soccer10k

:evil: That's a breath of fresh air. Don't forget that Johnny Damon said last year that there was no chance he would sign with the Yankees in 2006 and where did he end up signing? That's right. New York. Just because Lee says $2-3 million more won't change his life doesn't me he wouldn't take it. I wouldn't spend too much energy worrying about this now. Let's wait to see how the season plays out first.

Did they give Daulton a breathalizer before doing the interview? He might have been drinking again.

Haha. Well said. He should think about renting an apartment there also.

The numbers agree with you. The last time no team in the National League won at least 90 games when playing a full season was way back in 1959 when the Los Angeles Dodgers won only 88 games but the Dodgers only played 156 games that year. That stretch, of course, is excludes the strike shortened seasons in 1981, 1994, and 1995. Even if the teams' records in those three seasons are extrapolated for a full 162 games, each would have had at least 2 teams win over 90 games. There would have been 4 in 1981, 4 in 1994, and 2 in 1995. Since MLB adopted the three division per league format in 1994, the least number of wins it took to gain homefield throughout the playoffs was 93 in 2001. Also, since the three division format was adopted, there have only been two seasons in which only two teams won more than 90 games (1995 and 2005). Based on that, I find it highly unlikely that no NL team will win at least 90 games this year and chances are that more than two will win at least 90 games.

Something that you don't understand is that his exceptional bat speed was helped by steroids. I'm not saying that's the sole reason, but it definately helps. That's the one thing I never hear mentioned when people talk about the affects of steroids. Bonds was juiced up and it helped his bat speed. I do think that he would have been a Hall Of Famer without steroids because he was a very good player, but steroids pushed him over the top. Early in his career he always hovered around the .300 BA level, averaged 30-40 HR and got 100 RBI and he probably would have hit 500 HR in his career anyway. But it's unlikely that he would have reached 600 and would NEVER have reached 700 without steroids. That being said. I hope Bonds tears his knee to shreds this year and I hope he doesn't pass Ruth. There is nothing that would please me more than to see Bonds running after a ball in the outfield or running to a base and crumpling into a heap grabbing his knee. Good riddence Barry. I wish you were retired already.

Which is exactly why he won the 1999 Jackie Robinson Humanitarian award for his work in his home country of the Dominican Republic after Hurricanes destroyed it. Right? Look at the pictures I posted above, and then try to honestly write that ignorant trash again. Everyone knows Sammy had an ego. But idiotic statments like "he only cared about himself" are totally untrue and uncalled for. I love Sammy Sosa. I appreciate everything he did for the Cubs, the city of Chicago, and just baseball in general. I will admit that Sammy was one of the reasons why I tuned in to watch Cubs games over the years. But let me set one thing straight. I just want to watch the Cubs play. Watching the highlights on SportsCenter or game recaps on ESPN.com just doesn't do it for me. I'm from California so the only chance I get to watch the Cubs is on ESPN and WGN, which my cable company replaced with another Spanish station for a couple years before bringing it back. I want to watch my team play Sammy or no Sammy. I admit that I did always hope for another Sosa titanic blast. But I also wanted to see the young players. I watched Kerry Wood pitch back in 1998 hoping for another 20 strikeout game. I watched Mark Prior a couple years ago to see how good he actually was. So no, it isn't all about Sammy Sosa. I couldn't have said it any better SCCubsFan. Everything Sammy did was so the fans would like him. I think a great deal of it was an act. Sammy's not an idiot. He knew all of the right things to say to the media so they wouldn't turn against him. Some stars, like Barry Bonds, don't care what the fans and media think about them. Sammy isn't one of those people. He wanted people to like him and did whatever he could to make that happen. As I said before, I appreciate everything he did. I will always remember all of the records he set. But with the good comes the bad. People remember Pete Rose for a few things: playing hard ALL the time, getting the career hits record, and getting banned from baseball for gambling (in no particular order). I am not saying what Sosa did is anywhere near as bad as Rose did because it isn't. Unfortunately for Sosa, his true colors came out in 2004. As a star, you have to recognize that if things go bad and you aren't performing like you should be, you will have to accept a big part of the blame. Sammy couldn't handle being blamed. He couldn't handle being dropped in the order and though he deserved to bad third or fourth because he is Sammy Sosa. I know that his numbers dropped after he got hit in the head but the declining numbers was his fault as well. After he got beaned he started standing further away from the plate and refused to move closer. Everybody knew Sammy was too far away except for Sammy. All pitchers had to do was throw the ball on the outside of the plate and Sammy couldn't hit it. That was Sammy just being stubborn. As I said before, I will remember Sammy for both the good and the bad. He is a Hall of Famer but people shouldn't ignore the bad things because of that. I'm not saying to mention the steroid rumers and corked bat first, but it shouldn't be forgotten. He should be remembered for all of the big home runs and all of the records and I don't think his legacy should be tarnished by the steroids. I do not retract my statement about Sammy being a prima donna and nobody can convince me he isn't one. But that doesn't mean I don't like the guy and don't appreciate his accomplishments. I'm just trying to put everything in perspective.

