goonys evil twin

Aaron Rowand is a bad option. He's also not a free agent, rather, he's arbitration eligible.

Ohio State is favored by almost a touchdown and has been regarded as the best team in the country since beating Texas. My friend, a Michigan grad, was bitching about the spread on the game, saying it was "complete disrespect" for Michigan. Give me a break. The line was 6.5 when it came out. When you take out home field (~3 points), it says that Vegas thinks Ohio State is about 3 points better on a neutral field, which is completely reasonable. I guess fans like to convince themselves that nobody respects their team, though. I wish fans would realize the point spread has nothing to do with respect or even who the oddsmakers think is going to win the game. It is set to help promote the most amount of money on each side. Yes, but they try to put a line out there that won't move much. If there's a lot of action on one side and that side wins, then Vegas loses money on the game. Vegas doesn't like losing money. Vegas doesn't lose money. The line will move and they will vary the payouts to make sure they make money. ie Michigan at +6.5 with a 1:2 payout is not as enticing as at a 1:1 or 2:1 payout. Then why don't they just start the line at OSU -35? You'll sure as hell get action on that line. Because it is set to get money on both sides. They know what the gambling public thinks of each team.

I couldn't disagree more. Hendry signed Ramirez to an extension for a really great price leaving more money for the Cubs to get the other players they need. He also brought on board a 5th starter option who could be pretty good for just 1.5 guaranteed and brought back Kerry for only 1.75 guaranteed when he could have easily gotten more by going elsewhere. That's definitely doing something. I couldn't agree more. He has a very long way to go and he doesn't deserve any praise until he returns the Cubs to the postseason. Clearly the most important part of the off season is yet to come. The current Cubs are the same Cubs that stunk the past two years. He didn't bring a 5th starter onboard, Miller was already here. And he could just as easily be useless as he could be pretty good. Hendry kept the team together so far. Big deal. He needs to make the team a lot better. He has not done that yet. People are getting excited about the 2006 team returning. I don't get it. He's positioned the team so that it can get better, but it has not yet gotten better.

Doubtful. I assume they'd rather deal with 2 more 1.5 hour flights, sleep at home and practice at Halas Hall, rather than spend a week in Jersey City.

section 119. Lower level, corner of east end zone. Walking in I heard a Giants fan say "Man, there are a lot of Bears fans here." I went with a friend who is a Giants fan. I was in section 305. I hate how Giants stadium shows no important replays. It's bizarre and it makes it hard to figure out what's going on, especially during reviews. They will never show a replay of a play that could be at all construed as negative against the Giants. My friend pointed that out right away and it was noticable all game.

section 119. Lower level, corner of east end zone. Walking in I heard a Giants fan say "Man, there are a lot of Bears fans here." I went with a friend who is a Giants fan.

From what I've read, other teams were ready to keep him in their 'pen for 2007 with an option year and "promise" for 2008 to be in a rotation. He wouldn't be giving up any better role though, because he can still get back into a rotation in 2008 if he wants. It's not the Cubs contract forces him to the bullpen the rest of his life. His health status will determine that, regardless of the contract.

I agree with the sentiment, but what other role was he going to get elsewhere. I thought that medically, Wood had made the decision to be a reliever.

If san Diego trades Giles, wouldn't it be for salary to address other needs? I am not seeing how that deal helps San Diego. They would save about a million (and fill 2 spots) in 2007, and 5 million in 2008.

I would much prefer Drew as well.

Using a worst case scenario is as irrational as using the best case scenario. If you go into the season assuming the worst, then you have to fill all 25 positions because Zambrano's arm will fall off, Lee will be injured the whole year, ARam will break his leg hustling down the line, etc. I think you can expect a reasonable amount of production from established players and if they meet or exceed that production, you will probably have a winning year. If they fall below the reasonable expectations, then you will have a bad year. If you choose to take the worst case scenerio theory to the extreme, you are right. But realistically speaking, it's not that drastic. Players will fall below the reasonable expectations. It's the GMs job to make sure that doesn't guarantee a bad year. You have to build in a cushion to withstand such setbacks.

I had mucho faith in the late 90's and early 00's. I had high expectations for Hendry and the organization. I thought multiple 90+ win teams was not just possible, but likely. Hendry blew it.

