jersey cubs fan

you don't mind him? He's good, "minding him" shouldn't even be an option. I like pretty much everything they've done so far this offseason. Clark and Olsen are both good receivers. I'm fine with Grossman, Orton and a draft pick (2nd, or preferrably, 3rd round or later) taking QB duties. I don't like the talk of possibly 4 QBs, unless the 3rd and 4th are both non Griese. Nothing against Brian, but if you are bringing back Orton and Rex, there's no value in Griese this year. I wish they'd get rid of Archuleta, although I'm still a little unsure about how his contract affects the cap.

What does that matter. Sure, that's probably all he can say, maybe. But that's the point. He sucks, but he has a job because Cubs brass doesn't understand that simple fact, and he can't bite the hand that feeds him. The problem is baseball is still filled with all this nonsensical ignorant gibberish. It's not much of a problem when the player thinks it, because what players think doesn't matter (unless the players think they have to swing at everything in order to get jobs). The problem is that not only players think it, but executives, including many Cubs executives, think it. I'm a big Bruce Miles fan, but as soon as a I read the article I knew it was fair game for FJM.

1. Not sure why you think this. 2. What an absurd statement. 3. They are equal opportunity attackers. There was an article about a crappy short white baseball player who is unjustifiably worshipped for all his gamey scrappiness, and they poked fun at it. What's the problem. They didn't necessarily poke fun at Bruce Miles, as they mostly picked on the actual quotes made by Cubs people, namely Theriot. We know Bruce "gets it", but if you were to take one look at that article and not know anything about it, you might come away confused about Bruce's personal opinions. There's no clear indication either way that he buys what Theriot is selling, or that he thinks it's all bunk. But it's an interview, not an editorial. Personally, I could do without any articles of that nature. Baseball would be such a better game if words like that were never spoken again, but that's not happening anytime soon. Bruce is a beat writer who reports on the team, and the guys involved with this team think this way. As much as things make look like they've changed for the better, with players like Fukudome drawing interest by the Cubs for things like patience, it's important to note that when Theriot says "I've been lucky to have coaches and management who don't buy into that stuff." it really summarized the truth about any number of horrible baseball players the Cubs have employed. They are all lucky that Cubs management has been so bad that they think guys like this are worthy of jobs. It's no wonder they've been such an expensive club who still looks at 88 win seasons as the holy grail of their possible success.

It only bothers me in that the Cubs chose to pay for that speed and aren't going to get much out of it - regardless of the fact that it was a stupid motivation to sign him in the first place.

Not that I buy into this stuff, but people like to point out that the Superbowl loser doesn't make the playoffs the year after. But nobody ever points out that those teams are usually back in the playoffs the year after that. The last 3 SB losers (which is as far back as I checked) from the NFC (not including Seattle who made the playoffs the year after) that have missed the playoffs in the year after, have made the playoffs the very next season. Carolina even went to the conference championship in 05. Not sure I buy into all of that, but I get what you are saying. The way this team is structured, the O and D-Lines must be outstanding at all times. Some teams have skill players who can take pressure off their lines; we do not. Its easier to re-build lines, IMO, then it is to aquire outstanding skill players. While I don't necessarily believe in the trend itself, I think what it tells you is those teams that lose the Super Bowl were really talented to begin with, and didn't need a ridiculous turnaround to get back to playoff caliber 2 years later. The Bears weren't good this past year. But injuries played a large part in that. So did stupid coaching arrogance. If they learned their lesson, and return to some form of health, there's no reason they can't get right back to playoff caliber. Also, the offensive line was never outstanding, and they still won. They were decent, and overly praised because A) Chicago loves their lineman, and B) They played every game together. The line was stable, but it was not very good. Eventually they just stunk.

February 28 @ 2:05 PM against San Francisco. Cubs.com has this wonderful thing called a schedule. :wink: Reminds me back on espn.com when people would post a question asking for a stat that was easily found by clicking on the stats button just to the left of where they were posting. How do people obsessed enough with the Cubs not have knowledge of, and ready access to, their website, schedule, stats, etc?

