goonys evil twin

If the Cubs traded Izturis and Jones to Boston, and signed Lugo for SS, I would be perfectly fine with Pie hitting toward the bottom of the order. But as somebody else said, I think 7th, with DeRosa 8th, might be a little better.

Can you explain why you feel this way? In a market where Pierre gets 10 million, why do you think Jones value at 4 or 5 a year 'isn't all that high'? The Cubs can market his mainstream numbers. He was the 3rd best producing RF in the NL last year. I think he's saying that while there are still free agent bats, teams would prefer to sign those guys than trade for somebody like Jones. But if reports are true that GMj is getting $10m+, then all sanity has left the building and Jones could be a huge trading chip. Murton, and his many years of pre-free agency would be even higher though.

Seattle is great city. I can easily see why someone from that area would want to go back. Hey man, I love DC and wouldn't want to go anywhere else. But if the choice between two jobs, one in my preferred location and another in Chicago, for a 3 year gig...I think I can delay my preferred city for 3 years if it meant an extra 6 million dollars in my account. West coast gets played up too much. Schmidt isn't Clemens, he's ten years younger, and he's not on the cusp of retirement. For a 3 year gig, location probably doesn't mean that much to a guy not yet in his twilight years. I strongly agree with all that The Dude is saying here, and it's not just because I saw part of the Big Lebowski again last night. A few extra million would make the distance from your preferred locale pretty easy to deal with. It's not like he'd be spending every day at home either, they are travelling most of the time.

It's time to throw the farm at the Marlins for Cabrera.

And he'll probably account for a smaller chunk of the production as well.

Maybe, but since most relievers are second rate pitchers anyway, it's going to be a bunch of mediocre pitching. And you would routinely be in situations where nobody has more than 1 day's rest. It wouldn't have to be all relievers. You aren't going to get many very good pitchers to agree to be used that way, since it would hold back their earnings ability.

Maybe, but since most relievers are second rate pitchers anyway, it's going to be a bunch of mediocre pitching. And you would routinely be in situations where nobody has more than 1 day's rest.

The only game the Bulls have lost so far that I didn't think they were going to lose this month is the Kings game, which they gave away. I was hoping for 7-7. 6-8 or 5-9 look more likely now. Meh, it's November. When they're 3-11, we'll touch base. This is an amazingly bad basketball team right now. It's not just the west coast road trip. Like when they started 1-11 in Nov 04 and finished the season with 47 wins? Way too early -- even pointless -- to panic. But I'll stop arguing with you about it if you stop insisting I should be panicking now. :D Alright. If all you want to do is see the team tread water and be as good as they've been the past couple years, I could see the point in not being upset about the start. But I thought Bulls fans were expecting a huge improvement, and movement into the upper echelon of the league. It seems pretty clear to me they aren't going to be challenging for any titles. As an amateur observer, I think the Wallace signing looks pretty silly, overpaying for an old guy who isn't going to impact the team much. And they still don't have a single great player, which seems to be the most important thing to have in the NBA. If you're going to be happy with a playoff appearance and early exit, I guess there's nothing to be upset about. But if you wanted them in the conference finals at the minimum, then I can't imagine why a Bulls fan would be anything but hugely disappointed.

I agree with the sentiment. Unfortunately, Hendry put himself in a position where he almost had to do it. This contract wasn't nearly as bad as all the moves Hendry made that led up to it, over the years.

Sure they did. Michigan had close games against Penn State and BALL STATE. The Penn St game wasnt close, only the score. If you look at the season objectively I would say that either Michigan or USC should be #2. Michigan does have the best overall resume but USC will improve theirs if they win out. I want to also give USC credit for playing a real non-conference schedule. If it was up to me I would give it to USC if they win out. If not I think its Michigan and its not even a close arguement. Also I hate the arguement that Michigan had its shot. In reality everyone had their "shot". If any of the other teams were undefeated they would be playing in the NC game. So they had their shot. So Michigan should be punished for losing to the #1 team while others have lost to lower teams. that's my issue. People seem to be more concerned about not setting up a rematch instead of making sure it's 1 vs 2.

