wastra

Isn't it kidna funny how so many "experts" kept predicting that with his 90 mph fastball, he'd probably only be an average starter in the majors? All he's done is dominate every level he's played at, and that's starting to translate to the big leagues. When does Rocky get the callup? :P

Floyd just worries me in the outfield. I know Murton's not winning a gold glove this year or anything, but Floyd's range is laughably bad right now. I see Izturis and our 3Bs covering as much of left field as he does, and that's alarming. I don't think defense per say is the be-all ned-all of baseball, but you've gotta at least be able to LOOK like you're covering some ground out there. I think we've been real fortunate that through pitching and cold weather, other teams haven't been hitting the ball in teh air as often as they will ater in the season, but Floyd is almost stationary out there and that's over the line in my book for a starter.

I'm glad to see the blues go. They looked like BP uniforms, for goodness' sake. The grays aren't awe-inspiring, but at least they're traditional BASEBALL style uniforms. They could be dressed up, but they're better than the blues, that looked like pullovers from afar.

At this point, unless Lou is preaching one thing to the media and a totally different one to the team, it seems to me that if the Cubs fail, it will be due to the roster NOT following his advice, not management. That's totally opposite Baker, where you could read everything he said to the media and think "If the players follow his advice, they WILL lose."

Do you have any support for that assertion? If you're implying that Zell might look to ratings in 2006 and decide to cut back on Cubs programming, while increasing White Sox programming, don't you think a man that was able to make billions as an investor is more sophisticated than to base such a decision on ratings for only the last year? Also, doesn't it also assume that you're right about your initial point - that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be more than the cost of advertising on Cubs' games? I would be quite surprised if that's true. On your first question, it's common knowledge that the Sox beat out the Cubs in radio and TV ratings (2006) for the first time in over 20 years. It really isn't a surprise considering the Cubs won 66 games and the Sox were basking in the glow of a WS. It was published in the Tribune so you may want to search the archives. On your second point, no, my view is that Zell doesn't care about the baseball part of the Tribune (he's admitted as much). My point about the Sox was specific to the poster I was replying to---who implied that WGN must be profiting because they are running Sox games--as if to say there is minimal profit in Sox telecasts. My reply is two fold: because of the recent success of the Sox, WGN can charge more per advertiser in 2007 than they can for Cubs games... Also, the Cubs, Sox, and Bulls will always be shown locally in Chicago because it is a local station (with a national following). You missed the point. Do you have support for your assertion that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be greater in 2007 than the cost of advertising on Cubs games? USUALLY, advertising revenues for sports are based on either 3 or 5 year averages- at least that's how it works in most of the country on college sports- I've no experience with Major league baseball programming for local broadcast rights. But i do have some mild experience in both radio and TV programming (local rights) for major division I colleges. Regardless, WGN will likely profit more from Cubs advertising because they pay less for the rights to SHOW Cubs games due to the favorable deal they have for being owned by the same company. So even if by some oddball chance they can charge more for Sox commercials, they're not making as much on that money.

Mike Brey That's him. Thanks. I'll forget his name again by lunch, though. :oops:

Heard anything on Bruce Pearl (Please no, please no )? There was great fear here for a while that he would take off because UK can potentially spend more on him than we can (primarily because we're already paying Pat Summitt and Phil Fulmer good money). I've also heard from local media members that it's highly unlikely he'll want to leave Tennessee. All the talk I hear is that the list starts with a longshot- Donovan, and then follows with 4-5 names who are maybes: Barnes Crean (please...please NO) Matta Calipari (unlikley to be pursued) What's his name from Notre Dame (always forget it). Mark Few is an outside possibility if the others all say no. The fallback options are Travis Ford from UMass and John Pelphrey at USA. Both are former Pitino players, but neither has proven they can handle a job of this magnitude. As for Tubby at Minnesota- Tubby has always had troubles recruiting. he had a great class once in the past 5 years (now juniors, of whom only two remain) and has struck out on nearly every high-level recruiting target since. UK fans will udnerstand if teams don't make the final 4 or don't win championships, but they won't be so forgiving if the team consistantly isn't even a serious contender for long stretches. The past two eyars ahve been pretty bad by UK standards, and next year looks like it could be the worst non-probation team UK has had in 3-4 decades, and will struggle to reach the NCAA tournament, which is unacceptible. As an X's and O's coach, he's outstanding, and should raise the level of play for the Gophers. But if he couldn't land top-notch talent consistantly at UK, I fail to see how he'll do it at Minnesota. I wish him the best, though. He's a totally classy guy and a great "person" to have as a coach. He just didn't handle the microscope of UK well. It's like Notre Dame football- "good" isn't good enough when you're spending millions every year to try to make it great. he was making well over $2 million a year at UK, and he wasn't delivering $2 million worth of coaching success.

