Jon

I absolutely cannot believe the officiating at tonight's NU/UIC game. There's a reason the officials were rushed away by a police escort and it wasn't b/c of the 20 students in attendance. The refs knew they slept through the entire game. They absolutely REFUSED to call a foul underneath the basket. I would've thought they left their whistles at home. They allowed more hacking and bumping than I've ever seen and it was that way for both sides. And when they did blow the whistle, they often blew the call. And how many travelling violations were called? I don't recall any. I have absolutely no idea how they called a charge on Hachad during a 2 on 1 fast break when the defender was running the court with him. But that wasn't the biggest joke of the night. Carmody got in the ref's face at the end of the game and rightfully so. The one who blew most of the calls all night decided to go on a power trip and give Carmody three technical fouls and six free throws...in addition to the ball out of bounds. Right at the buzzer, they started running towards the exit. Was there a threat? Of course not. There were about two other students who actually stood during the game and nobody cared. They ran out of there because they knew what a sham they pulled off. I sure as heck hope the two non-regulars don't come back to Evanston. And if by some chance there were any UIC fans at the game, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the officiating. As I said, it was deplorable for both sides.

Wrong. I believe he can greatly influence results. And I believe Jim's moves greatly influenced the collapse of the Cubs, just like KW's moves greatly influenced the results of the WS. Influence, sure. But do his decisions account for the overwhelming majority of a team's success or failure? I would say no. Things like managerial moves after he's hired, the quality of coaches after they're hired, individual performance, fluke injuries, quality of opponents, etc. are things largely out of their control. Therefore, I don't think a GM should be judged primarily on records and championships. There are a ton of ways to look at good decisions. I don't have a particular method. It involves immediate analysis of where the team was, what the team needed, what they gave up, and what other moves could have been done and both short-term and long-term production. But the important part for me is that each decision is evaluated without what the team ends up doing as the primary factor. And my opinion that he hasn't made, on average, good decisions is based on a collection of evaluations of all of his individual moves. If you want to disagree, fine. But that's how I think a GM should be credited or held accountable. And I don't think it's absurd that I should form such opinions based on what I value.

It's called missing the forest for the trees. To ignore the end result is completely unacceptable if you are trying to put forth any reasonable judgement on a GM. The job was done. Who are you or I to say it was done poorly. Sure we can have opinions on individual deals. But no GM makes all the right moves. Nobody is saying Kenny is the greatest GM ever. But there has to be some sort of ranking of who is a good GM, who is mediocre and who is bad. If you take a middling payroll, come up with 5 straight .500 or better seasons, win 99 games and a WS one year, and keep making your team better, I don't see how you can be ranked anywhere but among the better GMs. I have a lot of strong opinions about the moves Hendry makes. But at least I'm not so arrogant as to think that even if he showed repeated success and ultimately won the big one within 5 years, that he didn't do a good job. If Kenny didn't do a good job, then who did? And if you can judge a GM based simply off of individual deals while ignoring results, why don't you lay out your rankings and support those claims? In my opinion, a GM cannot control results. Obviously, you believe otherwise. And why should I rank GMs? What other GMs do has minimal impact on whether or not I think a certain GM is making good moves. I don't care what the norms are because quite frankly, I don't think we have an even spread of good, average, and bad GMs in MLB. I'm not sure how you're supporting your claim other than saying wins mean the GM is doing a good job. Would you conclude that any GM who has had a similar past five years at any point like KW has is good? I certainly wouldn't. Again, all I ask for from my GM is good decisions.

MLB.com I just want to go on record and say that I literally laughed out loud when I read that. I don't see anything funny about that. :x You've been given too much material to laugh at in the past month or so, anyways.