Not being able to be caught stealing as often may be a good thing for the team. However, not having the running thing takes away one of two things they vastly overpaid him for, that and leading off. Stupid Cubs. It's also concerning that injuries are starting to add up and linger when there are 7 years left on the deal. I think there's a fairly sizable risk of him further hurting himself, and I am concerned. It was one thing when we all knew he'd suck in years 5-8, it's quite another if he's going to be missing considerable time (and not being all that great) in years 1-4.

I wouldn't be so sure. His on base skills include an Isod of 80 and absolutely no power, not to mention being pretty old when putting up numbers. Fuld is probably a closer comp to Ryan Theriot in that regard.

I doubt it. They will probably be pretty good, assuming they make (some of) the necessary improvements. I doubt they're picking as high as 14 next year, barring a trade. 10 wins is a reasonable expectation.

The problem with franchising Berrian is you go from paying him like a #1 to paying him like a superstar. But that deadline has passed so it's not an issue. I think Bradley and Hester can come very close to producing what Moose and Berrian give you (which isn't much), numbers-wise. 100+ catches for 1100 yards and 8 TDs? Add in more numbers for Olsen, and another receiver to the mix who should be able to the replace what your 3rd WR gave you last year, and it can be done. Catches aren't that hard to replace in football, as long as you keep throwing the same amount. In my opinion you have the elite, the second tier, and then everybody else. The entire Bears WR crew has been "everybody else" and replacing them with others should not be a problem.

I guess in my point of view, unfortunately right now he is our best option @ #1. While the Cubs can get away with paying non-stars like Soriano superstar money, in a salary cap environment, the Bears can't really justify paying #1 WR money to a WR who isn't close to being a number 1. It doesn't matter if he's their best or not. Personally I think Hester could very quickly get to Berrian's level, which isn't all that high. I'd love to have a legit #1, but I'd rather have properly paid 2's and 3's than an overpaid #1.

I agree. And the Bears could still take another solid WR prospect possibly in the 2nd rd. idk, with the WR FA market this offseason as it is, your looking at a guy who has abot 1/2 the production as BB and will likely command a simular salary as BB. I'd just stick with who we have. I think a major problem is a lot of people apparently think Berrian has had about twice the production he's actually had. He's done very little in the NFL for him to be thought of as a #1 receiver. Very little.

The replies to this story on the tribune site have set us all back a couple dozen years.

