goonys evil twin

A) He didn't have a full time position last year, so he couldn't have proved such a thing. B) What you are saying is clearly ignoring his career numbers (not to mention the fact noted in A) He didnt have a full time possition but he had full time at bats, and he's never had that in the past. His career numbers tell you what he was, not what he has become. I think Derosa and the hitting coach in Texas really figured out some things and I think Derosa will be a pretty solid player based on what I saw him do last year. Could his season be a complete fluke and a 1 time thing? I guess its a possibility, but I think its worth the risk in this case. They can always move him into a utility role and use someone else at 2nd. I dissagree with Hendry in alot of cases, Im no Hendry appologist, but Im on board with this signing. I dont think Meche would be such a great idea. He still didn't have full-time at bats. He played in only 136 games and had under 600 PA. I think it's naive to dismiss his career numbers as willingly as you do. I don't dismiss his 2006, in fact, his 2006 is the only reason why I don't see this as as bad as the 2/5 to Neifi. He does have the chance to do something decent. But 3/14 for a chance at being decent is silly when you have as pathetic an offense as the Cubs have. Lou wet his pants over Polanco this postseason and I think he sees DeRosa as his Polanco. Trouble is, Polanco was better at his best, and he was actually crap this year.

If Cesar's gone, Lugo in CF doesn't make much sense. But as it is, Lugo in CF doesn't make much sense. He's just a hair more productive than Pierre. And he's got no experience out there. If they just say they are willing to play Lugo out there, in order to not look desperate to trade Izturis, that's another thing.

I'd love to see it. If they upgraded CF, RF and SS at this point, I'd go bonkers.

He'd be a nice platoon player at a low cost.

Well, Bears fans on this board are still spending a lot more time talking about the Giants game than this one. The media is focused more on the theory that they locked up the #1 seed, and that the Patriots game is on the horizon. And the Jets have been an afterthought all season. Yes, they are 5-4. Yes, it's inexcusable to not take them seriously. But such things happen all the time. The Bears seem as proud of themselves for beating the Giants as they were for coming back against Arizona. The only thing that could make this more of a candidate for a letdown game was if the Jets had a worse record. But I'm still not convinced football people think of the Jets as a 5-4 team.

I am assuming a pretty large trade (in terms of number of players) will happen sometime this offseason. No idea what it'll look like though.

There's a reason why he's still here. His poor results are accepted by many, and applauded by a similar number.

A) He didn't have a full time position last year, so he couldn't have proved such a thing. B) What you are saying is clearly ignoring his career numbers (not to mention the fact noted in A)

Yeah, it's kneejerk to say a player who claimed the Cubs offered him the starting 2B job (and a GM who says he loves his infield with Izturis and DeRosa up the middle) is going to be the starting 2B. Right, kneejerk. Good one. DeRosa is either an overpaid utility player or an unworthy starting second baseman. Tell me again where the knee jerk reaction was.

In defense of the guy at your work: 1) It's a non-conference team that nobody is taking all that seriously (a better Miami) 2) The fact that it is in the middle of a 3 game raod trip against their best conference opponent and best AFC opponent is a perfectly good reason why this could be a letdown. It's the least important of the 3 games. 3) Well, that doesn't say anything about the Bears. I think it could be a letdown for both teams, which is why I said potential battle of letdown games. 4) The wakeup call against Miami and finding the groove the following week could have been the same story after the Arizona loss. Being comfortable with a building doesn't have anything to do with not letting down (if anything, it could be more of a reason to letdown). I see a Bears win. I don't think the Jets will play as well as they did last week. And they really didn't do a whole lot last week anyway.

That was you?!?

At what point do we start looking for a new GM? October 2005

If somebody gave DeRosa this stupid contract, I sure as heck wouldn't jump on Hendry for not doing so first. This is just nonsense. DeRosa is exactly the type of guy you can afford to sit back and wait for, because if somebody else signs him, you haven't missed out on anything.