Until the Cubs win a World Series, you can't judge their players based on that at all. I do agree that at one point Sammy was the face of the franchise but he threw that away with the corked bad incident, leaving early on the last day of the year, and not volunteering to move down in the order to help the team. Sosa should be, and will be, remembered for his titanic blasts and the Home Run chase in 1998 that captivated the nation. But he should be remembered for the negatives also. Even if you don't count the steroids because nothing has been proved, you still have to remember the other things because they are facts. Sammy did give the Cubs a number of good years. On the outside he was somebody who was just having fun but on the inside he was a prima donna that only cared about himself. He kept that on the inside until the end of his career when his skill started to diminish. I will remember Sammy for all of this.

Not to be a hater, but I couldn't agree more with his assessment. He was a fraud who played those fans who worship the stars. I’m with you on this one on the assessment of Sosa. I will never forget anything he did. That includes everything for the Cubs and for baseball in general (the home run chase in 1998), but it also includes the steroid allegations, the corked bat and not being able to realize that his skills were quickly leaving. Sammy is incapable of realizing that he isn’t worth much more than $500k per year. You can't list Hack Wilson as one of the best Cubs ever because didn't play most of his career there. When discussion the best Cubs ever you need to have Billy Williams, Banks, Anson, Sosa, Sandberg, Santo in no particular order. I know I'm missing some here but the point is that to be considered one of the best Cubs of all time, one has to play most of his career with the Cubs. I do agree that Wilson's stretch from 1926-1930 is just as good as Sosa's 1998-2002. If it was me, Ernie Banks is the best Cubs player of all time and it will be hard for anyone to top that.

I agree that McGwire will be the test case for all of the steroids era sluggers. Contrary to what you say, I think that there is a a certain prestige in a player being a first ballot Hall of Famer and so making a guy wait that extra year is sending a message. I do agree that after that first year that it doesn't really matter if you get elected in your third year or your seventh year. In Sosa's case specifically, he should be criticized for the corked bat just as much, if not more, than for the steroids because there isn't as much suspicion surrounding Sosa than McGwire and Sosa.

My point with comparing this team to the 2003 team was that the 2003 had a bunch of questions just like the 2006 team does. As I said before, nobody though the Cubs had a chance to make the postseason because of all of those question marks. Did anybody know that they were going to trade for Aramis Ramirez and Kenny Lofton in the middle of the season? No. But those two players made a huge difference on a team that was already exceeding expectations. Hendry might make a big impact move at the trading deadline this year as well. Did anybody expect Mark Prior to win 18 games AND finish third in the Cy Young voting? No. If Prior and Wood can stay healthy, which I know is a long shot, the Cubs can win the NL Central. Carlos Zambrano is a better pitcher than he was in 2003. Greg Maddux can put up the same stats as Matt Clement from 2003. And I would much rather have Glendon Rusch than Shawn Estes as my fifth starter. For the bullpen, Ryan Dempster's ERA in 2005 was half a run higher than Borowski's in 2003 but converted just as many saves in two less chances. Add in additions Bobby Howry and Scott Eyre as well as returners Will Ohman and Michael Wuertz and the Cubs have a decent bullpen. Am I expecting them to win a World Series? No. Would I be surprised if they made the playoffs? No. Would I be surprised if they finished with a losing record? No. I can't predict how these Cubs will do. All I'm trying to say that if this team plays well and avoids major injuries, they could easily make a run to the postseason.