I'm not going to get into the Thome trade because I'm not sure how I feel about it yet, but relying on things to pay off isn't a strategy I want my GM to hold. He made a lot of moves that I don't think are good. I don't think we can judge GMs simply by results. The only thing they can control are individual moves and in that regard, I don't think KW has done a very good job. He should get credit based on his moves. And I don't see how the White Sox were that much better than the '03 Cubs. I wouldn't think the '05 AL Central matches up all that well with the '03 NL Central, but maybe that's just my perception. Regardless, why are you comparing them to the Cubs? KW's moves shouldn't be compared to Hendry's. They should be judged on their own. In order for the White Sox to not regress, they need to repeat their amazing pitching production. I'll be surprised if that happens. I'm certainly not giving credit for back-to-back .500 seasons. It's obvious we're just arguing past each other since we disagree on how to judge a GM. When I think of a GM's job, the end results are not on the top of my list. A GM has to put his team in the best position to win and make constant major or minor adjustments along the way. The only way he can do that is through individual moves. And for me, that's the way I'm going to look at his performance. Having a sound philosophy and making good decisions each day is all I ask for. If this Cubs team that Hendry has currently put together wins 100 games and a World Series, it's not going to affect my perception of Hendry all that much. And I doubt it's going to affect my desire to have him replaced.

MLB.com I just want to go on record and say that I literally laughed out loud when I read that.

Way to gloss over the points that don't support your theory. What about Iguchi, a Japanese player. Hendry and the Cubs haven't even thought about bringing in Japanese players. If you call the $8m Lee's line of .265/.324/.487 very good for a LF, then Iguchi's .278/.342/.438 at 2.3m from 2B is great. Iguchi, Pods and Dye combined to make less than Lee, while Dye (.274/.333/.512) outperformed Lee on his own. Like I said, individual deals can be debated forever. But they don't matter. What matters is the total package. Williams has done a much better job with the total package than Hendry, and he's done more to improve his team this offseason than Hendry, and he apparantly still has plenty of youth to both add to next years roster plus trade for more parts. And Kenny did all this with a payroll $25m below Hendry's. That right there is a huge fact that people like to pretend doesn't exist. Williams has to make due with an average payroll, he's had an above average team every year, and built a great one last year. Hendry has had a top 5 payroll every year, and has had either an above or below average team as a result, never greatness, and it doesn't look to be coming. Hendry's extra $25m can be used to bring in a sure thing corner OF and allow you not to take the downgrade from Lee to Pods. Hendry's extra money should be an asset. So far it has not been. Yes, I didn't bother going into the offense. Yes ,Iguchi had a very good year for them. As did Dye. But did they do more than prevent the offense from being terrible? The team's success can't be tied to what the offense did. And he didn't build a great team. He put together a team whose offensive production was lacking and whose pitching production was amazing. It was all about their pitching. But where were KW's great moves with the pitching staff? How likely is it for their staff to repeat their great success? I'm not defending Hendry. He's been very disappointing. But how much more credit should he deserve if the Cubs were to have won it all in 2003? Just because KW has a ring doesn't mean he's done a very good job. As the Cubs have shown, relying on all of your pitchers to click in one year with barely adequate offensive production is not a very strong strategy.