What I don't understand is why anybody would want DeRosa. never said i did, just saying that this is the going rate, i would be willing to bet that urham gets at least 5-6 mill. what happens if derosa splits with jones? pretty good production in rf for less then 10 million. my whole point is you can't tear apart moves without knowing the ral meaning behind them. i will let the offseason play out and judge from that point on. What does that even mean? Knowing the real meaning? I think the real meaning is pretty clear. Hendry's scouts fell in love with DeRosa and, Hendry being Hendry, he ignored thinks like DeRosa's poor seasons past, his lack of every being a regular, and his age, and he focused only on the upside. He was his first target in free agency, and he got him. Now he's the starting 2B.

It seems like speculation, but it could also be close to happening. There's no way to know until after it's done (or doesn't happen).

A gamble on such a player would be fine. If Jim gets him for 1 year relatively cheaply, great. If he signs him longterm at big money, that's not a gamble, that's throwing away money.

What I don't understand is why anybody would want DeRosa. I think he's a decent bench guy, but not at 4.3 million. But he's not here to be a bench guy, he's here to be your starting 2B. Huge difference. And huge problem.

What I don't understand is why anybody would want DeRosa. I think he's a decent bench guy, but not at 4.3 million. Exactly. And you don't start out your offseason springing for decent bench guys. You don't target that type of player as the "guy you want". He's the type of guy you sit around and wait for, because he's replacable. Studs aren't replacable, those are the guys you should want, and those are the guys you go after without regard for bargains.

What I don't understand is why anybody would want DeRosa.

It's the "guys who can catch the ball" of 2007. Imagine for a second that the 2007 infielders all produce at their career averages in 2007' date=' unlikely, but not absurd. Lee - 155 games, 123 OPS+ DeRosa - 100 games, 90 OPS+ Izturis - 100 games, 68 OPS+ Ramirez - 140 games, 109 OPS+ Throw in a bad-nutted Michael Barrett - 130 games 91 OPS+, backed up by Blanco - 50 games, 66 OPS+ Man, the pitching better be really really good this year.[/quote'] Lee, Ramirez, and Barrett will all be at above their "career averages" DeRosa, Izturis, Blanco and Jones could easily be below theirs. I realize it's not likely that the players would hit their averages (as I noted above), but generally it's not an absurd to look at those for each player. I'd like it if they had some players who were a little more likely to perform than the players they currently have.

I would really like to see the acceptable fans' list. From what I can tell, this board has narrowed Hendry's acceptable signing list to JD Drew and everybody else is subpar or a waste of money. You are really something man. There's been at least a dozen names out there that have been repeated over and over. Yet you can't do anything but defend Hendry from the big bad wolves who unfairly criticize a GM who has repeatedly shown the ability to field a team that wins more games than the best NBA teams.

And until a guy like that shows he he can break through, you give him short-term low money deals. I wouldn't have a problem with Meche at 1 year $4-5 million.

Meche was talked about by some as a guy who could be a value sign, due to his poor career numbers and lack of stability as far as innings/starts go. The theory was that if you gave a guy like that $4-5m, you might have a 30 start 190 inning 100 ERA+ kind of pitcher, which is okay. The value was in the supposed lack of interest to pay him much. If you end up paying him a lot of money, and/or guaranteeing him any more than 1 year, you are erasing all that value, and just overpaying another below average pitcher.

I hear a lot about this guys stuff, but what exactly does he have that he hasn't shown? He doesn't strike many guys out. He doesn't prevent the longball. What am I missing in terms of this supposed stuff and the results he's gotten from it?

It's not like he's going from Toronto to Florida. The NL central isn't much of an offensive downgrade from the AL west. He's not going from facing the Yankees and Red Sox a couple times a month to facing the Cubs. His ERA+ was just 97 last year, Maddux had a 99 for the Cubs last year. That's not very helpful.