems to have a lot of average guys, and interestingly enough, they averaged out to a team OPS+ of 100. That was only good enough for 9th place in the AL in runs scored. They've been an average to well below average AL run scoring team every season since the 2002 WS victory. They might be interested in shaking things up, especially after being so disappointed in their offseason (reportedly). I wonder if they'd be interested in trading Vlad. I'd be pretty ecstatic if the Cubs had an OF of Vlad, Pie and Soriano next season, obviously. That being said, I don't see much of a way to convince the Angels to deal Vlad.

One year 6.5m, seems like a pretty team friendly deal in this market. Although if I was a fan, I'd be pissed if Shea and GMJ were the two biggest offensive acquisitions. He's kind of like a Jacque Jones, in that he's capable of providing average to above average production, but he's not as productive as you'd like for his position. He's also OBP deficient, but has had a few seasons with at least a respectable OBP. I guess the question is where is he going to play, and whether or not they are going to find another bat. That offense was pretty poor last year, and they don't seem to me to be in a position to be any better this season. The Angels are kind of like the Cubs in that they are trying to win with an offense that depends heavily on their average, and they need their pitching to be superb. The difference of course is they have been more successful carrying out that rather inefficient and volatile strategy.

That's the problem though. Jim's been primarily responsible for this team having so many problems, and he needed an A to fix his own mistakes. He's not the new guy sorting through the mess. Yes and no. Jim's is primarily responsible for this team being 27 games over .500 in his first three years after having been 46 games under .500 in the three years prior to his arrival as GM. He is only partially responsible for the complete debacle last year was yet more responsible for the fact that the Cubs haven't made it to the playoffs since '03. That is about as convenient, and ridiculous, of an excuse as you could come up with. He's primarily responsible for the success but only partially responsible for the failures. They are under .500 with him as GM, despite having one of the top payrolls in the league during his entire run. There's no reason to sugarcoat it. It's been a disaster.

You wouldn't think, but he did trade for a banged up Mike Hampton who hasn't been particularly healthy with the Braves either. Not to mention, after a few years of having somebody else pay Hampton's salary, I believe they are on the hook for the next couple years. Maybe they need to get creative to make some room. Schuerholz is big on IP when evaluating pitchers. Hampton may have been banged up, but he took the mound 30+ times for years when the Braves traded for him. Prior hasn't pitched much the last couple of seasons. Maybe he came to the conclusion that emphasizing quantity over quality can be exremely risky and that consistent innings isn't the same as stable pitching. It's all a risk. Taking the guy who might make 32 starts but probably won't do all that well may or may not be smarter than taking the guy who probably won't make 32 starts but will do well when he does start. And of course, Hampton showed him that consistently making your starts doesn't guarantee you will in the future. The pitching gods are fickle. Maybe the market for mediocre innings is so overheated that a $4m gamble on a guy who might not pitch much starts to make a lot more sense. If your budget is tight, shedding one high payroll player and getting back a potential great player (and more payroll flexibility) could become an intriguing option.

You wouldn't think, but he did trade for a banged up Mike Hampton who hasn't been particularly healthy with the Braves either. Not to mention, after a few years of having somebody else pay Hampton's salary, I believe they are on the hook for the next couple years. Maybe they need to get creative to make some room.

If you're talking 1-1 deals, maybe (although Z is much more valuable than those guys). But package deals make things happen. The Cubs have taken a big hit in the assets department the past few years, but they still have plenty of ammo if they really want to deal. It doesn't appear, however, that Hendry has any interest in dealing any of these young guys right now. The strategy appears to be spend cash, but not talent, in the pursuit of other talent.

That's the problem though. Jim's been primarily responsible for this team having so many problems, and he needed an A to fix his own mistakes. He's not the new guy sorting through the mess.

You going all hill-billy on us or just a typo? :) I really don't think there's much of a chance the Cubs will end up with somebody like Jones in center. However, with the way Hendry backloaded so many of these contracts, there is still plenty of room between where they are, and where they were reportedly willing to go, in terms of payroll. Hendry's treatment of the CF position is the key to how excited I'll be getting about this team (unless he magically makes a big SS move). They could end up with anything from bottom of the barrel to top notch CF production.

You hoping for 120 appearances? :D I'll take consecutive weeks. If he can manage to pitch twice a week for 26 weeks we'll probably be pretty happy with the results. 50 appearances, 60-75 innings, I'm guessing we'd be ecstatic with the results of such a season.

I don't see any irresponsibility here. Plenty of teasers are reported during the hot stove season. Besides, Carroll has sufficiently put himself on the line. If no trade occurs, or no report is later made that such a trade was close, Carroll has opened himself up to criticism (if not dismissal) for his flimsy reporting if he cannot defend his tease. This isn't much different than what is posted on websites like MLBtraderumors etc. Or someone saying, I have a funny joke to tell... If you have no intentions on mentioning who it might be, why bother unless you're making it up? Yeah, I don't understand how it can be 3 big names, but he doesn't mention any of the names. The Randy Johnson thing isn't even "close" but his name is mentioned. I don't see how anything could be close and not a single word has been leaked about a big name being traded. Obviously it was a bit of sensationalism on his part, but I don't see the difference between this and much of the stuff we hear from Gammons, Stark, Timmy and all the rest. It's not like it was an entire article based on that big 3 team trade with no particuliars. It was a throwaway line at the end of a ho-hum "where we're at on Christmas day" note.

