David

Yea, we Cubs fans have it so bad. Would be much better to be a Pirates fan. Or a Royals fan. Or a Mets fan even. Actually, there are plenty of teams who have won much more recently who I still wouldn't rather be a fan of. Phillies, for one. Yankees and Red Sox are the only ones who have something like what we have. No nonsense about a curse is going to change my mind about that.

The silver lining is that it doesn't really matter all that much, though.

I like the idea of Ricketts or Utay actually. At the very least, you would think a guy who was as big a fan as Ricketts was (if everything it says about him is true), would be committed to winning and putting forth as much of the team's resources as he can into the product. Anyway, is one of these guys the pink Cubs hat guy?

From what I remember, I'm pretty sure he had been examined by Cubs doctors weeks ago. Probably had to so some pushups too.

Well, especially minor league errors.

They wouldn't have been. EDIT - Well, Smoltz wouldn't have been. Rocco would've been good to take a flyer on.

Could be he's just not that good anymore. Could be the fact that relief stats can be very flukish. Could be Coors Field (except he was actually far better at Coors than on the road last year, lulz). Could be a lot of things.

Gordon was a terrible defender as a rookie and the label stuck. He worked extremely hard on defense and improved a lot in subsequent years under Skiles's tutelage. He's probably about an average to slightly below average defender at this point.

That's probably right.

The reason he went nuts on the ump was, supposedly (his coach confirmed it, IIRC), the ump made some racist comments. That doesn't necessarily justify anything, but it's a whole lot more understandable than him just thinking it was a bad call. I believe he tore his ACL as his coach was restraining him. Just a freak injury.

No, I'm not. I'm reacting to the silly overreaction that the Cubs are "in trouble" because they've marginally reduced their chances of winning the Central, and marginally reduced their chances of winning the World Series. Again, I'm not justifying any one of the moves they've made this offseason. The signing of Miles -- particularly because I suspect he will play every day while Fontenot again languishes -- is particularly egregious. I don't think the bolded is what will happen, but we shall see. Anyway, I agree with your point entirely. Hell, you could probably argue that the Cubs chances of winning the central going into 2009 are better than they were going into 2008. At this point, they're decreased from what they would have been had we not made these moves, I guess, but I think that's a pointless argument to make when there are still more moves to be made. It matters now, but it probably won't mean a whole hell of a lot come April. Or even next week. I think it's pointless to assume other good moves will be made to make this team better. The only thing we know is what the team looks like today, and it looks worse than it was last year. I'll grant you that, but there's no reason not to take into consideration the fact that there are reports/rumors (well, to varying degrees, I guess) of other dominoes to fall. It's not an assumption. It's taking things into account that, apparently, have a fairly significant chance of happening between now and opening day.

No, I'm not. I'm reacting to the silly overreaction that the Cubs are "in trouble" because they've marginally reduced their chances of winning the Central, and marginally reduced their chances of winning the World Series. Again, I'm not justifying any one of the moves they've made this offseason. The signing of Miles -- particularly because I suspect he will play every day while Fontenot again languishes -- is particularly egregious. I don't think the bolded is what will happen, but we shall see. Anyway, I agree with your point entirely. Hell, you could probably argue that the Cubs chances of winning the central going into 2009 are better than they were going into 2008. At this point, they're decreased from what they would have been had we not made these moves, I guess, but I think that's a pointless argument to make when there are still more moves to be made. It matters now, but it probably won't mean a whole hell of a lot come April. Or even next week.

I think it's especially true in baseball, btw, since so much of the game is chance based.

The thing is, it IS *that* much of a roll of the dice, despite how much our perception of what's going on might want to tell us otherwise. The craps thing is actually a decent analogy. Sevens roll the most, and that's where the house gets their slight edge, but you can go for a pretty long period of time without seeing anyone roll a seven.

There's a crapshoot aspect to the playoffs, but making your team worse is going to reduce your chances of winning it, regardless. Sure, and I didn't contend otherwise. The point was that they've probably marginally reduced their chances of winning the Central, and marginally reduced expectancy of winning the World Series. On the latter point, I'd guess that the amount at which they've reduced their WS win expectancy is far less than any variance from dumb luck. Obviously, I'd rather have the best team in the playoffs than the 8th-best team. The point is that the downgrades they've made don't mean they're "in trouble," the statement to which I responded It depends on what you consider to be in trouble. From your previous comment it sounds like you'll be content with another Central title and a quick sweep out of the playoffs. From that perspective I agree with you, we probably aren't in trouble. I'm expecting more. I'm expecting a WS run from this club. Are you seriously going to suggest that's not now in trouble, without further moves? Once in the playoffs, the chances of one team over another aren't all that different. I feel like a broken record whenever I make this argument, but whatever... Does that mean I don't want the Cubs putting out the best team they possibly can? Absolutely not. And maybe there are certain qualities/deficiencies in teams that play greater/smaller roles in the playoffs than they do in the long haul, but let's face it. The reality of the system (and any playoff system, really) is that it's a short term roll of the dice and absolutely anything can happen. There are two possible final outcomes to every playoff series. One team wins, another team loses and goes home. Might as well flip a coin. A slightly weighted one, but you're still only flipping it once per series. It's pretty easy to defy odds under those circumstances.

Please

I'm holding out hope that this is the case, though I don't know if I can wait another 2 months! I would think if Hendry knew he could only afford either Peavy OR Bradley, that he would choose Peavy. Peavy is truly elite at his position and is more likely to stay healthy. The Cubs do need a RF more than another SP, but I'd think Hendry would have sense enough to go after a cheaper RF, if necessary (Hermida, Scott, etc). But you never know, and there's not much indication, at this point, that this is the case. Confirm the guy's "source"...

More like this team is really average and Orlando (er, Dwight Howard) is really, really good. david it's okay to admit that this team is below average. At worst they're below average. They're nowhere near "really bad." They have elite backcourt production and a terrible front court. If they had any semblance of a defensive presence in the front (like they did a few years ago) they'd be pretty good. They don't even *need* a low post scorer, just somebody who can defend bigs. I'm not sure why anyone expected anything but a blowout vs. Orlando, though. We match up terribly against them and it seems to happen every single time we face them.

Seriously? It means nothing. That might turn out to be the case. But whoever put up that depth chart doesn't know anything we don't.

Actually, I'm guessing he meant transpires. True that.

bah leave the guy alone... he meant progresses. it's the holidays for duck's sake.

More like this team is really average and Orlando (er, Dwight Howard) is really, really good.

I don't think that word means what you think it means... Some people think these moves are trangressions. As for Peavy, that situation is not directly related to any of these moves. As I blogged, the ownership situation has to sort itself out first. Was DeRosa a cancer in the clubhouse or was there something behind the scenes we are not privy to? It seems pretty odd to move on of your better offensive players for 3 B- or C rated prospects. Even if this isn't related to Peavy, they needed to clear up money for Bradley.

From a backup middle IF? a .330~ OBP is probably acceptable. Plus he might be a decent (Reed-esque) platoon partner for Fontenot. w/e... this deal makes me sort of excited only to the extent that it seems to signal that DeRo is on his way out which could very well signal that Peavy is on his way in.

How is he against lefties?