goonys evil twin

I think in any trade for an established pitcher, we are going to have send a top prospect back. And if they take Dempster, I think they are doing us a favor. So I would say Veal or Gallagher for sure, and then a project like Guzman or Marshall. Remember, Hendry really isn't on our side anymore. He has a one-year time horizon. There's no way we'd give up star potential along with our closer and a young pitcher with decent production and decent potential for an average starter. Maybe not. But "average pitcher" is becoming more and more valuable in GM's minds. Especially GM's who need to win some games right away. If average pitchers are going to be getting well over $10m per season, then average pitchers are going to cost star potential in trades.

3/44 for Schmidt seems like a relative bargain in this market. It's probably just a couple million more, per year, than what Suppan will get.

This trade is not happening. There is not Cubs source who would ever, ever e-mail or utter such a thing. Believe what you will. Curses! I would have liked that deal, especially if Clement were thrown in. Isn't Clement out for most of, if not all, 2007? Probably. He had his shoulder scoped, and his agent has said he expects "Clement will pitch again." That's not a very strong endorsement of him coming back anytime soon.

Now just what is it about this 2005 line that makes you conclude Theriot's a tough out ?? 04/04 - 10/02 AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS Theriot 13 3 2 1 0 0 3 0 1 2 0.154 0.214 0.231 0.445 I actually remember a few of Theriot's at bats in that vast amount of plate appearances. Yeah the numbers kinda stink - but you do know that you can have a good at bat without getting on base, right? But your assertion was not that he was a good bat, but rather that he "showed to be a tough out", no? Yeah, me made a lot of outs, but they were all tough.

9.5 point favorites. Over/under of 36 (lowest in league this week)

Where were these expectations coming from? I never thought they'd do a thing. Nobody was predicting playoffs. They needed a ton of breaks to go their way just to contend for the 8th spot. Tallon has looked pretty overmatched in the GM's spot, he was much better in the booth. I don't think anyone was expecting them to be a Stanley Cup contender, but they should at least be a team that contends for the playoffs, and instead they sit at the bottom of the league once again. I think if everyone stayed healthy then this team would be in a lot better shape. Before Havlat, Handzus and Bulin went down they were 4-2, then when Havlat sprained his knee, Zeus tore his ACL and Bulin broke his finger, they lost seven in a row immediately. It should have at least been a more exciting year of hockey in Chicago, but instead it's been terrible. Sure, they should contend for the playoffs, but the team, as assembled, wasn't a good bet to do so. Everybody I saw was predicting they'd miss the playoffs by a wide margin. They had some good top level talent, but nothing great, and they were very thin.

Where were these expectations coming from? I never thought they'd do a thing. Nobody was predicting playoffs. They needed a ton of breaks to go their way just to contend for the 8th spot. Tallon has looked pretty overmatched in the GM's spot, he was much better in the booth.

Wow, he's neither good nor dependable. Amazing the junk that passes for such a contract.

I doubt it. MAYBE, and I do mean MAYBE he could swing it in a 3 or 4-team deal, but straight up I don't think we have what it takes to get him. I think the only way he gets involved is if Lou has expressed a man crush on the guy. I don't see Manny as a guy Jim would target on his own, not with his recent trend of thinking about clubhouse chemistry and ball catching. Then again, he did hit .323 with RISP, so maybe Jim will put his fetish for such stats to good use.

The only clear point about the Cubs and their shortstops is they have no true good option in house.

How do you figure? He's struck out about 8.5 per 9 innings for his career, and was right around that last year. That's quite good for a starter, even if it falls with the increased competition. I think he was saying worse than Ishii. While he may have worse k rates and give up more hits than Ishii, I'm guessing that is offset by a much better walk rate.

That would be a huge fear, but haven't people noted that Igawa doesn't have near the issues that Kaz had with walks? That is what killed Ishii.

I'm willing to go to Griese if Rex shows no improvement over the next couple of games. They will be favored in each game, and if he can manage impressive wins, then you have to stick with him. If he loses and looks like crap against 2 of the next 3, then it might be time to switch. Otherwise, it's a foolish move.

That's an interesting scenario, but the Red Sox would either need a lot of young cheap talent or they would need a team to pitch in a large portion of the 51 million they used to post him. Could the Dodgers trade Penny and a young OF guy for him? Why would the Dodgers trade Brad Penny? Brad Penny just dominated hitter's in the first half of the season. He would cost less than Matsuzaka will also. Well, he was terrible in the second half and didn't crack their postseason rotation. That's not what you want out of a big money pitcher. Plus, he was acquired, and extended, prior to Colletti regime. I think it would make sense that they might want to move him.

I would bet there would be some sort of ruling that said that would not be allowed.

I don't think it's fun at all. I realize that for some it's fun, but I really don't care about HOF, MVPs, gold gloves, etc. I like to see my team win, and I like to see good games. I enjoy talking about personel moves in the offseason, but the stuff related to how writers vote is meaningless to me.

