David

Orton = the suck

Agreed completely.

Foster was one of the lone bright spots on the staff for a couple years (esp. 97). Of course, that's more of an indication of how bad our staff/team was. Navarro had a good season in 95 too. Castillo had a solid 95, but was a disaster after that. Ah, memories. LOL

The 2005 version wore me out too. Bradley has wore out his welcome with Cleveland and the Dodgers............can't imagine why Chicago would be any different I didn't have that much of a problem with the 2005 team themselves...just the piss poor management of the team. Neifi and Macias batting 1 and 2? Neifi and Corey? The blatant misuse of the pen? The absolute lack of fundamentals on the team? They obviously weren't prepared coming out of ST, and never did get over the hump. We were better than our record showed in '05. Not good enough to overtake the Cardinals, but at least wild card contenders, if the team was managed properly and prepared for the season. The '04 team, however, whined alot more and choked down the stretch. I'll have to argue with this. Regardless of whining or anything else, the 2004 team was far better both on paper and performance wise. There's no question about that. A lot of bad luck, including tons of games in a row with no offday, some blown saves, and basically slumping for the last week of the season cost them the playoffs. Add to that the fact that the Cardinals came out of nowhere to be great, so they couldn't just win a bad division like in 03 and then let the pitching carry them. Despite all that, sad as it is to say, they had the most wins (albeit by one game) of any Cubs team since 1998. I'd gladly take the 2004 team over what we had this year, or basically any team we've had in recent memory. I wasn't referring to the 2005 team being better than the 2004 team, I was referencing the disappointment of watching the teams. The outcome of the 2004 team, especially after all of the whining, and the choking down the stretch, made them harder to watch, and more disappointing than the 2005 team. I didn't mean to imply they weren't as good. Agreed. I misinterpreted what you said. Still, up until that final week, I definitely enjoyed 2004. To think they should've won 92-94 games despite the injuries to Prior and Wood. Pretty impressive.

I would say that 27 is the beginning of many position player's prime years, but it's certainly not the peak. I don't know if anyone's ever done a study, but I highly doubt that 27 on average is the most productive year for most players out there. That's actually exactly what somebody did. 27 is the average prime year. That doesn't mean guys fall off cliffs at 28 or 29. What usually happens is players reach their peak at 27, but they can stay relatively close to that peak for several years after, a sort of plateau after the highest height. I find that hard to believe. Gotta link? Unfortunately, since I last read about all this at least 5 or 6 years ago, I don't have a link, but I can back up goony on this. In fact, I thought it to be common knowledge.

First of all, overspending matters because the more we overspend now, the less likely it is that we'll be able to keep guys like Aramis, Lee, Zambrano, and Prior. It also matters because if you overspend on somebody like Furcal, you are left with less money to address all the other issues on the team. What part of this don't you grasp? Secondly, how is it that the offense is completely patched up?

The 2005 version wore me out too. Bradley has wore out his welcome with Cleveland and the Dodgers............can't imagine why Chicago would be any different I didn't have that much of a problem with the 2005 team themselves...just the piss poor management of the team. Neifi and Macias batting 1 and 2? Neifi and Corey? The blatant misuse of the pen? The absolute lack of fundamentals on the team? They obviously weren't prepared coming out of ST, and never did get over the hump. We were better than our record showed in '05. Not good enough to overtake the Cardinals, but at least wild card contenders, if the team was managed properly and prepared for the season. The '04 team, however, whined alot more and choked down the stretch. I'll have to argue with this. Regardless of whining or anything else, the 2004 team was far better both on paper and performance wise. There's no question about that. A lot of bad luck, including tons of games in a row with no offday, some blown saves, and basically slumping for the last week of the season cost them the playoffs. Add to that the fact that the Cardinals came out of nowhere to be great, so they couldn't just win a bad division like in 03 and then let the pitching carry them. Despite all that, sad as it is to say, they had the most wins (albeit by one game) of any Cubs team since 1998. I'd gladly take the 2004 team over what we had this year, or basically any team we've had in recent memory.

I believe the Cubs hold a buyout of about $3.5 million for 2007 and the Cubs should do that. They simply can not afford to pay him so much, especially for a #3 starter at best. If Kerry posts a 3.20 ERA, 11.35 K/9, and a 2.03 BAA in 32 starts, he'll be a lot better than a number three starter. That's ace material there. For those who didn't realize it, those were Kerry's numbers from 2003. Apparently, in CR's mind, "at best" has nothing to do with what Kerry has actually done in his career. Moreover, as we all know, he's had a few seasons like 2003, it was no fluke.

EDIT - double post

WHAT!? Old news.

thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you So the NL All-star team then? Since when does "better than league average" mean "All-star?"