When Mariano Rivera or Brad Lidge or any other elite closer in the league comes into the game one thought runs through my head: Oh no the game is over. My team is going to lose. When Farnsworth played on the Cubs and came into the game in a crucial situation, on thought ran through my head: Oh no the game is over. My team is going to lose. That's the difference. Good closers envoke fear in the opposing team. Kyle Farnsworth invokes fear in your team. Not a good trait to have. Farnsworth doesn't have a shut down pitch. Nobody can hit Rivera's cut fastball and nobody can hit Lidge's slider when they are on. Any good hitter can hit a good straight fastball 450 feet (re: Albert Pujols against Brad Lidge). Eric Gagne was one of the best closers in the league, throws in the upper 90's with three good pitches. I remember when he tried to challenge Barry Bonds with a fastball inside and Bonds pulled it foul into McCovey Cove and the ball went almost 400 feet. On the next pitch Bonds hit another fastball 400+ feet to dead center field for a home run. Everybody knew Gagne was going to throw a fastball so it didn't matter how fast he threw it. My point is that if you only have a fastball, good hitters will hit it. And where do you find good hitters? In the playoffs. Just wait for Manny Ramirez and/or David Ortiz to send a Farnsworth fastball 450 feet this year. It will happen more than once.

In 2003, Farnsworth relieved Mark Prior in Game 6 with the score tied 3-3 after Lee's 2 run double tied the game. Allow me to post the exerpt from ESPN.com's game recap: "Prior was pulled and Kyle Farnsworth came in and intentionally walked Mike Lowell to load the bases. With the crowd sitting in stunned silence and Prior blankly staring, Jeff Conine hit a go-ahead sacrifice fly. Mike Mordecai broke it open with a three-run double off the wall in left-center, his shot hitting near a splash of red-and-orange ivy, and Pierre added an RBI single." Two inherited runners, both of whom score. The only out he recorded was on a sacrifice fly. It should be noted that Pierre's single was off of Remlinger. Then in Game 7 he relieved Kerry Wood in the sixth with the Cubs trailing 6-5 and allowed one of the two inherited runners to score to make it 7-5 on an infield single. Then in the seventh he got two outs before giving up two hits. Dave Veres came in and allowed both runs to score to make the score 9-5. If Farnsworth was so great he would have limited the Marlins in one of the two situations and kept the Cubs in the game. But he couldn't do that. He just made the situation worse. Farnsworth went on the DL in 2004 with a bruised knee because he kicked a fan. Do you know why he kicked the fan? Because he gave up 6 runs to Houston when the Cubs were only trailing 9-6 and still had a chance to win the game. I hate Kyle Farnsworth and think he's one of the most overrated players in baseball and I look forward to watching him choke for the Yankees next year on a much bigger stage. Mark my words, he will pitch well for most of the season but when New York needs him the most to get a big out, he will fail and fail miserably. I will be watching and laughing because it will happen. Guaranteed.

Did you watch the 2005 postseason? Game 4 against Houston? What gets lost in the 18 inning marathon was the fact that Farnsworth came in with runners on first and second with no outs, got an out on a fielders choice but the runners advanced. Then he walked Luke Scott to bring up Lance Berkman. I called the Berkman grand slam right after ball 4 to Scott. Then, everybody knows all Farnsworth has is a fastball and Berkman launches it to left field for the grand slam. Even after that Atlanta still leads 6-5 and going into the ninth you think, with the 6-7-8 hitters coming up that Farnsworth is going to get out of it. He gets two outs and then gives up a home run to #8 hitter Brad Ausmus who had THREE HOME RUNS ALL OF 2005 AND JUST 71 IN HIS CAREER. This is your "very very good" closer? You've got to be kidding me. I was so happy to see Farnsworth go. Good riddence to him. The Yankees can have him.

Did you watch the 2005 postseason? Game 4 against Houston? What gets lost in the 18 inning marathon was the fact that Farnsworth came in with runners on first and second with no outs, got an out on a fielders choice but the runners advanced. Then he walked Luke Scott to bring up Lance Berkman. I called the Berkman grand slam right after ball 4 to Scott. Then, everybody knows all Farnsworth has is a fastball and Berkman launches it to left field for the grand slam. Even after that Atlanta still leads 6-5 and going into the ninth you think, with the 6-7-8 hitters coming up that Farnsworth is going to get out of it. He gets two outs and then gives up a home run to #8 hitter Brad Ausmus who had THREE HOME RUNS ALL OF 2005 AND JUST 71 IN HIS CAREER. This is your "very very good" closer? You've got to be kidding me. I was so happy to see Farnsworth go. Good riddence to him. The Yankees can have him.

