seanimal

this. there definitely was a "grass is greener" attitude when it came to campbell and that contract.

i'm not sure i've understood this situation from the start. i thought the proper reaction, and i must say i executed it well, was "lol z being z." instead, and perhaps predictably, it was blown up into this "he QUIT on his TEAM EXCLAMATION POINTS THERES NO TURNING BACK". when really, all that was needed was an apology and some more sessions with his shrink. you gotta love him for who he is (an millionaire man-child, effective starting pitcher), not who you want him to be.

i don't buy that zambrano is enough of a clubhouse cancer that his on paper value is mitigated, especially if the expectations for what this organization and clubhouse will be like ring true. there has been very little leadership and top-down discipline and accountability in the cubs clubhouse for a long, long time. given the right environment, i think zambrano can be a very valuable contributor to the cubs 2012 season and perhaps beyond, moreso than any middling prospects we may get in return for paying z to pitch somewhere else.

http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/rob-bradford/2011/10/27/joe-maddon-might-not-be-fit-red-sox-he-knows- well he's clearly biased. jk, and i would have to say that maddon's endorsement is about as good as it's going to get when it comes to QUOTEevidenceQUOTE. but it doesn't tell me that he can make the switch from his current role to one like maddon's, anymore than sveum or alomar jr. all i'm saying is i'm not ready to commit guys. but i also understand that most, if not all of us, truly have no idea who would be a better mgr for this team amongst our top-tier candidates. i honestly think if we're talking about one of martinez, maddux, or alomar jr., then that in and of itself is a victory. i just don't trust that sveum guy, seems like an alabaster lovie smith to me.

look young fella, i'm not saying your bearded dugout jesus wouldn't be a good manager or a better candidate than any other person on the radar. and i certainly understand that the nature of his work compared to say, a pitching coach, makes it more difficult to parse out what his contribution to the team may be. i'm not even suggesting that maybe, in the grand scheme of the rays success, his contribution is relatively small. but i don't see much that would stand in the way of a claim like that. ultimately, i just think it's kind of goofy to be like "well i want guy x" because of [insert flimsy reasons here]. the facial hair decisions of the respective candidates seems about as solid of a preference point than anything else that's been trotted out here.

duh less turco. kaner to center has to count for something too, especially once he busts the curve. healthy (so far, fingers crossed) hossa too.

i didn't say wanting martinez was troublesome; i said the reasoning, if it is based on tangential evidence, is troublesome. i just don't see any actual evidence or convincing reasoning as to why i should like or want him making lineups over the likes of Alomar Jr., for instance.

this is definitely a better team than last year. the +1 goal differential is a product of getting stomped two games in a row in a young season. sure, this team has issues, but will finish with a significantly better record this season and display much stronger fundamental strengths statistically when all is said and done. how they perform in the playoffs is anyone's guess. i'm not sure what to think of the power play. i'm not hitting the freakout button for two reasons. before the loss to TB, and especially pre-carolina, the power play was dominating the puck, rotating well, and creating traffic... literally doing everything except lighting the lamp. since then, the pp has essentially mirrored their woes at 5-on-5. if the 5-on-5 was working it and the pp was playing like this, that would be worrisome. regression to the mean will be kicking in eventually.

Why? because we're attracted to him based upon those around him without knowing his contribution to the whole. i suppose we can assume that because the smart people we know are smart trust and rely on him, that he must be worthy of that trust, but how does that necessarily instil confidence that he can effectively perform a job that he hasn't yet shown he can do? i don't mean to argue that martinez is not a good candidate, just that i haven't seen any solid information to support the exuberance for his candidacy that has sprung forth on the forum as of late. especially given the tendency of great organizations to inflate the performance of their more average cogs. i think this is different from someone like maddux, where we can draw positive correlations between his tenure with the rangers and the performance of the pitchers there. it's not absolute, and it certainly doesn't equate to success at the manager level, but it at least is evidence as opposed to speculation.

