David

I don't recall any speculation that Hendry was interested in Beltran for the number of years he was asking at the time he was a free agent. He was never a strong target of the Cubs organization that year. I don't get where the 'revisionist history' part comes in. All reports were there was an offer made, and it was believed to have been either 5 or 6 years at either $75-90 million. Granted, Hendry wasn't willing to go the 7 or 8 years that Beltran was seeking, but I'd say that offer qualifies as him being a strong target. Maybe you think it was just a token offer, but I considered it more than fair and a solid offer at the time.

I think they convince themselves that their moves are so important to the team, so they have to make them, which to me, is akin to justifying your salary. They are paid like NFL coaches, whose strategies matter, but don't matter nearly as much. I'm guessing this is just very poorly worded? Not something I'd expect to hear you say, goony. The baseball managers strategies don't matter as much. Poorly worded. Thought so.

I think people here are misconstruing my usage of the word 'absurd.' I just mean a sick, out of this world offer. I don't mean for it to carry any negative connotation.

Who said I was criticizing them? I'm just saying they made a ridiculously high offer. We probably should have made an insane offer ourselves. But to say that he wasn't a target is revisionist history and just isn't true.

I think they convince themselves that their moves are so important to the team, so they have to make them, which to me, is akin to justifying your salary. They are paid like NFL coaches, whose strategies matter, but don't matter nearly as much. I'm guessing this is just very poorly worded? Not something I'd expect to hear you say, goony.

What are you basing this on? Lee got a fantatsic deal. Ramirez is well paid. The offer to Furcal was market value (nobody expected the Dodgers to crazy with their offer). If he says these guys are in his sights, and news reports show Soriano as his number one target, why disbelieve it? Just out of natural Cubs angst? Others have posted what I was going for. If the Cubs overpayed for Beltran they would have not traded for Pierre and the list goes on. IMO, when you have a talent like that you do what you have to do to get him. What stinks is that this year their are not any impact hitters out there in the free agent field. I don't recall Beltran ever being a Hendry target - he was a fans target, but not a Hendry target. There is a big difference. I don't think it's an accurate criticism to say he isn't willing to pay for the player. The criticize is applicable if it is changed to say Hendry doesn't usually target the big names, because that is often true. The only bigger names he has targeted he has signed, or was sorely outbid and it was good thing. But that sample is very small and mostly in-house. But when he has targeted a name, he has shown diligence in trying to get that name. The difference this offseason, we as fans hope, is that the organization is truthful when it says it is specifically targeting the big names. I think Hendry's ability or inability to sign the big FA is more of an unknown than anything. I suppose if making an offer of 90-95 mil a year qualifies him as not being a Hendry target, then you're right. He didn't make an absurd offer like the Mets, but it was more than a fair offer, no doubt.

I'm surprised they're not considering making the Bears/Pats game a Sunday night game.

You can't try and get away from the things you've never been near. 3-run homers are good things. Sac bunts and making things happen waste outs and decrease your run totals, and are therefore bad things. Thank you. I wanted to respond with exactly that, but didn't want to open a whole can of worms in this thread. Waiting for the 3 run homer is what I wish we'd do (or the 2 run double). If you have guys who get on base and hit for power, there would be plenty of opportunities for it, and you'll win plenty of games doing it.

Wow.. Joniak didn't seem as crazy as usual... :shock:

I'm probably just reiterating what everyone has already said.. but WOW... A win's a win. It'll show up the same in the standings. For a team to go 16-0 (or even 15-1), they have to win a game like this. It's the game that 9 out of 10 times is a loss. All the great teams win games they should have lost, and this was just one of the most ridiculous examples I've ever seen of that. It's probably a good thing for the Bears, though. Now they have a bye week to stew over a terribly played game, and yet, they still came out on top. Hopefully they won't take anymore opponents lightly,and maybe Ron Turner will realize that play action isn't going to work if you're not running the ball at all. It looked like the Carolina game out there. Also, Matt Leinart was impressive. So was the Cardinals defense. Pressure all night.