Forming opinions is more than just baseless conjecture and hyperbole. I happen to think it's a bit unreasonable for someone to require facts or proof on an opinion of something that hasn't happened yet. It's all guess work, including your opinion. I could go out on a limb and state that the major league baseball season will IN FACT be played in its entirety next year, but it won't truly be a fact until after the fact. I think the point he is trying to make is that he would like to have a discussion. All of this at this point is conjecture and "opinion" but he would like to know how the opinion is arrived at (if there is a thought process behind it). I agree it is far more interesting to read that than just declarative statements ("The cubs will win some, will lose some" type comments). He wants "analysis" in the form of "here is why I think this." It's December 26. The middle of the holiday season. The board is extremely slow. The roster is not yet set, and the only topics of interest getting much attention are Bears related, or transactions. Trying to break down what each position will produce next year and therefore coming up with a final team total, is completely shot in the dark. Whenever somebody predicts anything other than every position being as good or better than last year and the team being much better, they are accused of being overly pessimistic. There isn't much of a chance for a discussion to occur.

Wasn't it like 60 degrees? I was wearing shorts. Oh, come to think of it, maybe it was. I thought I remembered some of the guys wearing coats...probably thinking of another game. Brain fart. Well, I was not actually at the Meadowlands. I wasn't far away, but temps can vary in the area, especially with the swamp winds. It was warm enough for shorts though, especially in the sun.

Wasn't it like 60 degrees? I was wearing shorts.

The analysis has been given, repeatedly. But since you insist on complaining about what people like myself believe about this team, you just continue to ignore it. The Cubs don't have a settled roster right now, they don't have a settled rotation. We don't know about the health of multiple players either. If you want more in depth analysis of what to expect in 2007, wait for 2007. Right now, all we know is there are new names on the roster. There's a pretty wide range of possible outcomes. A vital position, CF, is still completely up in the air. Based on where they were, and what they've done, all I feel confident in predicting is that they'll be better, but to what extent, I don't know. I will just add, the Cubs have not scored 800 runs since 1998. I don't know what discussion you hoped to stir with that prediction, or what sort of mea culpa you were expecting (not to mention why), but it's the middle of the holiday period, in the offseason, when transactions are pretty much the only topics to get much action. But my first cursory look at it leads me to believe 800 won't happen. I realize that's not good enough for you, but too bad, I've stated my reasonings. But I don't see much of an opportunity to seriously debate at this point in time whether or not the Cubs will score 800 runs. Maybe if I get bored this afternoon I'll try.

WTF?!?!?!? Dan Shanoff, formerly of ESPN Page 2's Daily Quickie, mentions him as NFC MVP, which is just as ludicrous. How bad do you have to be in order to be fired from ESPN's Page 2? Shanoff was the king of the reactionary bandwagon hopping hype worshippers. And for some reason, he celebrated that fact whenever possible.

won't somebody please make a comment like this and actually state your case. back this up with some analysis please. Your constant badgering of people to backup with analysis is bordering on trolling for arguments. The analysis has been stated, repeatedly. trolling. whatever. I could make a stronger case that constant whining without backing it with an argument is closer to trolling than anything I am doing here. no, no analysis has been given other than this macro genernalization type bs. nobody has said the Cubs will be terrible and then gone on to give their own projections on a player by player or position by position analysis, or even Pecota (which I understand isn't even out yet) or Zips projections. I did. projected to 800+ runs. it stirs no discussion. it elicited no mia culpa. is just bitching really that much more interesting than discussing why that will or will not be? you want to whine about how bad the Cubs will be, but won't put your overwhelming knowledge to work, come up with some projections for where the players will finish, from that determine where they will be at the end of September. I really thought that's what the purpose of this discussion board was. reasoned analysis and debate before baseless conjecture and hyperbole. are you freaking blind? The post you are referencing said they had a realistic shot for .500 and could contend for the division with a few breaks. whine, whine, whine, blah, blah, blah. The Cubs are a work in progress. They've sucked for two years, and have made some improvements, but they've got a ways to go to have any realistic expectations for greatness. If you want to complain, once again, that that is not enough analysis therefore I'm just complaining unnecessarily, so be it.

won't somebody please make a comment like this and actually state your case. back this up with some analysis please. Your constant badgering of people to backup with analysis is bordering on trolling for arguments. The analysis has been stated, repeatedly.

I wonder how much of the defense's success if Lovie's system, and how much is Rivera's. Rivera's entire coaching history is based off a blitz happy system in Philly under Johnson. The whole Tampa-2, cover-2 whatever you want to call it is based of 4 guys creating the pressure and few blitzes. Plus, when they do blitz, it's rarely effective. I think Rivera is more of a caretaker for Lovie's defense than anything else.

Putting a crimp in your New Years Eve plans? Significantly. I caved and agreed to go to one of those buy your tickets early events at a local bar, because a lot of friends are coming in from out of town and didn't want to do a house party. I'm not a big fan of these things, but can deal with it since it's top shelf booze. But it's from 9-2 and there's no guarantee the game will even be on TV there. So it's either show up late and waste a large amount of the "free" booze, or spend all week trying to convince some prissy restaurant/lounge manager to have the game on TV.

This time change really pisses me off.

Definitely. He compares favorably to many HOF players, and his few comparables that aren't yet HOF are current players that will be. 6 times in the top 10 for MVP (with 1 actual win) A bunch of gold gloves, a bunch of silver sluggers, 4 HR titles. He's going to have more hits than Mantle, and already has more HR and RBI. He's lower on the OPS+ category, but writers aren't going to take that into account. He compares very favorably to Reggie Jackson, and played a position that requires less offense.

It's a Pie and the number 17 thread, which inevitably includes discussion about Mark Grace.

If he played SS he'd definitely be HOF worthy.