XZero771679666304

I don't think Kerry would waive his NTC to go to NYC. Agreed. And the Fish would have to be on crack to deal Cabrera and Willis. They might never recover. NY media seems to always think that players and teams are just waiting to facilitate the Yankees' wishes. And The Yanks have nothing the Marlins want, and certainly not nearly enough for Willis and Cabrera. There are probably a couple dozen teams who have more to offer.

I don't think Kerry would waive his NTC to go to NYC.

IMO, Wood's contract will be bought out, and he will be re-signed to a low-base, high incentive contract.

so you're saying that group A (jones, pierre, eyre, howry, rusch and marshall) are not only as good as group B (burnitz, corey, remlinger, hawkins, prior and wood), but are SEVEN WINS BETTER? now who's being ridiculous? Do you remember how bad the bullpen was last year, how many games it cost us? Yes, the bullpen additions make us 5-7 wins better. Also, having Pierre leading off (even if he repeats his 2005 numbers) is a HUGE boon to the offense, and will add runs. Murton > Holla/Gerut/Lawton Jones +/> Burnitz Pierre >>>>>> CPatt Howry/Williamson/Eyre/Dempster >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Remlinger/Wuertz/Novoa/Hawkins 2006 bench > 2005 bench Wuertz and Ohman will not have nearly as much pressure on them, and the contrast between last year's pen and this on could not be more stark. Not only that, but if Wood and Prior do not return, Guzman, Williams and Miller will be waiting in the wings all year, not Mitre, Koronka & Co. Will Lee regress? Most probably. To his pre-2005 numbers? Probably not. Plus, I don't think Ramirez will miss a month again (as he is in the best shape he has been in with the Cubs), and his added offense will probably negate Lee's decline over the course of a full season. Walker probably won't miss a month again, either. And we can't forget Macias won't be the primary PH anymore, which will make a difference. I think the pessimist's probable scenario is that Wood/Prior give 2/3 of the combined innings they pitches last year. Even given that, We would likely have a rotation of Zambrano/Maddux/Rusch/Williams/Guzman or Zambrano/Maddux/Rusch/Miller/Guzman or Williams for most of the year (Marshall will make a maximum of 3 starts, IMO). Both are repectable rotations, not great, but not bad. Combine that with the offensive and bullpen improvements, even if we had to go the whole year in that scenario, no way do we lose 90 games. No freaking way. In order to lose 90+, Wood and Prior would have to miss nearly the whole year, Pierre would have to regress again, and Lee or Ramirez would have to miss significant time, and Dempster would have to fall apart. And even if Dempster fell apart, we have an ex-closer in Williamson, who unlike Hawkins, was very good in that role. I think in the worst probable scenario, the Cubs lose 82-87 games.

Dusty's judgment has been called into question repeatedly, and far more than the average manager. Many of his decisions simply defy common sense. This isn't an intelligence issue, it is an issue of methodology, philosophy, and plain old obstinance. He sticks with methods that consistently fail him, yet he fails/refuses to recognize and adjust. That isn't being a manager, that is being incompetent.

No, they're not. Not even close. We didn't have Wood and Prior for most of last year, and we didn't lose 90, and we're better this year. I agree. And the Cards are better than the Cubs IMO, but a #5 compared to #22 better? No freaking way. And the Tigers above the Indians? The Pirates at #29, under the Marlins and Rockies? What is this guy smoking? In his predictions article, he says "the Cardinals don figure to be challenged this year." Wha? Not only will they be challenged, but by multiple teams, in all probability. Dayn Perry = On crack I understand all that. But Prior pitched 166 innings last year, Woody 66. What if Prior only managed 70 and Wood 100 (for the sake of argument)? We also got decent performance from Williams---what if that doesn't hold? We now are depending on Cedeno and Murton, two unproven guys as starters. What if they both turn out to be too young to handle their roles? Realistically, I'm looking at this team to finish around .500 considering the injuries to Wood & Prior. If they were to both miss nearly the entire season and our young guys don't come through, I could see upping that to 90 losses. I agree, I don't see the Cards automatically as a #5 and I might put us a bit higher, but I can't say the guy is definitely on crack. Our season is looking very shaky right now---I can understand the skepticism. My diagnosis of Dayn's crack smoking goes beyond his assessment of the Cubs. And I think that even if Prior and Wood miss nearly all of the season, I think the mid-80's are as high as the loss total would go.

:shock: When you have a BA of .359, your OBP should be higher than .404.

No, they're not. Not even close. We didn't have Wood and Prior for most of last year, and we didn't lose 90, and we're better this year. I agree. And the Cards are better than the Cubs IMO, but a #5 compared to #22 better? No freaking way. And the Tigers above the Indians? The Pirates at #29, under the Marlins and Rockies? What is this guy smoking? In his predictions article, he says "the Cardinals don figure to be challenged this year." Wha? Not only will they be challenged, but by multiple teams, in all probability. Dayn Perry = On crack

I agree. I have never been impressed by him, and I would swap him out for Aardsma in half a heartbeat. It may just be my perception, but Wuertz seems to either dominate or flat out stink, especially when he pitches in a couple games in a row. When Wuertz gets even a little tired, it's BP.

Pagan plays CF as well.

Bobby Abreu Then what are we waiting for? Ask Hendry. The Phils reportedly offered Abreu for Prior this offseason.

Miles stinks. If he has a good season, something is definitely not right.