The ONLY thing I like about this move (aside from the fact that I'm a little encouraged about the comments I heard he made in the playoff games about OBP and lineup construction) is that Piniella most likely wants to win now, and this probably means that the Cubs made him promises about what they're going to be doing and who they're going to be going after this offseason. I look forward to an aggressive offseason and hopefully a well-spent 115 million dollar payroll, if nothing else.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061016/SPORTS0303/610160396/1100/SPORTS03 Cool hometown type article on Grossman. Couple of parts I liked... I'm sure most here will appreciate that sentiment. :) Hadn't heard about this. Pretty cool. Edit - My bad, just saw that CubColtPacer had already posted it. I'll leave the post in for the excerpts.

I will go on record and agree with this right now.

Just curious, where did you hear him say this? Did he say it in the playoff broadcasts or something? I haven't really been watching. Baseball has been dead to me since May or so.

BUMP - How is this not on the first page? Are you ready for some MNF?

I love that freakin sig.

Tommie or Chris? I am pretty sure he means the latter.. Please mean Chris, please mean Chris, please mean Chris....

How about Murton, Barrett, ARod, Dunn, Ramirez, Jones, Pie, Theriot/FA 2B ?

So if you're coach, and we're going into the Green Bay game with 15 wins...do you rest the starters? You could always make the argument that 3 weeks without really playing would do more harm than good (Week 17, Bye, and the week between the bye and the first playoff game), and that this would outweigh the benefit of not risking injury in one game. It's not like we're playing the last game on FieldTurf or anything. I'm not sure which side I'm on after last year, when I strongly supported resting the starters. I'm not sure the bye week isn't enough rest. 3 weeks seems like an awfully long time not to be playing.

It wouldn't be nearly as special. But it would be more of an accomplishment than say, 12-4 or 13-3 with a SB, if you ask me. You're definitely right, though, 16-0 and a playoff (or even SB) loss would definitely leave a really bitter taste.

Where did you read it? And what is the connection there that we think we can steal Bochy away? If you're referring to a Sun-Times article, that was in 2003 that he was turned down. I haven't heard yet whether he was or wasn't granted permission this time, but he did request, and he very well might get it.

I don't think you rest starters with a shot at 16-0... One loss, sure... but if they're still undefeated, I can't see them throwing the second string out there. I'm not sure I agree. What's better? 16-0 or Super Bowl win? Both? :) I'm not saying that I think you should or shouldn't rest the starters. I just don't think they would. Personally, I might open a can of worms here, but I think 16-0 is more special than a Super Bowl. Teams can get lucky and win the SB. You don't get lucky and go 16-0. Plus, nobody has ever done 16-0. Does that mean I would enjoy 16-0 with a playoff loss more? Hell no, but IMHO, going 16-0 is a display of dominance and consistency that is unprecedented in NFL history and is a lot more impressive than simply winning the championship, something that is much more luck dependent and that is done every year. Again, just give me 19-0, and I'll be happy. To answer your question... what's better? Probably 16-0. What would I rather the Bears do? Win the SuperBowl.

I don't think you rest starters with a shot at 16-0... One loss, sure... but if they're still undefeated, I can't see them throwing the second string out there.

Stop. That makes it even worse. Then we'd be trading Todd Walker for Bruce Bochy.... :x :x

That's good news. Who would the Cubs have to give up if he were to come to Chicago? Of all the prospective candidates I like Bochy the best. If Hendry gives up any player of value in a deal for a manager he's a bigger idiot than I thought. This team needs the right players, the manager is a secondary thought. Managers don't win. What if we could give up Dempster? or Izturis? I'd rather trade them for players. It has to be a pretty bad player, IMO, to warrant trading a player for a coach. I'd say Izturis qualifies.