SouthSideRyan

8 out of 10. But I'd agree that something's wrong with the quiz because the percentages right are still the same, and they suspiciously add up to 1.000

I love Jim Bowden!

Hairston Walker Lee Ramirez Burnitz Nomar Barrett LF And I'm really sick of snide comments/awful jokes about the Cubs training staff when O' Neal has not had a single Groeschner like incident.

I know Ed Wade is a pretty awful GM, so he may not realize it, but the Phillies really shouldn't be in a rush to trade Wagner unless they're getting top of the line prospects, cause they'll be getting 2 draft picks when he walks anyways. Here's hoping he surprises with another Sterling Hitchcock or Mike DeJean-esque move :)

I understand that we needed to replace what Sosa did last year, but in the context of the trade, it isn't a fair comparison. We were already stuck paying Sosa 18M(?) to perform like he is this year. The deal should be judged based on what people think we could've gotten in return for a declining Sosa.

No doubt. Unlike last season, the Cubs will have to go through St. Louis to get to the playoffs. The rest of the 2nd half schedule, however, is every bit as soft as last year. btw- the balance of July: PIT (4), @CIN (4), @STL (3) SF (3) ARI (4) . Win fewer than 10 of those games going into that last weekend and I'd be a seller on July 31st. The Cubs had to go through St. Louis to get to the playoffs last year too. Just like they do every year. Playing them late makes no difference.

Of course.

Ordonez's out clause had solely to do with DL time due to his previous injury(knee I wanna say) His DL time this year, had nothing to do with it IIRC.

You shouldn't compare Burnitz's numbers this year to Sosa's last year. Becasue Sosa this year does not = Sosa last year.

i remember that. i despise that guy for it now. another reason i can't stand that club is jack mckeon. when he argued that the ball that cabrera (i think) hit off of the basket in right field at wrigley was a homer while they were up by 10 runs, i lost any respect i had for him. de los santos and loduca displayed the only acts of class i've ever seen from the marlins last night. After Cabrera did that, My nickname for him is "The Punk". That's funny, I started calling him "Future Best Hitter in the Majors". I call him pre-pubescent due to his resemblance to an 11 year old boy. And Jefferey Loria is a horrible horrible person. That was what made me most sick about losing in '03. Was watching that load walk out on to the field celebrating.

Sox fans were absolutely cheering against the Cubs in the '03 playoffs. The majority of my friends are Sox fans, and not a one was rooting for them. The drink specials are true, they'd also change their marquees on their signs to put up anti-cubs/pro-marlins signs. I for one cannot wait for their collapse.

Burnitz was bought with the money saved in the Sosa deal. Paying the money earmarked Sosa for Burnitz, Hairston, and Fontenot has been far more valuable statistically than paying the money earmarked for Sosa to Sosa. And that's without getting into any sticky arguments over team chemistry or clutchness. People seem so hung up on this idea of paying Sosa to play for another team. Do you honestly think there was a trade out there that shedded Sosa's entire salary? If there wasn't, would you rather be paying him to suck here rather than paying Burnitz, Hairston, and Fontenot the money to be contributors?

Wouldn't irony be him getting drafted by the O's?

Other than oppurtunity cost, I don't see how anyone can say Sosa for Fontenot, Hairston, and Burnitz is a loss. And I really think Sosa's trade value was too low to get much more than that.

I translate this as, Neifi isn't striking out much, so he's just getting unlucky that he's not getting hits when he makes contact. If Neifi can follow the Estes pattern does that mean we finally get to see Ronny in September? Only this time we'll be 12 back of the wild card by then and Neifi will have dropped to a 180/210/280 line.

OT, but is anyone else surprised at how much Brenly has seemed to be the voice of reason in terms of playing youth?

Awesome.

But the HR Derby!!

No, he's too busy saying that white guys can't play in the heat and comparing Corey Patterson to Lou Brock. Yeah I know that's crazy. Corey (despite his performance this year) still has the potential to be far better than the HORRIBLY OVERRATED Brock.