Yea, makes sense. He's still only around 90%. Of course, if Orton AND Blake get hurt... lol

http://chicagobears.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=12398 It's official

Even the media is divided...Sportsline.com's take... http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9059265 2nd question down. By the way...has the Harmon forecastpicked against the Bears on every single game this season, or is it just me? I'd have to say that's one of "mainstream media reports that Orton is playing safe football." :wink: Not directed at you at all, but those "expert" opinions like on the CBS site mean little to me. The same experts said that the Bears would be horrible this year. I'd really like someone to offer some statistical evidence backing why Kyle Orton at this stage in his development is a better choice than Rex (or, hell, just about anybody) to quarterback this team down the stretch and into the playoffs. Err...wait a minute. Fox sports is ok to use in an argument, but CBS isn't? They're all just opinions. Fox Sports mainly listed statististics-what looks like a football version of VORP (which I found pretty interesting, hadn't heard of it before). There's not much opinion there. Just facts. Stats and rankings. What Pete Prisco and Clark Judge think (read: opinion) about who should play has little importance; especially when they're not the ones making the decisions.

Apparently, Ford and Kittner were cut today. Sure makes it seem like Rex will be in uniform Sunday. Anybody know if they are gonna pick up Airese Currie?

Even the media is divided...Sportsline.com's take... http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9059265 2nd question down. By the way...has the Harmon forecastpicked against the Bears on every single game this season, or is it just me? I'd have to say that's one of "mainstream media reports that Orton is playing safe football." :wink: Not directed at you at all, but those "expert" opinions like on the CBS site mean little to me. The same experts said that the Bears would be horrible this year. I'd really like someone to offer some statistical evidence backing why Kyle Orton at this stage in his development is a better choice than Rex (or, hell, just about anybody) to quarterback this team down the stretch and into the playoffs. I don't buy into the continuity argument, either. Our offense is just continually bad. The fact is, I think we could be doing just as well with Jeff Blake under center, right now. (That's not to say I would like to see that, since I would rather have the younger guy in there, if they're both gonna suck anyway)....

Fox Sports's take on the situation.. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5105866 Granted, 5 of Kyle's interceptions came in one game. But this basically jibes with how I feel about Orton. The kid has been good for a rookie, but, and I can't overstate this, absolutely horrible for an NFL QB. There's nothing to lose by trying Rex. It's basically inconceivable that he could be any worse, and there's a good chance he could be better. To me, saying that Orton has been a good QB based solely on the fact that we're winning is analagous to saying that Russ Ortiz was a great pitcher in 2003 because he had 20+ wins. (Yea, yea, different sports; but the comparison still holds some merit) Fact is, the Bears are winning the games Orton starts because of their defense, just like the Braves won Russ Ortiz's games because of their offense.

I think it was Lawrence Holmes (of WSCR) who spoke with Rex at the elementary school that Rex and another player were visiting. Said Rex is really pumped and "has that look in his eye" like expects to be in uniform in Tampa Bay this weekend. Expects to be practicing at full speed this week and that he's a little over 90%... Also, as we already knew, he'll be wearing a special shoe Reebok made for him to give his ankle some protection. It'd sure be nice to see Rex back in uniform, even though it'll just be on the sidelines. How can you not feel for the guy, after what he's gone through for the past 14 months or so. For the record, I would fully support a switch at QB (although probably not this week).

Get over yourself and your armchair opinions. Lol, thats probalby construed as a personal attack, but I agree with you. You can't act like you know more than a GM in baseball, the guy has his job for a reason. GM's are smart, smart people, with degrees from great universities. I know Epstein is a Yale grad. Having your opinion is one thing but just keep at that, an opinion, don't try to make it fact! edit - grammar Funny you mention that, because I would kill to have Theo Epstein as our GM. And not because of his Yale degree either. But just to counter your point, Jim Hendry attended Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama where he received a bachelor's degree in communications and journalism. Not exactly Ivy League. Hell, not even Big East :wink: . (Although, probably not as bad as Dusty's American River Junior College). Besides, why do you overlook the possibility (or likelihood) that some people in the general population are smarter? The general population is an awfully large group of people. As for Hendry, the only thing I fault him for is his loyalty to Dusty. He may make some questionable moves with mediocre players, but what GM doesn't? He got us Aramis, Lee, Barrett, Walker, and a bunch of other players I love. The Nomar trade was brilliantly orchestrated. I just wish he would accept just how bad our manager really is.

So the magic number remains 4. Technically, at least. The tiebreakers and all that could make that a little different.

Some of you might want to show the admin of this site a little more respect. :? He deserves it. :)

Don't forget Pie is 20 years old and expected to be playing regularly in the majors at 21. I don't know what you consider a "can't miss" prospect (or if there is such a player), but he's the closest this organization has had in a long, long time. Yep, pretty much since Patterson was rated the #1 prospect in baseball. ;) However, we have had a couple of pitchers come up since then that were pretty much "can't miss". For example, there was the kid named Prior... Good call, Tim. They don't come anymore "can't miss" than Prior. He was Major League ready straight out of college.

Anyone remember when Abreu's little (or was it big?) brother was an infielder in the Cubs system? Dennis, I think?

I agree on all counts.

13-0