XZero771679666304

No kidding. The only joke bigger than him winning a gold glove is that A-Rod moved to third so he could stay at SS.

ZUH?? Yeah, wtf? Who stops trick or treating beofre the age of 10? Going out on Halloween is great, even if only to scare the lifeforce out of other people.... :twisted:

In sports, though, I think winning breeds good chemistry. Yes and no, IMO. It can also foster ego and arrogance in individuals. Also, if you have a few guys who can't stand each other, winning will not change that.

I don't think chemistry is the critical factor in a teams success, but it is hard to argue against the idea that feeling good about your job and having a positive environment to work in positively effects performance, regardless of what you do for a living.

hyperbole If Prior, Z and Wood are all healthy, the Cubs can beat anyone. That's proven to be a big if. The law of averages are with the Cubs. Hopefully the baseball gods are too. Prior and Z should be fine. If Wood goes down again, I hope he isn't wearing Cubbie blue after 2006. "I just threw a coin and got heads five times in a row. Therefore, this time I will get tails." I think people forget that Wood did pitch 200+ innngs in 2002 and 2003. Now he has his shoulder cleaned up. It is far from a sure thing he will pitch a full season, but the chances are at least even that he will, IMO.

Furcal, no contest.

I had class, so I couldn't. I haven't been since I was 21.

Honestly, if Nomar wants to extend his career and be at less risk for injury, a move to LF for the rest of his career would be in his best interest, imo. Yeah, bu does he even have the arm to play OF? Not everybody can play any position. I think his arm is more than adequate.

Craig Monroe has decent speed and some power. Hendry might be liking that .825 ops from 2004. Brace yourselves for I~Rod & Monroe. DeFence! *clap* *clap* I seem to remember hearing a while back that the Cubs may be interested in Monroe this offseason. Not sure of where, though. Edit: LINK

Had the Cubs had Giles in RF instead of Burnitz, we would have been 5th in OBP instead of 13th. That alone speaks of his value. The window is closing. I don't think we have the luxury of passing on the only impact OF because of his age. We can be fiscally responsible in fourth place or we can overpay for the player than immediately improves the line-up. I choose the later. I want Giles too but 4 years scares me. Obviously if we can get him for 3 years that would be perfect. What if the Cards offered 3/36, would you do the fourth to keep him away from them? I would. I would go ahead and offer the fourth to keep him from even thinking about other teams. I would go four, but frontload the contract.

Had the Cubs had Giles in RF instead of Burnitz, we would have been 5th in OBP instead of 13th. That alone speaks of his value. The window is closing. I don't think we have the luxury of passing on the only impact OF because of his age. We can be fiscally responsible in fourth place or we can overpay for the player than immediately improves the line-up. I choose the later. I want Giles too but 4 years scares me. Obviously if we can get him for 3 years that would be perfect. 4 scares me too. I would be less scared if the contract was frontloaded, even less if there was a mutual option for a fourth year.

Not sure what the def of a groundbreaking player is but Furcal is 27 , switch hitter, a 15 homer , 40 steal guy, with some of the best range at short in the majors to go with a cannon arm at short. I'm not sure if Cedeno's ceiling is anywhere near that high. True, this depends on a definition of a "groundbreaking player" and I don't think either is (or will be) one according to my definition. I agree, but I think that Furcal is already way above Cedeno's ceiling. Personally, I'd like to see a Furcal/Cedeno middle infield. (though I'd rather see a Furcal/Castillo middle IF)

Not really, considering the opponent. OSU isn't winless in the Big 12 because of bad luck. Ok, you're right - but coming back from a 19-point halftime deficit on the road is still impressive. True, but I have become kind of numb to top ranked teams doing that sort of thing after seing USC pull so many ourt of their arses. :evil:

You mean LoDuca? :P

From what I've seen, he just doesn't have the range. You'd have to flank him with CF types, and that would defeat the purpose altogether.

Shouldn't there be a middle option here? There is a whole lot of gray area between genius and cluelessness.

Not really, considering the opponent. OSU isn't winless in the Big 12 because of bad luck.

