Tim

Because just about any time there's an option, there's also a buyout.

The umpire made an initial signal out to the right to signal the strike, then made a separate motion to pump the fist to ring up the out.

I'd just go 12/12/12/12.

Hey Bruce, I see you're online. What was the mood of the Angels after the game?

3 yr 10M with an option for a 4th at 10M with a 3M buyout Won't get it done. I firmly believe Giles will sign a 4 year deal this offseason. And I'd give him one without hesitation.

I think it is an important game to play when figuring out what needs to be done for 2006. I think it is a very fair question to ask, "What if Walker had been able to play in 150 games this past season as he has throughout most of his career?" In order to figure out what to do for the coming season, the Cubs need to determine the true talent level of the people they have under their control. If injuries for a player can be expected (say, from ARam), then that needs to be factored into the strategy. But if injuries were a fluke, then that needs to be accounted for, as well. You don't forecast what is going to happen off raw data. You make adjustments to the historic data for other causal factors, then forecast from the adjusted figures.

I don't. I think it's completely bogus to play the what if game. Take any team and add back all their lost days from their best players and they should be better. But who knows? Regardless, it's a pointless exercise. It's the same thought process that caused Hendry to completely lay an egg last offseason, and quite frankly it bothers me that so many fans are willing to go the same route, passively excusing the failure as something that could not have been prevented. We heard about the injury talk all season. It's a weak excuse, always has been, always will be. Why can't people get beyond that and admit this wasn't a good team? Erase every single good player's injury and this team might have been good enough to contend for the wild card. Big deal. The Cubs failed guys. They didn't step on a crack and break their mother's back. They didn't spill the salt, assault a goat or insult the Babe. They failed. The GM failed to put together a great team despite a great payroll. The coaches failed to get the most out of the players and the players failed to play well enough to win enough games. Why are people trying to overcomplicate things with excuses and what ifs? The next thing you know they will be trotting out Murton, Wilson, Burnitz in the OF next season, and people will start justifying those moves, just like they justified last year's moves, as the team just needing to be healthy and tweak the roster to contend next season. I may be crazy in thinking that if enough people make enough noise about the Cubs needing to make the right moves, that one of these days they might actually do something right. But when people keep spouting off the company line that it was injuries that prevented glory this season, I get the bad feeling that Dusty's claws are deeper into this organization than I used to think. I just think you're unfairly characterizing what people are saying. I know I've certainly been one of the earliest, loudest and most consistent voices here that the Cubs need to overpay for Giles, even if it means adding a fourth year. That the Cubs shouldn't stop there and find another solid OBP bat to put in place of Corey (but NOT Lofton). That they should acquire another top flight arm because they just can't count on the ones they have staying healthy. That they need to get one more shutdown arm in the pen. I don't think it's fair to say that I'm buying the company line or making excuses for the 2005 Cubs. I want change. I recognize the weaknesses that this season exposed for this team and want them addressed. But I don't feel the need to put down the people who aren't whining, bitching and moaning with every single post they make. But that's just me.

Who, exactly, in this thread has been saying that "it was just bad luck"? BK has made an argument that the team isn't as bad as their record (or even run differential) would indicate, but I hardly think he's proposing that means that the team can just sit back and do nothing this offseason. Or is it someone else you are responding to? I've seen several people blame injuries for this team not making the playoffs this year. That's laughable to me. They were predictably mediocre with no OF production. They fell apart in 2004 and downgraded their talent level in 2005. Why anybody wants to follow the Dusty Baker excusometer is beyond me. What is so hard in admitting this wasn't a good team? No excuses. So you don't think the Cubs would have scored enough extra runs with: 58 extra games from Walker 96 extra games from Nomar 35 extra games from Aramis 100 fewer games from Neifi 50 fewer games from Macias or prevented enough extra runs with: 5 extra starts from Prior (and fewer banged up starts) 20 extra starts from Wood 7 fewer starts from Mitre 6 fewer starts from Dempster 8 fewer starts from Leicester/Koronka/Hill to have made up 10 games in the standings? It may have been poor planning from day 1 to count on all those guys to be healthy this year. But I also think it's perfectly fair to say that those players would have given the Cubs an excellent chance of making the playoffs if they had been available the entire season.

Who, exactly, in this thread has been saying that "it was just bad luck"? BK has made an argument that the team isn't as bad as their record (or even run differential) would indicate, but I hardly think he's proposing that means that the team can just sit back and do nothing this offseason. Or is it someone else you are responding to?

In 2003, Clement managed 32 starts. I believe the one he missed was due to a sore back or groin (I can't remember which). He also posted an excellent quality start percentage of 63% that season, even when looking at runs instead of earned runs. He wasn't as good as Prior, Wood or Z that year, but he was still a very, very solid contributor. 2003 Pitching Performances

I completely agree with you. Even during the brief times when they were healthy, they didn't play very well. Never did they look like a potentially great team, let alone one capable of winning 90 games. If Wood and Prior had each made 28 starts (big laugh I know), how many wins would you say the Cubs could've had? Especially if you assume that they pitched like this.

Has anyone else noticed that Brendan Harris is playing SS for the Nationals in the AFL?