I thought he was retired.

I've heard this assertion made before and I don't get it. The issue isn't that Fonzie leads off the game or gets more AB's; rather, it's that he follows the low-OBP 7-8-9 slots in the lineup so his RBI potential is wasted. I think the theory is that order doesn't affect the teams total runs, all that much. It would affect any one players' R and RBI, but the team total would stay more or less the same.

You like the word "[expletive]"?

Cubs play home vs SEA and at Texas.

I don't what that has to do with anything. Michigan doesn't have to play well enough to deserve another shot. They need to be the 2nd best team in the country. And I think there is a strong case that they are. There certainly isn't a stronger case that anybody else is better.

Whys he love leading off so much is what I dont get?? I want him batting lower so he can drive in sum runs and do some damage I don't get why he insists either. But if he has to, then fine. At least this means they won't be going after a stereotypical leadoff hitter.

It might not have anything to do with spot in the order. He declined after a few years in the league when pitchers stopped giving him stuff to hit. He started to suck big time late in 2003, with NY, and bombed at leadoff in the playoffs. I think his resurgence had more to do with adjustments than with his comfort at leadoff compared to other spots. Your entitled to your theories. I could see that as possible. But I'd rather not toy with what's working from last year. Keep him in the 1 spot, and hope he keeps it up. Lou could change the line-up mid season to see if it effects Soriano once he's hitting well at the 1 spot. Or you talk to him in spring training and try and get him to deal with it from the beginning. If he seems happy there, keep him there. If not, then move back to leadoff.

To be fair, the Yankees have been doing stuff like this for years...the media is probably a bit numb to it by now. If the Yankees did this, there would be considerable criticism about them wasting time upgrading the offense and ignoring pitching. And Olney would have been in that group.

It might not have anything to do with spot in the order. He declined after a few years in the league when pitchers stopped giving him stuff to hit. He started to suck big time late in 2003, with NY, and bombed at leadoff in the playoffs. I think his resurgence had more to do with adjustments than with his comfort at leadoff compared to other spots.

Thank you, I didn't know it was that much! Here's my line-up. Soriano - batting first. Lou is smart enough to look at his stats and realize he hits better at lead-off. Why aren't some of you. Some of you are saying, we bat him 5th if he doesn't like it or not. Why aren't you acknowledging the much better #'s leading off? Maybe it's not all that smart to assume he hits better because he bats leadoff. If Lou can get him to accept 5th and be happy, that would be ideal.

The whispers I read say the Cubs are looking at Floyd for the bench, not to start (ESPN Insider). I like Floyd off the bench, but not as a starter. His decline has been sharp. 1999-2003 were great years for Floyd, but he hasn't been the same since then. Floyd was awesome in 2005. I guess it's all relative. Floyd's 2005 was similar to Jones 2006, but few people credit Jones season as 'awesome'. Floyd was solid in 2005, but it was a decline from his previous years. 626 PA, 125 OPS+ That's much better than what Jones did (577/107). Awesome might be a little strong, but that is a very good season. I'd kill to get a LH bat in there with such production next season.

The whispers I read say the Cubs are looking at Floyd for the bench, not to start (ESPN Insider). I like Floyd off the bench, but not as a starter. His decline has been sharp. 1999-2003 were great years for Floyd, but he hasn't been the same since then. Floyd was awesome in 2005.

OPS is what you do yourself, not with the help of teammates. OPS+ adjusts for park factors. If you are going to compare guys, OPS+ is one of the best things to use.

Home field is 3 1/2 points correct? 3, at least in College. Could be different for the NFL. That's kind of simplistic though. It's been the conventional wisdom, but it really doesn't hold true across the board. Some teams have better homefield advantage as others. And a lot of the line is based on the previous week's performance (and thus, how the public perceives the team). NE is also struggling at home this year, which may or may not influence a line.

This is true. I will never argue that Hendry is good at payroll management. I think he's an inefficient boob with the dollars. However, the Yankees are also a team that puts up 95 win seasons in a down year. I would kill for the Cubs to have back to back 95 win seasons, let alone 6 straight, and 9 of 10.