Batting Murton second (when he's playing, obviously) and Izturis 8th are the biggest no-brainers on this roster. (Okay, maybe keeping Z the #1 starter is a bigger no-brainer). It's nice to have a manager who can see the painfully obvious, and reinforce the point. It's a welcome change over Dusty. All else aside, on-field/lineup decisions should almost be by-the-book simple. I think Dusty just had the wrong book. :P

I don't like steroids, but I liken them more closely to corking a bat or doctoring a baseball- just more extreme. Gambling is far worse. Why? When you take PEDs, cork a bat, or engage in other cheating activities, you at the elast do not alter the fundamental truth that the two sides are going out on the field every day and trying to win a ballgame. Hence, it's still a sport, and its intergrity in that aspect is intact, though its image may be tarnished. gambling is a whole different beast. It introduces the possibility (AKA the Black Sox) that one team is intentionally trying NOT to win, at which point it means it's not longer competition, as the outcome is pre-determined. It's then no longer a sport at all, and its integrity as such is compromised. It's WWF wrestling. And baseball knew in the early part of hte last century that gambling is difficult to track and the intent of the gamblers is so hard to discern that they can't allow ANY gambling to take place. If you only bet for a team, but once ion a month, when you are deep in debt to a bookie, you don't bet on your team. Is that a signal that you don't think your team is going to win based on who's on the mound? What does that imply? Hence, no one is arguing that steroids are GOOD for baseball or sports or individuals. But it's somethign the game can overcome so long as people enjoy the sport of baseball. But gambling can utterly destroy baseball's very excistance as a "sport" at its most basic level, and that cannot be tolerated to any degree. lifetime ban=for life. Sorry, Pete, you dug your own grave.

I almost teared up, reading that. It's exactly how I would make out the lineup with these players. I can't say I could EVER say the same thing when Dusty was making out the cards. Could we actually have a manager with some common baseball sense???

Inflation typically ranges from 2-3% annually. I'm not sure what kind fortune you can make off that, but Inflation isn't really a very difficult number to predict.

Do we know he was actually throwing full-speed rather than just tossing them in from the mound to lossen the ligaments? It would be a different story if we knew he was throwing his full repertoire and going more or less full steam.

A good deal for a 4th otufielder who could put up a .800 OPS, I guess. It's not a division-changer or anything, but I wish we could pay our subs $1MM a year and spend the rest getting GOOD starters instead of Jason Marquis.

I think it matters, but I don't think we're arguing the same point. I'm not saying they need to be baseball insiders, but that it would be better if they actually CARED about baseball, and I see nothing in the members' backgrounds that would indicate they give a damn beyond the financials. Guys like Reinsdorf and Steinbrenner? Their backgrounds yes, I agree. But those guys bleed baseballs and their decisions are affected by that. I dunno, maybe there's some Carlyle guy who lives & dies with baseball and would be put in overall charge of the Cub financial decisions. When I look at the roster @ Carlyle past & present though, I don't see that. I see a whole lot of D.C. insiders who's desire for baseball likely begins and ends with how much exposure they can get by making an appearance at an Orioles or Nationals game. I agree with what you're saying. it's not that we need an owner who has a long history in baseball, we need an owner who wants to OWN A BASEBALL TEAM, not own a profitable investment. Steinbrenner wants the Yanks to be profitable, but his #1 priority with them is winning, because the Yanks aren't "just" an investment for him. I think, like you, that the Carlyle Group views the Cubs as a profit center, not as a passion.