You have got to be kidding me. Did we make the playoffs in 2004 or 2005? Maybe you don't know this but we were 4th in our division last year. That is terrible!! All I care about is results and the past two year Hendry and Baker did nothing of the sort. I concede that Hendry sold us short in 2005, but very little of the blame for the 2004 season can be laid at Hendry's feet. I'm not so sure about that. Although our offense was stacked we still had some glaring holes and the most important being our closer. Everybody and their mother knew that Hawkins should not be in the role and Hendry decided to acquire Jose Mesa after waivers? Of course it was going to get blocked. Hawkins futility in that role, lack of fundamentals, and our sputtering offense cost us a playoff berth. Going into the 2004 season closer wasn't an issue. It didn't become one until late April/May. Going into 2004 ST, the Cubs roster was the strongest in the NL central, IMO. The offense was stacked (excluding SS), in part because Hendry brought in Derrek Lee, Todd Walker and Michael Barrett. The rotation was heralded as the best in the NL, and many said the Cubs had a top 3 bullpen. Remmy was good in 2003, as was Farnsworth. Hendry brought in the top setup man on the market (Hawkins), and perhaps the best loogy (Mercker). Borowski was coming off his best season. He signed Greg Maddux to go with Wood/Prior/Zambrano/Clement. The Bench left a bit to be desired, but you were going to have Grudz/Walker and Hollandsworth as your top PH, so it was far from pitiful. Now injuries and Baker undermined the season, but as pitchers and catchers reported in February 2004, you had to feel pretty damn good about our chances. 2005 is a different story. I felt great about 2004 at the beginning but like I said after those injuries Hendry didn't make the trades necessary to put us over the top. More specifically finding a closer. I don't give a crap how much you had to pay for it, you just had to get one. Funny thing about trades, someone has to be willing to give you what you want. But could he have done more in-season? Sure. But I was more referring to the offseason that year. Hendry more than did his job. As for the Rusch signing, I don't like it. But even so, it is far from a crippling move. I'm going to hold off a while before demanding Jim's head.

I agree with you. His numbers as a reliever ranged from good-excellent across the board. His stuff is just fine.

You have got to be kidding me. Did we make the playoffs in 2004 or 2005? Maybe you don't know this but we were 4th in our division last year. That is terrible!! All I care about is results and the past two year Hendry and Baker did nothing of the sort. I concede that Hendry sold us short in 2005, but very little of the blame for the 2004 season can be laid at Hendry's feet. I'm not so sure about that. Although our offense was stacked we still had some glaring holes and the most important being our closer. Everybody and their mother knew that Hawkins should not be in the role and Hendry decided to acquire Jose Mesa after waivers? Of course it was going to get blocked. Hawkins futility in that role, lack of fundamentals, and our sputtering offense cost us a playoff berth. Going into the 2004 season closer wasn't an issue. It didn't become one until late April/May. Going into 2004 ST, the Cubs roster was the strongest in the NL central, IMO. The offense was stacked (excluding SS), in part because Hendry brought in Derrek Lee, Todd Walker and Michael Barrett. The rotation was heralded as the best in the NL, and many said the Cubs had a top 3 bullpen. Remmy was good in 2003, as was Farnsworth. Hendry brought in the top setup man on the market (Hawkins), and perhaps the best loogy (Mercker). Borowski was coming off his best season. He signed Greg Maddux to go with Wood/Prior/Zambrano/Clement. The Bench left a bit to be desired, but you were going to have Grudz/Walker and Hollandsworth as your top PH, so it was far from pitiful. Now injuries and Baker undermined the season, but as pitchers and catchers reported in February 2004, you had to feel pretty damn good about our chances. 2005 is a different story.

You have got to be kidding me. Did we make the playoffs in 2004 or 2005? Maybe you don't know this but we were 4th in our division last year. That is terrible!! All I care about is results and the past two year Hendry and Baker did nothing of the sort. I concede that Hendry sold us short in 2005, but very little of the blame for the 2004 season can be laid at Hendry's feet.

Shoot, I only pay about 10 bucks a month. It's not expensive.

Leno, Letterman, Kimmel, Conan... No, dude, we're doing OPRAH! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: What hapless moron in the Sox front office made that pathetic decision??? It's because nobody outside of Chicago gives a damn about the Sox.

hmmmmmm

It'll take much more than a tweak. The problems that have plagued this team, have plagued them for years and are not being exaggerated. The Cubs were 9th in runs scored this year. They were that low because of low OBP, and the low OBP was because they took few walks. It would take 1 or 2 bats to turn things around if those 1 or 2 were big impacts like Giles. But things will not be fixed with Furcal and a mediocre RF. They need impact out there. No matter what you do with the pitching staff, there's no way to guarantee a top 1 or 2 staff, with the fragile nature of that aspect of the game. You can't put all your emphasis on pitching and just think this offense will get fixed with tweaks. They've been tweaking it for 3 years and it just keeps getting worse. They were 23 runs out of 6th and 36 out of 5th. Replace Neifi/Patterson @ the top of the order w/ Furcal and replace Floyd w/ Burnitz, and they should be able to get into the top 6. Get some hits w/ runners on base for a change and they can be top 5. Weren't they near the bottom in hitting w/ RISP?? Burnitz needs to go!! If you call those two moves "tweaks" then no offense, but you are on crack. Actually saying somebody might be on crack is offensive IMO. Frankly if you consider signing a top 5 FA and trading for 6M player who just put up 275/35/100 "tweaks" then you can't be sober. Easy, it's just semantics.