Yay, my first request has been granted. Nice to see somebody sees how awful he was this year, even if the coaches insisted on starting him every game for not good reason.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I'm going to have to agree with david. Soriano hit 7/8/9 as a rookie with the Yankees. His 2nd and 3rd years in NY he led off. Then he spent two years in Texas, hitting primarily 3rd one year, and primarly 5th the other. In '06 and '07, with WAS and CHC, he was returned to the leadoff role. Amongst the six after his rookie year, Soriano's four best years were the four he spent leading off. His two worst years were the two he spent in Texas, not leading off. The above points are exacerbated when one considers that Soriano's home parks in NY and WAS were pitcher-friendly, and his home park in TEX is hitter-friendly. The obvious takeaway here is that this whole "move him down in the order because he's a power hitter not a leadoff hitter" strategy has been done before, by Texas' braintrust. It failed. So I'm wondering why some are so intent on abandoning that which has worked repeatedly, in favor of that which has failed repeatedly. cause and effect your analysis is faulty Wow. Compelling arugment you made there. If you choose to ignore both history and all logic when deciding where you'd like to bat Soriano, then go ahead. I want to have a good team. In order to have a good team, I believe it's necessary to use your players where they perform best. It's really not a difficult concept. I've yet to hear a a valid argument from people that insist Soriano will produce just as well down in the order other than "Nah, it's just a coincidence!", a claim that has quickly been refuted by evidence and logical reasoning. now I understand the problem. I prefer to have a bad team, unlike you, with your good team preferences. Now all makes sense. Once again. you do nothing to back up your claims. Well done. I've provided all that I am able to provide.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I'm going to have to agree with david. Soriano hit 7/8/9 as a rookie with the Yankees. His 2nd and 3rd years in NY he led off. Then he spent two years in Texas, hitting primarily 3rd one year, and primarly 5th the other. In '06 and '07, with WAS and CHC, he was returned to the leadoff role. Amongst the six after his rookie year, Soriano's four best years were the four he spent leading off. His two worst years were the two he spent in Texas, not leading off. The above points are exacerbated when one considers that Soriano's home parks in NY and WAS were pitcher-friendly, and his home park in TEX is hitter-friendly. The obvious takeaway here is that this whole "move him down in the order because he's a power hitter not a leadoff hitter" strategy has been done before, by Texas' braintrust. It failed. So I'm wondering why some are so intent on abandoning that which has worked repeatedly, in favor of that which has failed repeatedly. cause and effect your analysis is faulty Wow. Compelling arugment you made there. If you choose to ignore both history and all logic when deciding where you'd like to bat Soriano, then go ahead. I want to have a good team. In order to have a good team, I believe it's necessary to use your players where they perform best. It's really not a difficult concept. I've yet to hear a a valid argument from people that insist Soriano will produce just as well down in the order other than "Nah, it's just a coincidence!", a claim that has quickly been refuted by evidence and logical reasoning. now I understand the problem. I prefer to have a bad team, unlike you, with your good team preferences. Now all makes sense.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I'm going to have to agree with david. Soriano hit 7/8/9 as a rookie with the Yankees. His 2nd and 3rd years in NY he led off. Then he spent two years in Texas, hitting primarily 3rd one year, and primarly 5th the other. In '06 and '07, with WAS and CHC, he was returned to the leadoff role. Amongst the six after his rookie year, Soriano's four best years were the four he spent leading off. His two worst years were the two he spent in Texas, not leading off. The above points are exacerbated when one considers that Soriano's home parks in NY and WAS were pitcher-friendly, and his home park in TEX is hitter-friendly. The obvious takeaway here is that this whole "move him down in the order because he's a power hitter not a leadoff hitter" strategy has been done before, by Texas' braintrust. It failed. So I'm wondering why some are so intent on abandoning that which has worked repeatedly, in favor of that which has failed repeatedly. cause and effect your analysis is faulty

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. I'm going to have to agree with david.

credibility does not last forever. Those who choose to claim things are done and things are over, over and over again, put their credibility on the line, and deserve scorn when they've cried wolf for the 1000th time.

I do not want to give up Hill in a trade for Bedard and I have no interest in Gary Mathews Jr. nor any of his contract.

If he can develop a decent splitter he may be able to miss some bats. Here's to hoping it happens. And get some more groundballs. Yeah, I'd guess he'll never miss a significant amount of at bats. It's all about whether he can turn into an extreme groundball pitcher or not.

I prefer virtual confirmation.

Now if that was what the convention was like, I would be interested in attending. Jim does seem like a pretty good guy, too bad he's not a pretty good GM (especially when you consider how backwoods stupid so many GMs are).

Dopirak is 3 years removed from the only season that resembled huge. He was horrible in 2002 and 2003, as well as 2005 and 2006. In 2007, he was mediocre as a 23 year old repeating high A, and horrible in AA. He stinks.

Was he at all interested in coming here? I think it's safe to say any free agent would be interested in coming to the Cubs. There's no reason to assume otherwise. I don't know about that. Jennings grew up in Dallas and went to Baylor. He wasn't too far from home with the Rockies and Astros, plus he just signed with a team right in his backyard. It could be possible that he wanted to stay close to home in Texas rather than head elsewhere. After all, plenty of other teams beyond the Cubs would have been interested in his services (see: St. Louis). Why didn't he sign with them? Perhaps nobody else was interested in him.