goonys evil twin

I'm not sure that will be the case next year. I don't know. It's hard to be worse at the plate than Ceasar. That's true, but in 2004, Counsell managed. And he was just as bad in 2003.

I really have no opinion on whether the 25th man is Bynum or Counsell. I'd prefer neither. but what I want to know is, when making this comparison, why don't we hear about "the OBP component is the more important part of OPS." why don't we hear "Bynum never displayed that kind of power in the minor before and probably will never display it in the majors again" out of your? why when arguing one player v. another, do these things that you often say in other comparisons suddenly fall away? are you more interested in winning an argument or hashing out who is the better player? The OBP difference wasn't that big last year. If you are going to claim that a guy who will turn 37 next year, coming off a terrible season, after a series of bad ones, is a better option that whatever dirt cheap unproductive player you already have, then I would think a 21 point difference in OPS+ the previous season would be meaningful. It's not like Counsell is some OBP savant. He's drawn more walks in his career than you might think possible for such a poor hitter, but he's living off a career year in a WS season 6 seasons ago. Somebody tried to hand the "better" title to Counsell over Bynum without any evidence to support such a claim. I'd like it much more if neither set foot in the home dugout at Wrigley next season. There's no reason why Theriot can't handle the backup SS duties, and Cedeno should be next in line on that question.

Refreshing insight, but I don't think anyone is advocating "Man, we've got to get Counsell...he's the last piece to the Puzzle" I thought the discussion was "Counsell or Bynum." In that context, I think it is fair to "pick" Counsell...would we like someone better, hell yes, but as I understand it that wasn't the question. And yet Bynum, as bad as he is, was still better than Counsell last year, and younger and he's cheaper. The discussion was that Counsell is supposedly on Hendry's radar, that's terrible news. Only when guaged by OPS...anyway, this discussion is nowhere near worth the time its taking...and pointless on several levels... Hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving. Yes, only when using a measurement that actually attempts to value a player's overall production at the plate is it easy to see that Bynum was more productive at the plate than Counsell last year. But Counsell puts that ball in play, Neifi style all the way baby.

Greg should get a restraining order against Rozner.

Refreshing insight, but I don't think anyone is advocating "Man, we've got to get Counsell...he's the last piece to the Puzzle" I thought the discussion was "Counsell or Bynum." In that context, I think it is fair to "pick" Counsell...would we like someone better, hell yes, but as I understand it that wasn't the question. And yet Bynum, as bad as he is, was still better than Counsell last year, and younger and he's cheaper. The discussion was that Counsell is supposedly on Hendry's radar, that's terrible news.

I don't ever recall Counsell being a Yankee That's right, AZ was 2001, Counsell's last good season. He'll turn 37 next season. The Cubs need to stop being the last stop on the retirement line for worthless players like this.

I'm guessing 2 Marquis.

Counsell is a worthless piece of crap 36 year old who should not be considered for a role on the Chicago Cubs, unless your goal is to win the 2000 World Series. Counsell has value in nostalgia land, not reality.

The Rex attacks continue. This morning Mike and Mike were talking about the QB's in the league and who you would start a team with. I don't recall who they picked, but I believe it was something like Eli or Rivers. That's not the issue though. The issue is how they talked about Grossman. First of all they talked about how he started but has regressed the past couple weeks. Yes, he did start hot and then regress. But that's a rather simplistic version of the events. He lit the league on fire to start the season. He sucked against Arizona, magnificent against SF, bad against Miami, very good against the Giants and perfectly fine against the Jets. He's lit teams up from the start, come from behind, and played it safe. No, he's not the perfect QB. But still, people are pimping up Tony Freaking Romo after 5 freaking games (in which he has 5 ints), and talking about Grossman like a liability for this team. As was pointed out in the Sun Times, Grossman has the best winning percentage of any active QB who has 16 starts. I was never a huge Grossman fan. I didn't want him drafted. But the fact is the guy has been a wonderful QB for the Bears and he's been taking an inordinate amount of hits from people for not doing it the way they want him to do it. And it's not just coming from meathead Bears fans who talk about toughness and Bear weather and all that gibberish. The national media despises Grossman.

The Cubs should be done with 36/37 year old bench players coming off terrible seasons in a series of terrible seasons.

I hope I never have to hear those two words in connection with a Cubs managerial move ever again. I'm not saying I like the idea, or even that I like Counsell...just that I like Counsell better than Bynum as a player...(there is an argument for Bynum that he's faster so if we need a base swiped, or a runner to advance on a sac fly, or score on a single from 2nd late in the game he'd be better, and he'll likely be cheaper, but that doesnt' seem to matter much anymore). That being said, I don't love either option. Last year Bynum had an OPS+ of 90, Counsell was 69. If we are counting on the slugging of either Counsell or Bynum to get us anywhere then we might as well just quit now. We aren't "counting" on it, but the fact is Bynum was more productive last year. It doesn't make much sense to go out and pay more for less productive bench players.