Wow, that is absolutely ridiculous. I just cannot fathom paying that much for one unproven player in the MLB. they'll make it back and then some in t-shirt sales alone. If that is the case I don't understand why every team in the league didn't bid that much. Every team doesn't sell as many t-shirts as Boston.

If it was just a salary dump, maybe. If they pick up some of the salary, definitely.

I have no problem with that whatsoever.

I've seen this written more than once and I have to disagree. I think the current core make-up of the team is a .500 team, though not much better. The current team is not much different than last year's true, but it also isn't much different than core 2005 team, which essentially was a .500 team. The problem with this thinking is, whatever you think they essentially were, or are, in reality, they were below .500. You can't just hand them .500 because we expect the bad breaks to even out. You also can't hand them below .500 because you think the bad breaks will continue. The core of this team produced a near .500 record in 2005, and was with bad breaks, though not to the extent of last year. I think 2005 is much closer to the real Cubs team at present than 2006. It's much smarter to assume setbacks than good luck. I hand them below .500 because they have finished below .500 back to back. They aren't "essentially" a .500 team because they didn't finish at .500.

Ironically, I was thinking precisely the same thing about your system, applicable to either only 'good' or 'bad', with no other gradiation. Under your system, Dombrowski in Detroit went from the best to the worst, and then back to the best again. He also went from the worst to the best with nearly the same team on the field. I'm not willing to buy that GM grades are black and white, or that his ability to manage shifted so drastically so quickly. And you're not allowed to inject circumstances or exceptions into the logic, because that blows the whole system up. As soon as exceptions enter the discussion, Hendry gets a free pass, because the Cubs have been the king of exceptions (especially with regards to health). When the exceptions include payroll they have to work with, time in office, and where the team was when they took over, that all matters. Dombrowski took over a terrible team that hadn't been above .500 in ten years. At the same time, Hendry took over a team that was one year off a 88 win season. Dombrowski made the team better after one season there, and then the team was great by his 4th season. Hendry's team got worse and worse. He also has a history of creating extremely talented teams in Montreal (but was forced to trade much of the talent away) and built and won with Florida. I never claimed it was black and white based solely on record. Circustance matters. Health is not an exception, because health is something that you have to factor in to what you build. If you go with guys who have injury histories, odds are you will get hit by injury problems. Likewise, if you have a payroll in the top 25% of the game, but finish in the bottom 25%, two years in a row, you do not compare favorably with guys who get a lot less to work with, but finish similarly or better.

Barrett is now 30. And the story that he hasn't had much time at catcher no longer holds. He's got in excess of 6200 innings behind the plate in the majors. LoDuca only has 400 more innings despite being that much older. He also hasn't come close to repeating his peak offensive production from when he was a bright eyed bushy tailed 29 year old. He's also known as a good defensive catcher. Barrett might be able to remain above average as a hitter, but he's unlikely to maintain his current pace. And despite being a great hitting catcher now, there is still debate about how much his defense offsets that offense. I think at his best it's more than worth having him in there. But if he falls back to the 100 OPS+, like LoDuca, from his 121, he's no longer outproducing the field, and might no longer be valuable. He will be 31, 32 and 33 if you sign him to a new 3 year deal, with well over 7000 innings behind the plate. AJP is similarly aged, and was similarly productive offensively in his mid-20's, but he's got a little more wear and tear on the body, and has declined sooner. After 2007, I think Barrett will fit the profile of a catcher who is soon to fall off significantly with the bat. He doesn't compare to the few elite guys who blew past the normal limits.

If he develops at Iowa, he has a lot of value in a trade - which would help the Cubs a lot more than any bench role he has. Maybe. But then again, if he gets to play now and again in the majors, and does well, his trade value will be even higher. I'd strongly consider him for a bench spot on the big club. The guys who are hurt by getting called up and sitting on the bench are generally inexperienced raw players who would benefit from the at bats in the minors. Moore has plenty of minor league time under his belt, 4 straight more or less full seasons, over 2000 plate appearances (more than double what Murton had). I'm not sure Moore has much to gain in the minors. A season of 1000 OPS in AAA would probably increase his trade value, but I'm not sure there's much of a chance of it increasing without such an unlikely breakout season. At this point, the best thing he could do to increase his value might be to show he can handle major league pitching, as well as multiple major league positions. Piniella is talking about resting guys. Moore can get time at 1st and 3rd right away, and might be able to work in the OF, in addition to regular PH duty.