I'd put them on the same tier and answer that between the two of them I'd suggest it just depends on how well they match up with the individuals on the staff. A good question would be if Price would have better luck getting Dusty to take Prior/Z/Wood out of the game after seven innings of great pitching when the Cubs have an eight run lead. I happen to think that's pretty hopeless, though. In the end, I'd say that Larry's probably not the optimal fit with this group and that it is time to make the switch. Price is one of the few I'd consider dumping him for, though. Keep in mind that Price wasn't able to save Soriano, either.

They do have the best offence in baseball in terms of runs scored after adjustments for ballpark. However, Tony Womack is what you're wondering. Womack really didn't play though, he had 2 postseason AB's. I thought Tim was talking about the regular season. I certainly was. They scored the 2nd most runs in all of baseball, behind Boston. How could anybody expect them to score many more? And Womack was still only a utility player in the season. The 8 guys who qualified for the batting title all produced respectable numbers for their position, except Bernie. If you want to question their offense, the discussion would have to begin with him. Let's put it this way - they scored only 70 more runs than Cincy, without having to waste a spot having a pitcher hit, with Posada over LaRue, with Giambi over Casey, with Sheffield over Kearns & ARod over Randa. The Reds have an edge in CF with Griffey, no doubt, but Dunn's edge on Matsui isn't huge. It just seems to me that the Yankees have the talent to make a run at 1000 runs and they ended up 115 short of that.

You don't think Allison has a chance to battle back? Harvey is definitely way behind. :( I'm curious if he would be that far beind if he were in another organization. To be fair, the knee set him back by a year.

Is he open-minded about leaving NY? I can see him wanting to stay there because it is much more of a multi-lingual city than Chicago. In Chicago you pretty much hear English, Spanish, and Polish and little else. I take it you don't spend much time in Chinatown.

Why would they care?

I've pointed this out before, but I think Larry works better with sinker/slider guys than power pitchers like Wood/Prior. In addition to the guys I mentioned earlier, he's helped Wuertz become a much more dominant pitcher (when not gassed) than he was as a minor leaguer. I'll reiterate. I think Larry is a good pitching coach, but there are other guys I'd prefer. The guys I like better probably aren't available anyway, though.

Well, Jeff Allison was the biggest bust there. Harvey's way behind even the other high schoolers on that list, though.

And Kotchman.

IIRC, he was actually drafted as a somewhat light-bat, good defense SS.

I think you'd have to include Ramirez in any deal to get ARod. There's no significant 3B on the market this offseason, so they'd have to make another trade to plug that hole if they trade ARod.

Come on, he seriously can't be the WORST. He's consistently handcuffed by Steinbrenner. And lest we forget the travesty that was Chuck Lamar? Cashman is not good. Anybody could look good if they were able to cover all their mistakes with another $8 million signing. The guy has more than twice the resources of Hendry. I give Hendry crap for innefficiantly putting together the Cubs roster with $100 million, but I think Jim could have turned this team into an absolute force if he had another $100 million to add on. I don't care if George sometimes forces a guy on him. Some of those guys are people like Sheffield and ARod, two MVP caliber players. I don't pretend that I am qualified to run a baseball team, but if you gave me the Yankees payroll, I'm pretty confident I could build a team that would compete with Cashman's squad. Cashman wanted Vlad, George went with Sheffield behind his back. Sheff's a very good player, but he's no Vlad. Watching that game last night, I was wondering why that team doesn't score more runs. Jeter, ARod, Giambi, Sheffield, Matsui, Posada is just a killer lineup to work through.

To be Nero, wouldn't Andy have to destroy the fabric of something currently great? I am not that opposed to Rothschild returning, though I would have liked a whole new coaching staff. However, there is also something to be said for a consistent approach. One of the things about the Braves is that they've been very stable, so the systems have a chance to get ingrained. The fact that many of us aren't fans of the systems being ingrained is more of an issue, I realize. I guess I'm just saying that I didn't want change just for change's sake. If we couldn't get House, Peterson or a few other particular guys, then I would just as soon stay with Larry. He's not a bad pitching coach by any means. Now Clines & Sarge, on the other hand... I want Von Joshua. Yes, but the Braves coaches are good. That tends to make a difference. Rothschild is a good pitching coach. He's just not a great one. Every coach is going to have guys he's able to bring along and ones that he's not. Larry has done a very good job with some of the pitchers on the staff, including Clement, Dempster, Z and others. He's not done as well with some others. I'd like to see a much greater focus on bio-mechanics, hence my preference for House and Peterson. But Larry is not a bad PC at all.

To be Nero, wouldn't Andy have to destroy the fabric of something currently great? I am not that opposed to Rothschild returning, though I would have liked a whole new coaching staff. However, there is also something to be said for a consistent approach. One of the things about the Braves is that they've been very stable, so the systems have a chance to get ingrained. The fact that many of us aren't fans of the systems being ingrained is more of an issue, I realize. I guess I'm just saying that I didn't want change just for change's sake. If we couldn't get House, Peterson or a few other particular guys, then I would just as soon stay with Larry. He's not a bad pitching coach by any means. Now Clines & Sarge, on the other hand... I want Von Joshua.