XZero771679666304

isn't that Modzilla in your avatar? That's 12 oz. Mouse of course.

Playing in the weak AL Central and having their starting pitching, they should have a good shot at 90+ wins. Of course, they did have career years out of 6 or 7 players, but their pitching should decrease the chances of a huge regression. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the Indians win the central next year.

I'm all for Dotel but I wonder how effective he will be in the beginning? Will he even be pitching before June?

I rememebr this summer when Cuban said he'd like to own the Cubs....I about fell out of my chair. Big time payroll does NOT equal a good team ala this year's Cubs. I wouldnt mind Cuban being the owner, but you need quality playes, not just big time money players. Big time payroll + smart spending usually does equal a good team. Cuban's a stat geek. He'd be a tremendous owner. He's basically modelled a lot of what he's done with the Mavs off Moneyball. Only problem is there's not equivalent stats for basketball that they've found yet. I guess you missed the fact that he is a Pirates fan and would like to buy in to his real "hometown" team. Don't base everything you see in a quick interview. And just because we wants to buy the Pirates doesn't mean he wouldn't buy the Cubs if given the opportunity.

Let's pray for Wrigley to survive the night. Lord knows if you throw too many drunk Sox fans together, they'll consider burning it down. Too bad I don't live in Chicago...I would have gone out as well, wearing my Cubs stuff proudly. It's a good thing Sox fans probably haven't learned to manipulate fire.

Sure he won a series, but with a massive payroll, and he has only been a GM for 3 years. You can't even say he has a track record. You can't justify paying him as much as guy like Shuerholz, who had put together 14 consecutive division winners. It's not like he is a super genius. He let both Lowe and Martinez walk this year and did little to improve the bullpen when it was obvious it was pretty bad, and that is why they went out of the playoffs like lambs. I give him credit for Ortiz, Schilling, Millar and Foulke, but I think a lot of guys could have put together a winner with 140 million dollars. He is a good GM, but not elite just yet. What do you hire a GM to do? Win the World Series. Maybe more than once if he can. He did it. He went out and got the players that would win a World Series and they did it. They did it going head to head against a 200m payroll team. If Schilling was healthy all year this year, they might have done it again this year. If the GM who puts together a 140m team can't be afforded 1.5m or whatever it is he actually wants, I don't know what to say. Without him, they may have been sitting at home in October last year. There have been a few average-poor GM's who have won titles. Kenny Williams is a prime example. Should he get top dollar? It's not the amount alone that bothers me, but the amount relative to other general mangers who are better. Sustained success is more indicative of a good GM than one WS title. I just can't see how you can pay a guy with only 3 years experience mor ehtan a guy like Schuerholz, who has overseen the management of 14 consecutive division titles, 3 pennants and a Championship. Epstein is a neophyte GM, and you can't just pay him more money than guys who have done far more than he has, and done it for longer. Giving Epstein top dollar would be like making Miguel Cabrera the biggest contract in the game right now. Yes he has been impressive, but it been over too short a period to anoint him elite. Let him win a few more division titles and pennants.

No, screw them. Screw them stright to hell.

The Sox and Astros have two of the smallest and weakest fan followings in sports. It may be that this is the biggest "who gives a crap" WS in recent memory.

He hasn't been the same since the Pujols HR. Or it could just be the workload catching up with him. Ugh. three outs from armageddon.

Sure he won a series, but with a massive payroll, and he has only been a GM for 3 years. You can't even say he has a track record. You can't justify paying him as much as guy like Shuerholz, who had put together 14 consecutive division winners. It's not like he is a super genius. He let both Lowe and Martinez walk this year and did little to improve the bullpen when it was obvious it was pretty bad, and that is why they went out of the playoffs like lambs. I give him credit for Ortiz, Schilling, Millar and Foulke, but I think a lot of guys could have put together a winner with 140 million dollars. He is a good GM, but not elite just yet.

So, who would want Epstein if he became available? Not me. Other than bring in Schilling, what has Epstein done for the Sox? Not much, IMO, other than allow his world championship team to become significantly worse. Of course, it was Epstein that put the World Championship team together. :-s Did he? I am probably wrong, but wasn't the core of that team already there when he took over? Many of the players were there, but he did add Shilling, Bellhorn, Foulke, and Millar, all of who helped put the team over the top. True, but I would hardly put him in the class of Jocketty and Schuerholz. He has been a GM for what, 3 years? I don't think he has quite earned the money he is asking for.

So, who would want Epstein if he became available? Not me. Other than bring in Schilling, what has Epstein done for the Sox? Not much, IMO, other than allow his world championship team to become significantly worse. Of course, it was Epstein that put the World Championship team together. :-s Did he? I am probably wrong, but wasn't the core of that team already there when he took over?

True, but as CUBS fans, we are quite used to this sort of thing, no? Actually, I think the Astros offense is worse.

So, who would want Epstein if he became available? Not me. Other than bring in Schilling, what has Epstein done for the Sox? Not much, IMO, other than allow his world championship team to become significantly worse.