I'm not sure what you define as "THAT" much, but OPS+ the last three years. MB - 105, 113, 121 JE - 114, 72, 91 You are talking about a significantly above averege hitter (and by all means, a great hitting catcher) compared with a below average hitter who compares with a lot of bad hitting catchers. Estrada might be closer to Blanco bad than Barrett good.

Catcher may be a hole regardless as soon as 2008. Barrett is a free agent after this season, and it's not a guarantee that resigning him is the right choice. When you look at the history of catchers in their 30's, it brings a lot of doubt to the table. The Cubs may have missed their window of being really good with Barrett really productive.

i dont really get the cedneo theriot comparisions. cedeno had 80 ab's in 2005 and ended up with a .731 ops. ryan had 134 ab's in 2006 and ended up with a .934 ops. theriot is 27 and has had some success in the minors hitting .304 twice and has had 3 season with obp above .360. he doesnt strike out, is above average on defense, steals bases and runs well, gets the bunt down and moves guys over. the instincts and fundamentals that theroit showed in his short time in the bigs far surpass anything i've seen from cedeno. i know it's human nature not to want to get burned again by getting our hopes too high and that ryan most likely wont see a .900+ ops in the majors but i dont think .280 with a .750 ops and 40 sb's is out of the question. that is a vast improvement over the .610 ronny put up last year. They aren't great comparisons for players. But there is a comparison for how the Cubs need to handle the situation. That is, there is nothing wrong with going with either player to start the season, but you have to build a team that can withstand them not doing anything at the plate. You don't know what Theriot will be able to do, and we didn't know what Cedeno was able to do. You can take a risk with such a cheap player, but you have to use the money saved to buy some guaranteed production elsewhere. You can't go into a season with a mediocre OF and risk getting nothing out of a middle infielder.

I think he's convinced it's important to act like that to be a good coach. I'm quite certain a pyschologist would diagnose him with some sort of anti-social disorder. He hates everybody.

We've had this argument before. IMO, judging a GM by W-L record is like judging a pitcher by W-L record. W-L records are not predictable, but production usually is (especially in veteran players). I judge a GM through prospect development, player production per dollar, trade savvy (in terms of value coming and going), and team-building plan and execution. And if you judge him by any of those things, there is nothing to say other than he's a failure. You can't judge a pitcher by W-L because his teammates can effect what happens. But a GM is responsible for the entire team. He doesn't have the excuse of saying he pitched well but the hitters show up. He can't blow off a 1-0 loss by saying the hitters didn't execute, because he is responsible for those hitters being there. You're system of judgement will inevitably create a cloudy ranking where everybody is considered a good GM because they are a GM. It's like the generic "good baseball man" description. If you look at your ranking criteria and say Hendry is anything but a failure, then you are saying just about every other GM is a great GM. That's impossible. This is a competition. There are winners and losers, not a collection of good guys winning participation ribbons. The winners are good and the losers are bad, in relation to the rest of the league. Hendry has been a loser, and has been very bad.

I've seen this written more than once and I have to disagree. I think the current core make-up of the team is a .500 team, though not much better. The current team is not much different than last year's true, but it also isn't much different than core 2005 team, which essentially was a .500 team. The problem with this thinking is, whatever you think they essentially were, or are, in reality, they were below .500. You can't just hand them .500 because we expect the bad breaks to even out. You can't plan a team assuming things will be fine. Guys are going to get hurt and/or underperform, and the only way to win when guys get hurt and/or underperform is to put together a team that is good enough to withstand setbacks. It's not good to have a team that can be essentially .500. Hendry has to put a team on the field that is capable of 95-100 wins. Capable, not guaranteed. With setbacks you might have to settle for 90 wins. And that might not be enough to make the playoffs. But it's real improvement. Essentially .500 is essentially not trying. There is something to be said about this team not being a "real" 96 loss team. But the problem is they aren't a real contender either. They are not, and have not been, a real 90 win team in several years. They were essentially a little better than a .500 team the last time they made the playoffs. They were never elite, or close to it. It's possible to play deep into October without being elite. But it's not easy.