i don't get the love for martinez, beyond the guilty-by-association thing with the rays. that strikes me as pretty troublesome reasoning if that's all we're going on.

zambrano provides optimal value to the cubs by pitching and hitting for us every five days. we won't get anything meaningful in return via trade from now until, perhaps, the trade deadline. why an american league team would want anything to do with zambrano is beyond me.

earth2sean: royals not actually all that interested in Z

The WGN radio guys are ripping on the Hawks effort in this one. Too much individual play, not giving full effort on loose pucks, settling for low percentage shots from 45-50 feet away and not enough fighting for a spot down low to redirect/put in rebounds. Teams are really figuring out that we are not dumping the puck in the zone enough. Its usually one guy taking it all the way into the zone. Which is fine many times but if 3 guys challenge you in the neutral zone instead of dropping back and forechecking inside the zone, you need to be able to dump and chase. oh absolutely. in the last two games you can absolutely see both defenders push up to the neutral zone, often aided by a third, as the hawks approach the offensive zone with the puck. dump the puck and win the foot race a few times and then the defensemen will need to play more honest, especially when they get burned. instead they just continually try to will the puck towards the goalie, and get their purses snatched every time. it's maddening. and for all our supposed toughness, we are winning close to zero position battles near the crease on either end, and it is exasperating woes on both ends.

forecheck, backcheck, any kind of check is working against the hawks right now. teams have the book on us and we look absolutely helpless.

forecheck, backcheck, any kind of check is working against the hawks right now. teams have the book on us and we look absolutely helpless.

i am in awe of how crappy we look right now. and crawford lets in a luongo. this is embarrassing.

or will they team up in some sort of neo-industrial fantasy land where they eat mushrooms, smash bricks with their heads, and kick turtles into their enemies?

if you take away the moments of pure dominance by kaners line and the apparent finger in the dam that is duncan keith, this team has been pretty underwhelming thus far. i think they get better, perhaps much better, but it's going to be a work in progress. and a trade for defenseman that doesn't lose his diaper in his own zone

he didn't get fired, he resigned. or retired, whatever you want to call it. i'm not going to agree with you, or apparently most people, but i believe in chain of command within an organization, rather than every person being responsible for reporting something to everyone else. in large organizations you're trained to report situations to superiors except in the case of imminent danger, and the superiors are expected to follow a set of procedures from there. if i suspect abuse but not imminent danger as part of my coaching in special olympics, i pass this along to the administration. as a third party, i don't know that i'd follow up because i assume the people in the administration will handle the situation properly. even if i did follow up, i'm not sure that i'd get any answers because of privacy rules. say i'm a middle manager at a company and a female employee comes to me saying that she's been harassed by a male co-worker. say i'm expected to pass this information along to upper management, and i do so, and they interview her and find that there likely has been harassment going on. but for whatever reason - embarrassment, fear of litigation, they view the male employee as a bright up-and-coming star in the company - they take no action. then the woman gets raped by the harassing co-worker. should i, the middle manager, be fired or punished or publicly shamed for not pushing her claim more? i don't think so, because i did my responsibility properly. the people above me did not. now i'm sure your response will be "but joepa is psu athletics!!!!!!!" but in legal matters, he has always deferred to the administration, as he did here. you are welcome to feel otherwise. what an upstanding company man you are!

That's what it sounds like. If that is actually the case, Dave Martinez please Or it could mean that he's happy with his situation and the kids will be in school for 3 more years there. Right. He doesn't want to manage. the red sox

the schaumburg thing would be such an easy bluff to call because it's a terrible location. now lombard, that would get their attention.

roast, is that you?

the hatred towards crane kenney is totally over the top and hilarious. but i mean, he does seem like the kind of guy who dreams in corporatespeak, tells all the black women he comes in contact with that he "likes your hair", and weasels a john lennon quote into most powerpoint presentations. regardless, keep the lights on ck and we're good.

is randall simon still playing? he always seemed like the cerebral type.

if you're listening to the radio and theo epstein is saying good things about you, chances are high you just got fired from the cubs