I hope I never have to hear those two words in connection with a Cubs managerial move ever again. I'm not saying I like the idea, or even that I like Counsell...just that I like Counsell better than Bynum as a player...(there is an argument for Bynum that he's faster so if we need a base swiped, or a runner to advance on a sac fly, or score on a single from 2nd late in the game he'd be better, and he'll likely be cheaper, but that doesnt' seem to matter much anymore). That being said, I don't love either option. Last year Bynum had an OPS+ of 90, Counsell was 69. So? Tell me why YOU prefer Bynum. So? Well, that tells you Bynum was more productive last year. They both suck. But when stocking the team with sucky bench players, it's wise not to spend anymore than the minimum. It's really stupid to even consider spending $1 million. Use that million on a player that can actually help the team. The fact that Counsell won a ring means nothing. The fact that somebody would bring that up as some sort of credit in his favor is, well, it's telling.

I hope I never have to hear those two words in connection with a Cubs managerial move ever again. I'm not saying I like the idea, or even that I like Counsell...just that I like Counsell better than Bynum as a player...(there is an argument for Bynum that he's faster so if we need a base swiped, or a runner to advance on a sac fly, or score on a single from 2nd late in the game he'd be better, and he'll likely be cheaper, but that doesnt' seem to matter much anymore). That being said, I don't love either option. Last year Bynum had an OPS+ of 90, Counsell was 69.

2007 might not be nearly as expensive as we've been hearing, or maybe Hendry is going to get more players than we every thought about. Budgeting Aramis at $8m this year is low. I'm guessing Soriano's will be back loaded as well. The downside is that in 4 years, we might be making salary dumps.

Counsell is the player I feared would end up on this team when Gary Hughes came on board.

False How so? Roberts is quite a bit better. I would disagree with that. He's been more productive the last few years. That's not debatable.

We are better, but not nearly good enough. What is your problem with that? It's absurd to compare last year's team to next and include Soriano over Jones and Jones over Pierre. The Cubs might go out and get 2 pitchers, but they might go out and get two crap pitchers. It's ain't close to done yet. They were an abysmal team. They probably aren't anymore. But I'm not one to get giddy over the Cubs not sucking. I wasn't happy with back to back plus .500 seasons, I'm not going to be happy with a partial offseason.

They could have made that move for financial reasons as well. Boston might be in a little bit of a financial pinch. Their owner has lost money in the market recently. They just spent a ton on the pitcher, and probably need more. I'm not sure they are absolutely going to go for offensive improvement at SS.

We've only improved at one of the outfield spots. Jones is still Jones(and '07 Jones is likely to be worse than '06 Jones) even if he moves to a different position. Also, DeRosa is far from a guarantee to be an upgrade over our 2B production in '06(.274/.326/.411/.737). Not to mention, this team has to improve a lot just to get to .500. Simply improving the team was the easy part. It would be almost impossible to not improve this team. I won't be happy until this team is great. And it's not.

The official line didn't really go out that far, but Kentucky would be below if it was extended.

or Notre Dame to the Big 10, some combo of Boise St./Hawaii/BYU/TCU/Utah to PAC-10 I'm operating under the assumption that ND won't join a conference. Even if they'd be receptive to it in the future, they've got four more seasons of NBC dollars to look forward to at least (and that's assuming that NBC wouldn't want ND back, which considering the future of the team wouldn't be a good bet). Well then there's no point in making all these changes. It's either ND to the Big Ten or nothing. Why would you say that? I thought what I proposed was fairly reasonable. Of course you do, your an ND fan who likes the advantage of being independent and an iconic program. The only point to make all these changes is to make clear cut winners and bring some "fairness" to the discussion of national championships. That doesn't happen with ND independent. Louisville probably has no chance of setting foot in the Big Ten.

or Notre Dame to the Big 10, some combo of Boise St./Hawaii/BYU/TCU/Utah to PAC-10 I'm operating under the assumption that ND won't join a conference. Even if they'd be receptive to it in the future, they've got four more seasons of NBC dollars to look forward to at least (and that's assuming that NBC wouldn't want ND back, which considering the future of the team wouldn't be a good bet). Well then there's no point in making all these changes. It's either ND to the Big Ten or nothing.

Terry Boers really hates Ramirez. Too bad he's the best player on the team.

That last question was about an inch from turning into a "will you start hustling now?"

first question is about Soriano This press conference is stupid. What's the point? To reintroduce the player they all know already and ask him about the new guy?