I would not lay all of the blame on Hendry. Certainly, with Baker around and the injuries we have had, there's no way Hendry should get all the blame. Just his share. Hendry's moves did not invigorate this team or raise expectations. Anybody who was paying attention in the late 90s was expecting the Cubs to be contenders in the early to mid 2000s. Hendry, as GM, has not raised expectations above where they were, for this time period. He did a nice job working with the minor leagues, as GM, however, he's left a lot to be desired. On the whole, you are right. But I have to say he did a damned good job raising expectations after the 2003 season. He improved the team quite a bit after the 2003 season, and the 2004 squad looked to be the best in the league going into ST. Plus the addition of Garciapaara mid-season would have to be considered "invigorating". Ramirez, Lee, Garciaparra, Hawkins, Barrett, Maddux, Walker...Hendry did a very good job of invigorating and improving the team. The expectations and optimism in February of 2004 were as high as I can ever remember, and certainly higher than any reasonable person could have predicted a few years earlier. The problem is that all of that happened 2 years or more ago. He did a pathetic job building the 2005 team, and his failure to take the options that were available then is hurting us now, IMO. There are holes in this team that there aren't solutions for now that there were after 2004. He has also facilitated Baker's asinine agenda and sold out our young talent by providing Dusty with older and lousier options. The bottom line is that Hendry did in fact invigorate, improve and raise expectations. What he also did was to cut our legs out from under us by doing an equally effective job of being complacent and letting it all go to crap in such short order. Is he wholly responsible for this collapse? No, but the fact he is so supportive of Baker, and so quick to make excuses shows me he doesn't really get it at all.

I would not lay all of the blame on Hendry. Clearly, he has largely ignored the team's need for OBP guys, and has catered to Dusty's lousy veteran fetish. Hendry did a great job building the 2004 team, but did an equally lousy job with the 2005 squad, especially with the bullpen. There wasn't much to be had this offseason, so it is hard to blame him for a lack of additions to the 2006 team. But while injuries and such are beyond his control, clearly Hendry is not blameless. And I really hope you aren't including Baker when you say that recent failures are not the fault of the "leadership".

1.Ryne Sandberg 2.Sammy Sosa 3.Mark Grace 4.Carlos Zambrano 5.Andre Dawson

A: Alex Rodriguez B: Albert Pujols Aramis Ramirez C: Lance Berkman Eric Chavez Hank Blalock D: Victor Martinez Todd Helton Justin Morneau Jonny Gomes WC: Jim Thome

Been good in the previous years? Keeping Pagan or Grissom around because they can back up CF is a horrible waste. Hairston isn't great out there but he can pass for it to give Pierre 10 games off for the year. I'd be surprised if Pierre misses more than 1 or 2 games, if any.

I think UCLA is the least likely of the four. Now they'll probably win.

LSU.

Yeah...those outlooks look pretty damn optimistic to me. Honestly, I'm deathly afraid of the bottom of the rotation for Houston. I have no faith in Wandy. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if this team had a solid #3, bumping Backe and Rodriguez down a spot. Taylor Buchholz is impressing people but how many playoff teams have 4th and 5th starters without amazing arms and with little to no major league experience?? I can't stand Roger Clemens' antics but man would his return transform the rotation. The bullpen is going to get worked, especially since Backe is inconsistent. With that said, I'm pretty optimistic about the other areas of the club. The defense, bench and bullpen should all be very good. I'm also optimistic about the offense. This club should easily score more runs than last year's team. Is that enough to offset the end of the rotation??? I'm skeptical but a return of the Rocket would change things dramatically. I think your offense will definitely be better with Wilson and a full year of Berkman, even if Ensberg declines a bit from last year's numbers. Another thing to consider is that 2005 Pettitte >> 2006 Pettitte, in all probability.

Two reasons: 1) He has Kyle Farnsworth Syndrome. In odd years, he puts up very good numbers and is an excellent 3B. In even years...not so much so. Cripes, he didn't hit a homerun until July in 2004. 2) His home/road splits, while significantly improved this year, are a little...interesting. The man knows how to use the Crawford Boxes, ya know? Kinda takes away from his perceived value. Interesting is a nice way of putting it.

I agree too - though NC didn't play any better, they were just ridiculously talented. Had Illinois not lost their composure and run their offense, they should have won that game. I would have to say that the four teams today were far better than those yesterday. That UCLA win was an awful awful game. Plus, how did a 1 seed end up playing a road game in the elite eight? UCLA never should have been in that region. If that's the case, Gonzaga shouldn't have been in Oakland either. And Mason certainly shouldn't have been in DC. And Wilmington with a home game as a 9 seed. Arkansas in Dallas. San Diego St. potentially in Oakland. The committee did a horrible job this year, the problem is, stupid talking heads like Packer ripped them for the things they actually did right like the MVC and CAA teams. This whole tournament has been an unadulterated mess. The officiating, the seeding, the regions....and they are going to point to GMU and say what a great and innovative job they did. Too bad that's the only thing the NCAA did right this year.

Packer and Nantz were talking about how this was the best tournament they can remember. I couldn't help but laugh.

If you have Pierre + Hairston/Walker batting in front of Lee and Ramirez instead of Patterson/Perez/Hairston, and Murton instead of Hollandsworthless, Gerut and Lawton, Cedeno instead of Perez, then it would take an absolute didaster to score less runs than last year. Even factoring in a decline from Lee, it is exceptionally unlikely. Our everyday lineup looks better, and our bench looks much better.

With Pierre at Wrigley, I can expect a few more HRs out of him. Maybe, but I was being conservative. I think that we could get 6-7 homers from out starting pitchers as well. I think Murton could very well hit 20 homers, and Cedeno could hit 10.