The irrelevent Blackhawks made the cowardly move of firing Trent Yawney. Savard is now the head coach, and Tallon is talking about wanting a more uptempo style of play. Too bad he hasn't acquired enough good players to make this team even remotely decent. They were incredibly shallow going into the season, and their only good players are hurt.

Man, the national media just hates Rex Grossman, and are more or less writing off the Bears as a threat at this point. Greenberg and Golic were outright lying about Grossman to make their point, saying he had a couple good games early in the year, but has been awful for 6 straight games. Rex has been inconsistent, but he's had 2 great games in the last 6, and another good one against the Jets. Those guys would be licking Brady, Eli or Chad if they did what Rex did against the Jets (managed the game, didn't turn over, threw a TD, won). But with Rex they classify it has awful. Yes, he was awful against AZ, and yes, he was awful against Miami (although I'd say his teammates had more to do with than loss than he did), and he was bad against New England (but again, very little help from teammates). But he's had more good games than bad, and the team is 9-2 due largely to the fact that he's had some huge games. The media is writing this loss to the Patriots as exposing the Bears against good teams, but I'd venture every team in the league has a similar bad showing against a good team on the road. This was a meaningless games in a lot of respects. It was non-conference, it was the last of the 3 game road trip. Peter King thinks the Bears defense couldn't handle Tony Romo in a neutral site game right now, and I think that's absurd. Romo hasn't done anything that Grossman didn't do earlier this year. I think I'm liking the way the football nation is treating the Bears right now. I think they are poised to kick ass and take name the rest of the regular season, and will be mighty pissed and hungry come playoff time.

True....Bill Shanks, Bill Plashke, Mike Vacarro, John Kruk... Unfortunately, Hendry is the GM of a Major League Baseball team. Not a guy writing about them. That's a monster difference. I would say most of the GMs think the same way Hendry does. I'm not saying if it is right or not, but from their actions and words most GMs value the same types of things. I'm not sure about most, but there are certainly others, like Ned Colletti, who share Hendry's primitive thought process.

No we aren't. There are still plenty of dolts out there who think like this.

OPS+ of 69 last year. And you are ignoring the fact that he turns 37. You'd be lucky to get him to duplicate last year's terrible season.

That wasn't exactly a bad year for Counsell. In fact, he's only broken a 700 OPS one time out of the last 5 years (same as Izturis). He has been more consistent than Izturis, but it certainly isn't enough to try to trade Izturis and sign Counsell. His OBP over the last 5 years has been .337, Izturis who has played about 5 seasons worth of games has been at .295. Personally, I would trade Izturis for almost anything. I would trade Izturis as well. But Counsell turns 37 next season. Counting on this season to be a minor setback is a huge risk without much upside. He's not an OBP stud or anything. He was decent in the department in the past, but he's an old has been that never really was.

it could be used for any one of a variety of reasons. doesn't like the manager, the Cubs aren't winning, his mistresses are hiding around doorways with weapons, the crowds are on him or he thinks he's not getting full market value whether he is or not. he can strong arm all he wants, the Cubs don't have to sign a 33 y.o. player to a 5 year contract if they don't want to. he can opt out and the parties can part ways. the way I understand it is at the end of four years, Aramis can decide if he wants to opt out. if he does, the Cubs can let an aging slugger walk or resign him. if he decides not to opt out, then the Cubs then have a regular team option. so he can strong arm all he wants, the Cubs don't have to sign a 33 y.o. player to a 5 year contract if they don't want to. he can opt out and the parties can go to arbitration or part ways. the only way he can hold the Cubs over a barrel is a terrible market for thirdbasemen in 4 years, no viable prospect or filler, and the Cubs are trying to remain competetive. nobody knows what the market for thirdbasemen will be in 4 years or if the Cubs will be trying to remain competetive. The point is the Cubs would have to make a tough choice in that situation because it'd indicate he's playing well. On the other hand if he's not then he won't exercise it. That said, if it saved the Cubs 30m by giving it then it makes sense however overall the opt out is a bad thing for the Cubs. It's not a bad thing for the Cubs. Not anymore than paying somebody millions of dollars is a bad thing at least. It's clearly a benefit to the player, but it doesn't hurt the Cubs necessarily. It's something that is easy to plan around (you now have 4 years to find somebody that could replace Aramis if/when he opts out). It's only a bad thing if the Cubs are mismanaged between now and then and are so desperate for talent that they feel force to overpay him to stay. Then, it's not the opt out that's the problem, it's the mismanagement. Obviously the Cubs would prefer to have the player under their control until he dies for the minimum amount of money. But I wouldn't say it's a bad thing that a guy can go to free agency in 4 years if he wants to.

The media seems to be more focused on bitching about the league than enjoying the great games and great teams. It's the same as in baseball, crying out for the good ole days. The world will be a better place when all the baby boomers stop setting the agenda.

Aramis' comments yesterday really should have bought him some goodwill from the fanbase. He really showed a commitment to this team. If he wants goodwill, then he should show his committment by offering to pay for some of Zambrano's contract. Otherwise he's just a lazy fat jerk.