soccer10k

Dude that is way too complicated. Bud Selig would get a headache if he read that.

Exactly. I'm sure Hendry knew that Giles wasn't too available and didn't waste his time on going after Giles. If Hendry thought he had a reasonable shot at getting Giles, he would have gone after him like Rafael Furcal.

Kerry will be starting before Prior. You heard it here first. (oh and be prepared for the Giles argument re: Jones) I don't think Giles is a much better player than Jones and he's four years older as well meaning he's much more prone for a big dropoff and injuries. I'm not saying I think Jones is a better player, I just don't know why so many people on this board worship Giles like a god.

Obviously our season will depend on the pitching staff. I think Mark Prior is the key to the season. I've given up on Kerry Wood. If Prior can make 20-25 starts this year and the other guys can step up, that includes any minor leaguers that make spot starts early in the season, I think we'll be ok. My main concern in the offseason was getting a leadoff hitter and getting better relief pitchers. That has been the problem for years. The Cubs usually hit a ton of home runs but they are solo or two run shots when they should be three run shots. They also have a problem holding leads late in the game. I felt that both of those problems were fixed this year. Sure, Jacque Jones wasn't the greatest pickup ever, but would Jeromy Burnitz really have perfomed much better at 37 (almost)? If Matt Murton can hit like has been expected, I think our offense will be fine.

Korea WAS THE BEST TEAM IN THE TOURNAMENT, anybody who disagree apparently wasn't watching the WBC. KOR 2, TPE 0 4 Mar KOR 10, CHN 1 5 Mar KOR 3, JPN 2 12 Mar KOR 2, MEX 1 13 Mar KOR 7, USA 3 15 Mar KOR 2, JPN 1 18 Mar JPN 6, KOR 0 They beat the HIGHLY more talented USA team---convincingly. They beat Japan---twice in HIGHLY competitive games. They beat the teams they needed to in China and Chinese Taipei. To me...Korea was the BEST TEAM in the tournament, and you have no facts to prove otherwise. On the flip side, being the best team, doesn't mean squat, if you run into a team that "turn the switch on." Cuba is arguably the most talented team in the WBC, but Korea...was hands-down the best team in the tourny, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT. How can you consider Korea to be the best team in the tournament when they didn't play any of the Latin American teams?

That's absolutely classic.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. You must remember that sports are a business for these owners. They realize that the best way to make a profit is to put a winning team on the field. Cutting payroll to $40 million isn't going to accomplish that and raising payroll to $140 million isn't going to do it either. The Yankees have had the highest payroll in the league the past few years and what has that got them? Nothing since 2000. The Cubs don't need to spend a ton of money. We do not need to become the Yankees. We just don't.

I think the problem is that they spend 100 million when they could spend 10 million+ more. They look at the Cubs as something that should turn a profit. If it were strictly about turning a profit, the player salaries would be significantly less and they would not be paying the manager 4M/year on a team with 3M+ in attendance. The Cubs have gotten the wrap of being a team that doesn't spend to win based on past leadership. In truth, a team doesn't need 100M payroll to win a championship. IMO, the Cubs have increased the team payroll, in the last few seasons, in an effort to both counterbalance the negative view of never spending as well as to field more competitive teams. We can debate about some of the moves but it's clear that they aren't made on a team that isn't trying to win. Cubs tickets were a dime a dozen not that long ago. After the barren 1970s, -80s, and much of the 1990s, the team attempted to bring in a winning managment team. Andy MacPhail may be controversial now, but his hiring was suppose to signal a positive change in the direction of the team. Afterall, he has a winning resume (with the Twins). Similarly,the promotion of Jim Hendry, to GM, and the hiring of Dusty Baker, as the field manager, were both apart of the team's committment to winning. Obviously, the team still has a lot of work to do but I don't see the general failures as a specific desire to turn a profit at the expense of winning. I couldn't have said it any better. The people in here are starting to sound like Yankees fans. I'm not saying we need to become the Oakland A's, but the Cubs could spend 70-80 million the right way and win.

Agreed. Also, out of the three simulations, the highest number of average wins for the White Sox was 85 and the PECOTA actually had them finishing below .500. They should also have a clause in there that automatically puts the Braves in first no matter what since they always end up winning the division anyway.

That is a good question and definately an interesting stat.