The bulk of criticism of the Carlyle Group is actually based on a false connection resident nutjob writer Carl Unger tried to make in his book "House of Bush, House of Saud." It's a large private equity firm that once owned a defense contractor that was in charge of the "crusader" missile system. Later, GHW Bush served on the board. It has as many deep connections to left-leaning organzations as right-leaning political figures, and its large instutional client base makes it more or less tied in a large degree to labor unions. Like most financial firms, its political action committee supports generally conservative positions, so it draws some ire from many sources from that as well. And they are msot hated because the Carlyle Group owns Dunkin Donuts. :P

He also has said that Alfonso won't be asked to shift positions during his Cubs career. The only way for both to be true is for one to play RF and one to play CF. Which way makes more sense to you? They said Soriano volunteered for CF, so I think there's a difference between saying they want toask him to move all over the diamond and him volunteering it for the good of the team. If he WANTS to move, they won't deny him the chance, I'm sure.

I also like that Lou said: ''It's something we've talked about,'' Piniella said. ''We're looking to get our best combination of hitters on the field. If Soriano [can play center], that would help.'' It shows me that he's much more in tune with sound baseball logic and strategy than Dusty ever was or Hendry ("I like guys who can catch") is.

Not particularly. For all his faults, Sammy has always loved two things: playing baseball and being in the spotlight. This is probably more about reaching 600 and having one last grasp at fame. I have to admit, if I were under 40 and had ANY shot of playing one more year of baseball in the majors, I'd do anything within the rules to do it. You can only play ball in the majors for so long, then it's off to retirement. I always understood athletes who enver wanted to hang it up. I wouldn't either. The window to play pro sports is pretty short. Make it last.

You think he's been given a free pass? From every article I've read about future HOFers, he's always been listed with McGuire and Palmiero as people who have the steroids scandal looming over them. In fact, I'm convinced that he'll receive the same level of media attention when his chance at the HOF comes up as McGuire did, and his testimony to Congress (or lack thereof) will receive the same spotlight. I think he's been given a 'comparatively' free pass. the controversy over him is NOTHING Like it's been for Bonds. It WILL if he's playing. And you're right- it will rain * on him when he's HoF eligible, too, regardless. Since McGwire retired first, though, he'll get the bulk of the heat and public debate...until Bonds.

I think Sosa has to get over the steroid thing and the beaning along with age to be successful. I'm curious on how hard he worked out over the off season. I think he would definitely need to get over it. But he's always been thin-skinned, and even working out all year wouldn't help him get his timing back. But he's been given a sort-of free pass the past year on the steroids thing because he was out of baseball (like McGwire). he plays again, he's under the microscope again.

I think with out glut of middle infielders (still), DeRosa becomes the backup and Theriot/Cedeno man 2b. I know this is going to be unpopular, but I wouldn't ever value Moore that high. I think his ceiling is probably average major leaguer or even ML backup most likely. I wouldn't throw him away needlessly, but I would never consider him to be a deal breaker.

I think it's a huge mistake signing Sammy. Not just because of his age/decline, but because he's a "groove" hitter. His hits and homer come in bunches when he just hits that "zone" (aside from 1998-2000, when he was ALWAYS in that zone). A full year off? It might take him two seasons to get into a zone that would even make him an average corner outfielder. And that's aside from the extra-curricular issues he'll bring. You put him back in baseball, and he's suddenly #1A in the steroid discussion behing Barry again.

I've never heard anyone claim Pujols' defense wasn't above average at first- perhaps (for some) markedly so. For me, I think he's fairly sure-handed and pretty good at digging balls out of the dirt (the two most important roles for a 1B), likely due to his background on the left side of the infield before he bulked up (read: got on the roids). He's not the kidn of "shortstop playing first" that some of the great defensive guys are like DLee, for instance, because he doesn't have amazing range any longer, but at the two most important defensive roles of a 1B (hands and as a receiver) he's excellent. I'd say he's average with his arm and range, however. That spells above average to me, well above average, IMO.

I'm still not convinced that we have a playoff caliber pitching staff. We'll need a healthy and effective prior and miller for that, imo.

I think the bottom line is that Dawson was the Cubs for many of us in our age range. Sandberg was great, but Dawson epitomized his team in ways comparable only to guys like Kirby Puckett. I'd like to see him get in, but I understand the statistical deficiencies.