Jehrico

No, they're not. Not even close. We didn't have Wood and Prior for most of last year, and we didn't lose 90, and we're better this year. you gotta be kidding me. they lost 83 last year when the two of them combined for 37 starts. you really think that if they started ZERO that the cubs wouldn't lose seven more games? with this offense (and the fact that their replacements would be rusch/williams/hill/marshall) the cubs could lose 95-100 w/o those guys. Even without Prior and Wood all year, the Cubs are nowhere near a 100 loss team. For a frame of reference, no one in the entire NL lost more than 95 games last year. well, not many teams had a back end of a rotation as bad as maddux, rusch, williams, and marshall could be. they probably wouldn't lose 100 w/o prior and wood, but it'd be a miracle if they lost less than 92-95. It'd be a culmination of alot of things going wrong for them to lose 90 without them. Miller will be back in the rotation probably around late April or early May. Their win-loss record was worse last year than it should be if you judge by runs scored vs runs allowed. The offense, while still severely lacking, is better. The bullpen, is much improved. You point to the possibility that Murton and Cedeno might fail, hence your pessimism. Murton's worst case scenario would still be better than the garbage we got from Holla/Dubose/Gerut/Lawton last year. If Cedeno fails, then we're stuck with Neifi, which is a wash with last year. Our staff is better without Prior and Wood than it was without them last year. There's no reason to expect this team could lose 90 games. Everything went wrong last year and they still were in the running for .500 until the last week, and we're better this year, whether Wood or Prior make that many starts or not. What we need Wood and Prior for are to win the division, we won't do that without them.

ROFLMAO! It took me a second to catch that one...

No, they're not. Not even close. We didn't have Wood and Prior for most of last year, and we didn't lose 90, and we're better this year. I agree. And the Cards are better than the Cubs IMO, but a #5 compared to #22 better? No freaking way. And the Tigers above the Indians? The Pirates at #29, under the Marlins and Rockies? What is this guy smoking? In his predictions article, he says "the Cardinals don figure to be challenged this year." Wha? Not only will they be challenged, but by multiple teams, in all probability. Dayn Perry = On crack I understand all that. But Prior pitched 166 innings last year, Woody 66. What if Prior only managed 70 and Wood 100 (for the sake of argument)? We also got decent performance from Williams---what if that doesn't hold? We now are depending on Cedeno and Murton, two unproven guys as starters. What if they both turn out to be too young to handle their roles? Realistically, I'm looking at this team to finish around .500 considering the injuries to Wood & Prior. If they were to both miss nearly the entire season and our young guys don't come through, I could see upping that to 90 losses. I agree, I don't see the Cards automatically as a #5 and I might put us a bit higher, but I can't say the guy is definitely on crack. Our season is looking very shaky right now---I can understand the skepticism. So you think putting Detroit ahead of Cleveland is reasonable, or ahead of 13 of the NL teams?

I was thinking more of a bunt single, followed by three stolen bases! I'd love to see JP steal home on someone.

If Detroit were in the NL, do you think they would make the playoffs? According to his rankings, they're ahead of all but 3 of the NL teams, which would possibly put them in the playoffs. He has the Blue Jays 13th and the Dodgers 14th. LA is nowhere near the BJs, there's no way to justify having them so close in the rankings. Mets ahead of the Angels? I suppose it's arguable, but I don't think it's debatable in my opinion. And he has the Cubs at 22nd...that's a bit harsh. I'm not so optimistic as to be unrealistic, I don't think we're going to finish ahead of the hated Cards unless they have alot go wrong. But we should be considered at least a solid .500 team, which should put us in the middle of the pack, not mired in the bottom 3rd.

No, they're not. Not even close. We didn't have Wood and Prior for most of last year, and we didn't lose 90, and we're better this year.

I'll take a stab: NL East: Atlanta (I'm not picking anyone else in that division until their string is broken) NL Central: Cards NL West: Arizona NL Wild Card: Cubs AL East: Boston AL Central: Chicago AL West: Oakland AL Wild Card: Indians

Wow...I mean just wow....this guy is stupid (but I think we've already declared that about this guy numerous times on this board, possibly the dumbest sports writer in a national media outlet). http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/powerRankings On a side note, does anyone else think this "AL is way better than the NL" stuff that is purveying in the sports media is stupid and unfounded, too? Personally, I'm tired of seeing it and hearing of it.