A look at some of their key players: Dustin Hermanson -Free agent signing -4.00+ ERA every year since 1998, including a 5.46 ERA out of the bullpen in 2003 for St. Louis. -2.04 ERA in 2005 Scott Podsednik and Luis Vizcaino -Traded with a PTBNL from Milwaukee for Carlos Lee in a cost-cutting move -Podsednik: career year in 2003, bad in 2004, nearly as bad in 2005 (.700 OPS, 29 XBHs, 72% SB percentage, 25 RBIs, 80 runs) -Vizcaino: all over the place in his career, ranging from terrible to good. Pretty decent in 2004 and 2005 after a horrible 2003 -Carlos Lee had a very good year Jon Garland -Already under contract but waiting on his development -4.50+ ERA from 2002-2004 -3.50 ERA and an improved walk rate in 2005 Neal Cotts -Already under contract but waiting on his development -5.65 ERA in 56 games in 2004 -1.94 ERA in 69 games in 2005 Cliff Polite -Already under contract -4.38 ERA in 2004 -2.01 ERA in 2005 Bobby Jenks -Picked up as minor league free agent for the 2005 season, waiting on his development -32 games, 39.1 IP, 2.75 ERA Mark Buehrle -Already under contract -Career year in 2005, but not terrible far from his average year Jose Contreras -Acquired from New York in a trade for Loaiza -Good debut in 2003, bad in 2004 -"Career year" in 2005 with a 3.61 ERA and a K/BB ratio similar to his 2004 numbers Freddy Garcia -Acquired from Seattle with catcher Ben Davis for Miguel Olivo, top prospect Jeremy Reed, and minor league Michael Morse in 2004 -Average year from Garcia in 2005 -Olivo has been very inconsistent with flashes of good hitting -Jeremy Reed struggled in his first full season -Michael Morse was decent in 200+ big league ABs This may not be a great sample, but unless KW has psychic powers, I don't see where he deserves that much credit. I didn't pay that much attention to the offense because frankly, theirs wasn't very good. They somehow scored more runs than the Cubs offense despite the Cubs leading them in doubles, TB, BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS. The White Sox only had a very slight advantage in triples and HRs. The only significant advantage for the White Sox was RBIs. EDIT: How much of it was luck on the part of KW? I, for one, am not going to let his team's success in 2005 change my opinion of him.

Last time I checked, they won the World Series with that approach. Frankly, I would take one ring if it meant parting with Pie, Hill, and whomever else. Its not like this approach didn't yield positive results. But more often than not, you're just going to be stuck in rebuilding mode a couple of years later. Trading away top prospects for middle of the rotation starters and counting on them to have career years is not a strategy that's going to consistently pay off. I'd much rather have a GM who knows how to use prospects wisely, understands what is required to field a productive offense, and doesn't like Neifi Perez starting. Jim Hendry may not meet those requirements, but neither does KW. And he'd be 0-3 if he had Neifi Perez.

KW's love for Vazquez topped Hendry's desire to get a Pierre-type leadoff hitter. I'm not sure what their payroll situation is, so they may not be able to pay the current market prices for a free agent pitcher this year or next, but if I'd be throwing things in response to this deal if I was a White Sox fan. At the very least, surely he could've done better with Young than Vazquez.

I'm gonna throw something if I see another bad pass underneath the basket in traffic that isn't handled. Well, that was a good pass, but still.

Must be nice to be able to easily afford the cancellation fee.

The Bulls missed back-to-back threes, two free throws, and a layup...all in one possession, in that order. 52-43 Heat at the half. Mourning has 5 offensive boards off the bench and the Bulls are 1/11 from three-point land.

It's on WGN Chicago. What a miserable second quarter so far. Down 41-31.

Shaq is starting tonight, but Ben Gordon should be ready to go. Please don't get into foul trouble early, Sweetney.

Not to completely harp on the weather, but it looks like this is the first and only game the Falcons will play in cold weather all year. The last one would be their playoff loss in Philly last year. The current forecast calls for a high of 18 degrees during the day and no snow.

He bruised his ribs while making a tackle after an interception. He took a few shots later on and had to leave.

Take advantage of the cold and have the lines set the tone early. Sounds like a plan.

Although they rushed only 18 times, Smith and Stecker each had plenty of success against the Falcons' defense. They were breaking through pretty small holes consistently. Hopefully Jones and Peterson can do even better.

Early word on Vick is that he'll likely be able to play Sunday night, but he might not practice much. Even if he does play, though, it's going to be cold and a few hard shots could knock him out of the game. Something to watch for. Of course, the defense would have to wake up in order for that to happen.

UGH

An entertaining thread. Sadly, this won't be the most entertaining game of the afternoon.

I'm not in there often, but while the ushers usually tell people in the seats to stop smoking in a timely manner, it's been my impression that the people standing in the back go largely unnoticed.

And some bleacher news: Guess that means the bleachers will be largely non-smoking.

This pretty much sums it up: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-12/20920398.jpg