Is anybody on this team (their contract - 300K) better than one of our replacements in AAA besides Ramirez and Lee? Should we toss them all overboard and go with nothing but prospects? The money has to be spent somewhere, and in that offseason the only other spot to fill it on would've been SS. The only good SS out there iirc was Tejada, and iirc, there were a lot of people around here that didn't want him at that price either because of his iffy OBP. And I think people are underestimating what Maddux did last year. A 113 ERA+ from a starter is not close to mediocre. Im not saying play every position on the cheap, im saying there is no need to spend all of our money on a strength and ignore our weaknesses. You know I'm not saying that, so cut it out. If, in the offseason, it turns out that there were no possible upgrades available, and 9 million spent on Maddux is the best value for the money, I'll happily eat crow, because I love Maddux and I love watching him pitch. To elaborate on my feelings, the 2/12 part of the contract I have no problem with. its the 1/9 on the end that I hate. I think if it came down to the contract, as is, or no contract at all, then I would have declined. Why was it more important to fill in one hole on the offensive side compared to one hole on the pitching side? Just because our pitching was the strength of the team doesn't mean you shouldn't evaluate the cost benefits of upgrading the weak offense compared to reinforcing the strong pitching. A run saved is a run earned. Asking if Maddux will be worth the 9 million in '06 is not evaluating the situation fairly. It's disregarding the fact that Maddux was probably a bargain last year at 6M, and the jury will still be out on his 9M for this year. It's easy to say now that you'd decline, but at the time the contract was signed, Maddux looked like a stablizing force in the 5 spot. If things worked out the way things were envisioned when the contract was signed (Team wise, not Maddux's stats) then nobody would be complaining. It's hard to blame Maddux for the rest of the team not performing as expected either. And I had forgot to mention earlier, somebody mentioned that Maddux was CLEARLY declining. In '99 people said the same thing. His IP dropped, and all of his rates suffered, his K rate especially. Maddux was 33 that season, and it looked like he was entering a decline phase. Still a real good pitcher, but not vintage Maddux. He came back from '00-02 with ERA+ of 155, 144, and 157. Taking Maddux's one year in '03 as a surefire representation of a decline is some real revisionist history.

Is anybody on this team (their contract - 300K) better than one of our replacements in AAA besides Ramirez and Lee? Should we toss them all overboard and go with nothing but prospects? The money has to be spent somewhere, and in that offseason the only other spot to fill it on would've been SS. The only good SS out there iirc was Tejada, and iirc, there were a lot of people around here that didn't want him at that price either because of his iffy OBP. And I think people are underestimating what Maddux did last year. A 113 ERA+ from a starter is not close to mediocre.

I really don't understand how people can be so anti-Maddux, talk about what a terrible contract it is and always let Kerry off the hook. And I'm not complaining about either, just saying.

Yep, The A's would never give playing time to a low OBP guy

Both these guys blow Dawson away, come on. They should both get in easily. If they don't the Hall will of screwed up again, but who really cares at this point? They blow Dawson away in stats, but not as impact players. But the reason they 'blow' Dawson away in stats is cuz, as I said, they played in a time in offensive inflation. If Dawson played in the '90s like Bagwell did he'd have 500 homers easy. There's no way Biggio or Bagwell "blow" Dawson away - that's ludicrous, and can only be said by someone who never saw Dawson play for an extended period of time. I think a person who would say that truly shows their age. But so many writers who vote just look at the stats unfortunately - they clearly do not excel at critical thinking. You'd think considering that Dawson was the first guy in decades to hit 49 home runs in the NL, and then there's, what, 15+ instances of players topping 50 home runs in the last 10+ years would make people scratch their heads about the possibility that hitting is easier today than it was 20 years ago. Tony got in?! Players Assoc. huh? Good for Tony! Tony=baller. Dawson also played in a great hitters park with Wrigley in the late 80s/early 90s, while Biggio/Bagwell played in an awful hitters park for half their careers at the Astrodome.

I'll be sure to bump after every good Maddux outing. Don't be ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous to suggest Maddux isn't pitching like a $9 million pitcher and he is unlikely to pitch like a $9 million next year? Why is it wrong to not want to see that much of the payroll tied into a pitcher who just isn't all that great anymore? It's ridiculous to bump after a bad start and use that bad start as evidence that he shouldn't be back. It would be ridiculous if that was the only bad start. But it hasn't been. He's had plenty of bad starts the past year and a half. And overall he's been nowhere near a $9 million pitcher. And all that had already been said a full month ago. I don't see the need to restart the same argument that had been done to death a month before. And the argument really seems pointless to me, because I don't see this team not being in the hunt for a playoff spot come September.