If the Dodgers are looking to move Bradley, I don't think it's necessary to trade Hill to get him. If it was Hill for Bradley straight-up, I might look to do that. I seriously doubt I'd offer Hill + something to get Bradley, unless that "something" was stuff I didn't want. That is true. But personally, I don't think Hill's value is going to increase. I am not at all confident about his ability to sustain success at the ML level, and I would prefer to get something for him sooner than later, because his value will decrease with exposure, IMO. I would shop him heavily this winter, and see what I could get.

I know it may seem crazy, but I don't trade Williams and Murton for Zito. Me either. Not for one year of Zito, anyway. 2006 is his FA year, right?

I'd trade Hill before others figure out he has only one ML quality pitch, even as good as it is. With his major problem being HR allowed, perhaps he would be better suited to Dodger Stadium. He has a low 90's fastball to go with that curve. I'm not opposed to trading Hill, but he wouldn't be the first chip I'd offer up. A very straight and hittable low 90's fastball. And I wouldn't throw him away, but I wouldn't hesitate for a nanosecond to trade him for any significant offensive help. The key word there being "significant." I would definitely include Hill in a deal for the right player. By right player, I mean Wilkerson, Dunn, Manny, Marcus Giles, or players of that caliber. I'm not sure I'd be eager to include Hill in a deal for Jose Guillen, Raul Ibanez, Cliff Floyd, or players in that tier. A lot depends on what I'm getting. I'd trade him for Milton Bradley.

I'd trade Hill before others figure out he has only one ML quality pitch, even as good as it is. With his major problem being HR allowed, perhaps he would be better suited to Dodger Stadium. He has a low 90's fastball to go with that curve. I'm not opposed to trading Hill, but he wouldn't be the first chip I'd offer up. A very straight and hittable low 90's fastball. And I wouldn't throw him away, but I wouldn't hesitate for a nanosecond to trade him for any significant offensive help.

With Dusty around he can earn and still be benched. This is true of any manager. But more likely with Dusty.

Did it do the Marlins any good? If you have a poor fan base, a championship (or even two) does little to change anything, beyond a momentary burp in attendance. The White Sox winning the WS may have an effect, but I sincerely doubt that the Cubs stranglehold on the Chicago market is any real danger. I just can't see too many Cubs fans jumping from one side to the other, especially considering the animosity.

The difference between the Bulls and the Sox is that the Bulls did sustain, and they had an iconic ficure as the face of the team. Many were fans of Jordan more than the team. Jordan and the Bulls were a media and marketing behemoth. The 2005 Sox are a nameless bunch, with no superstar to speak of, no mantra, no personality. Heck, their best player (Konerko) will brobably be on another team next year.

Nah, that's too high end. More like this: LINK

I'd trade Hill before others figure out he has only one ML quality pitch, even as good as it is. With his major problem being HR allowed, perhaps he would be better suited to Dodger Stadium.

Maybe, but not in spades. Chicago will still be a Cubs town, the media will be talking about the Cubs more than the Sox in a few months, the Cell will return to it's nominal half-full status next season, and the Sox will still be the bastard stepchild of Chicago baseball. Actually, I think your terribly wrong here. I teach 7th graders, and I'm seeing an entire generation fo kids becoming Sox fans. Yes, kids are fickle, but our "loveable" failures, personalities and better ball park all fade when a team 8 miles south is holding up a World Series trophy. Despite the "edge" in popularity and the better environment and history, people are going to flock to the White Sox because they're winners. Heck, the Bulls sold out for 3 years after the last Championship, as bad as they were. I really believe that this is terrible for the Cubs. Unless we start off hot next year, and build up a mojo that we can follow the pair of Soxes that broke their long droughts, I don't see us having any of the attention that the Sox will get. And even if we start off hot, guys like Wood, Baker, and Patterson will buckle under any pressure and destroy the possiblity of anything good happening. This could become a fundamental change in the way Chicagoans view baseball. Hell, the Southside may become even further revived because of interest in the area. It won't be Wrigleyville, but maybe it gets better. I'm not just guessing, but I'm SEEING children fall in love these guys. Hispanic kids, black kids, Asian kids are all talking about the Sox. It's cool to see them all jacked up, but heartbreaking that it can't be our Cubbies. The tide is turning more than you realize. :cry: Funny thing about a bandwagon: people jump off as quickly as they jumped on. Especially with kids. Unless they sustain for a few years, I wouldn't be too concerned. And with that clown Williams making ther personnel decisions, I don't think that's likely.

That may be, but you know the grapes would be twice as sour if the roles were reversed. Many of us just can't congratulate the Sox, and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't know if that's true. The Sox fans have never considered themselves cursed and had a whole mythology that they latched onto, have they? They may have had years of ineptitude but they were not "lovable losers," a term that is sickening to most baseball fans who care about W-L. The Sox fans have been too busy hating about the Cubs to create a mythology. Cubs fans love the Cubs, while Sox fans love to hate the Cubs, and love of their team often seems secondary.