If a team has huge expectations placed on it before the season starts then after every two game losing streak the team gets bombarded by questions. What is wrong with the team? Who isn't performing? What do you need to do better to win tomorrow? What positions need to be upgraded? Eventually players get sick and tired of hearing the same questions over and over and over again. Players do read newspapers and watch SportsCenter and hear their names as trade bait and how they aren't playing very well. These types of things can wear down on the team. While I agree that the 2003 team did choke as well, they did run into a very good Marlins team. When looking at their season as a whole, 88 wins and a division title was a successful season for a team that was picked to have, at best, a second place finish in their division. Nobody picked the Cubs to win the division and advance to the NLCS and almost make the World Series. When looking at the 2004 team, they were expected to win the division easily and at least make their first World Series trip since 1945. Because of those huge expectations, many people look at the 2004 season as a failure. And for the person trying to defend Kyle Farnsworth-less, sure Farnsworth has a good ERA because he pitches will in non-critical situations. But every time Farnsworth comes in a critical situation, he chokes. At this point, it's not if it's going to happen, but how it's going to happen. People get all caught up in the fact that he throws 100mph to realize that his fastball doesn't move at all and big league hitters will hit it and the fact that he rarely gets a breaking ball over the plate. The guy is horrible.

If there is one thing I like about this team it is that nobody will be talking about them as contenders when Spring Training rolls around. Also, this team looks a lot like the team in 2003 which, if you remember, was dubbed "The Team That Is Good But Is Still A Year Or Two Away." As nice as it was to see the Cubs on the cover of Sports Illustrated as favorites in 2004, it's hard to live up to expectations. The 2003 team had no expectations and came within 5 outs of the World Series. 2004 had World Series expectations and choked in the last week of the season. In 2003 the Cubs had 2.5 solid hitters as Ramirez was only there for half the year. Even if Lee's home runs and batting average decrease he will still have as good of a year as Sammy did in 2003 (.279, 40, 103). I also see Ramirez having a better year than 2003 Alou (.280, 22, 91). Before the Cubs picked up Ramirez they had Mark Bellhorn, Jose Hernandez, and Ramon Martinez playing third base, which I look at like Murton in left field this year. The Cubs can play Murton and if he doesn't work out, they can try to trade for somebody else. They have a bona fide leadoff hitter with Pierre for a whole year rather than a half year in 2003 with Kenny Lofton. Michael Barrett is a far better hitter than the Damian Miller/Paul Bako combination in 2003. Jacque Jones can perform just as well as Alex Gonzalez if he hits second or Eric Karros if he hits fifth/sixth. The pitching staff will be a question mark but if they stay healthy it will be one of the best in the league. The bullpen is just as good and maybe a little bit better. Ryan Dempster cancels out Joe Borowski. I will take Bobby Howry over Kyle Farnsworth-less any day. Scott Eyre is a good lefty reliever. Will Ohman had an excellent 2005 season and was the team's best relief pitcher. I just hope that nobody from ESPN or Sports Illustrated starts to talk about the Cubs as legitimate title contenders and I will be ecstatic to see the "experts" pick the Cubs to finish third in the NL Central this year.

Sure, Derrek Lee's batting average and home runs will probably drop a bit. But with a competant leadoff hitter like Juan Pierre getting on in front of him, I guarantee his RBI's will increase. Same goes for Aramis Ramirez. A good leadoff hitter can completely change an offense. The number 2 hitter sees more good pitches to hit than he would with nobody on base. That will increase the number of times the Cubs will have two runners on for either Lee or Ramirez. Like I said, being realistic we can't expect Lee to put up huge numbers like last year but he isn't going to drop completely off the radar. He'll have a good year as will Ramirez. Again I will repeat that I GUARANTEE Lee will have at least 107. Ramirez should also better his 2005 total of 92 if he stays healthy.