I said it before and I'll say it again. The problem with this format was that the same teams kept playing each other. We shouldn't have to argue about Korea going 2-1 against Japan when they should have played twice in the first place: once when there were 16 teams left and then maybe again in the elimination round. Same goes for all of the Latin American teams playing. Pool 1 should have contained something like A1, B1, C2, D2 and Pool 2 should have contained A2, B2, C1, D1 where the letters represent the 4 original pools. Then winner of Pool 1 plays the second place team in Pool 2 and vice versa. The actual WBC had the winner of Pool 1 playing the second place team in Pool 2. Under those rules they should have just skipped the semifinal round and just take the winners of Pools 1 and 2 and just have the championship game. I think the WBC is a good idea but, like any new creation, needs some tweeking to become better. Hopefully Bud Selig will realize this and make the appropriate changes.

If that includes either Wood or Miller having a setback while coming back then I would say extremely high.

I think this is fairly self explanitory. This is not for your personal opinions on the two guys just what you think they need to accomplish this year to get their contracts extended. Let's be realistic here as well because anybody who says that there is no way for them to get their contracts extended is obviously lying. Let the fun begin.

The big problem I had with the WBC was with the format of the tournament in that the same teams kept having to play each other. The US played Mexico twice. Japan and Korea played three times. When they narrowed the field from sixteen to eight, they should have sent teams that played in the same group. For example, Pool 1 should have contained something like Korea, USA, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela and Pool 2 should have had Japan, Mexico, Dominican Republic, and Cuba. That way we wouldn't have had to see the same machups all over again.

I like the use of the cinderella quote. Awesome.

I actually like the idea of rotating a couple of the young guys out there until the Wood/Prior/Miller injuries are settled. What better of a time to see if any of them having major league pitching abilities than in April. Also, something completely off topic. What do IMO and JMO stand for? I've always wondered about those abbreviations.

They were guaranteed immunity from everything apart from perjury as one of the conditions of their testimony. That has nothing to do with any sanctions a private organization, such as Major League Baseball, would want to levy upon their players. It only has to do with possible criminal charges filed by the government (the body granting the immunity) that would come DIRECTLY from that testimony. Exactly. Which is why Bonds and Giambi should be suspended. Palmeiro can't be suspended for steroids because he already has, but he should be facing a perjury charge. I will never forget his finger pointing at Congress. What an idiot.

This is just Selig trying to make himself look good again. He doesn't have the balls to suspend Bonds just like he didn't have the balls to suspend either Bonds or Giambi when the Grand Jury testimony was leaked a couple years ago.

That's a good point.

I'm done with this debate.

It's ok to be wrong, we even let cardinals fans post here! The bartman play doesn't excuse agonz no matter where the ball lands. It does, however, indict god. I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong. I just have this ability to realize the truth. And the truth is that it wasn't interference according to the rules. That's a fact. So the rules stipulate that fans can reach out into the playing field and grab balls that would otherwise be in play. Interesting. I sort of thought that was frowned upon Except he didn't reach out on to the field. I'm done with this debate. I'm not thick headed like you are. Everybody in the nation knows the ball would have landed in the stands except you. Face reality.

It's ok to be wrong, we even let cardinals fans post here! The bartman play doesn't excuse agonz no matter where the ball lands. It does, however, indict god. I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong. I just have this ability to realize the truth. And the truth is that it wasn't interference according to the rules. That's a fact.

I saw all the replays before and I feel that they showed that the ball would not have landed in the field of play. I've come to terms with that. Rather than complain about Bartman, why don't we worry about damning Alex Gonazalez to hell since he is the real culprit.

Moises wears his emotions on his sleeve, and I don't think his reaction should have been all that surprising to anyone. Plus, he apologized for his reaction before Game 7. Bottom line is that Gonzalez had the highest F% of all NL shortstops in 2003 and that was a routine grounder. Even distracted, any competent player should be expected to make that play. Seconded, Moises is an emotional guy, and make no mistake, that was fan interference, so he was justifiably upset. But Gonzo's error should be the focus of that collapse. Not under the rules it wasn't. The ball was going to land in the stands and therefore was not interference. CFP did a great breakdown at some point afterwards about this, too bad we don't have it any more. Bartman was reaching over the railing. But regardless, it shouldn't have mattered, Gonzo should've made the play, Alou should've worn PF flyers and caught it anyway, etc. You can tell that Alou was reaching over the railing. The ball would NOT have landed on the field of play. Therefore it is not fan interference. As much as I don't want to admit it, the umpires made the correct call. Believe me, I wish just as much as every other Cubs fan that either Alou would have caught the ball or the ball would have landed in the field of play so the umps could have called interference. But it didn't end up that way. The correct call was made.

Seconded