It has nothing to do with Koronka. It's that we have six middle infielders on the active roster and something has to give. And it better not be Walker. It was Theriot if not Bynum so the overall 25 man roster mix does not change much. I don't believe there's any need to have another middle infielder in the system, including as backup for the big league team. And Theriot was only going to be on the team until they added another pitcher (most likely when Wood was going to be actived). There wouldn't be a need to carry Bynum, Neifi, and Hairston throughout the season. If nobody else gets moved, this doesn't make much sense to me. Bynum was added to the 40-man on Cubs.com. Does anyone remember Hairston being listed as an outfielder before? He's been listed on cubs.com as an outfielder for awhile now.

Betting against the Cubs isn't a bad thing...it's a win-win proposition. You're happy either way. Either you make money, or better yet, they win. You can't lose!

I always knew Jeter was a bad presence in the clubhouse.

Ain't gonna happen. Why not? Given Kerry's history I think the burden of proof falls on you to prove that it will happen. Proof = Contract year + Cubs luck... He makes all of his starts once he comes back, convinces management that he's straight and over the injury bug, and then gets a 3 yr $36 contract as a result, then spends the next three years on the DL. Bank on it.

Theriot and Brownlie for Phillips? I'd do it.

I wonder if Pierre checks a mirror before he goes out just to ensure his hat is slightly off-center.

I'd like to take a flyer on him, but we'd have to give up someone off of our 25 man to fit him, and Cleveland doesn't seem like they're interested in someone to put on their 25 man unless it's a certain upgrade. They tried to sign TWalk after 03, but I don't think they're still interested.

He wouldn't have gone from sub 40 to 73 that's for sure. I am talking about over the course of his career. He may not have hit 73 but he probably could have averaged 40/yr. Look how many at-bats he has missed since the 73 and how many HR he missed because he was hurt. We do not know how much steroids contributed to his injuries but there is a good chance that it was substantial. And he might still be going strong had he not taken steriods. So what would the asterick mean by his name - that he hit more HR than he should have or that he hit less HR than he should have? I think that argument is absurd. Who's to say he would even still be in baseball today if it weren't for roids. It's not like he missed that much, the only significant time he missed was part of '99 and last season. Who is also to say that him missing last season was a result of complications from quitting steroids after the scandal broke and testing began? It's well known that if you do Steroids and then quit later, it's hard on your body. It's also well known that for the most part, the negative aspects to steroid abuse are mostly long term. If he started using when he was 34-35, it could have prevented him from breaking down when he was 36 or 37 and just delayed it until he was 39. There's no reason whatsoever to be apologizing for Bonds actions. To speculate he's hit less because of roids is pretty outrageous.

Please tell me they're not continuing to give him a free pass...

I'm sure the Shawn Esteses, Jeff Fasserros, and Jose Maciases of the world would disagree with you :D

That is a "what if" scenerion. Because "what if" Marshall is more then holding his own in the alloted team? Personally, I think Williams is a step out the door, and Rusch is a step closer to the pen, with Marshall making the club out of ST. I definately could see Marshall sticking with the Cubs, longer then the "short stint" some people think he has. I personally hope he does good and becomes a solid starter for us. Is that too much of a hope? He looks like he throws good stuff, and throws hard. A hard throwing LHP is not so common and something to covet. And dammit, he's tall!! His #1 asset is his confidence on the mound. Let's hope he can keep that in the majors. If I had my dream it is that Marshall does great and Wood & Miller come back and dominate, making a rotation by ASB of. . Zambrono Wood Miller Maddux Marshall A tought decision may have to be made sometime down the road. If Marshall is stellar to begin his rookie year, and Zambrano and Maddux do what they do, will they let all three of Wood, Prior, and Miller all come back at the same time? Or will they keep one on the DL to keep from working them too hard? I'm really hoping our hurt guys can put it all behind them this year. Next year, if we could have a healthy 1-5 of Prior, Zambrano, Wood, Miller, and Marshall....sweeeeeet....Then again, it could get tough again next year, as Guzman might pitch so well there' just no keeping him out of the rotation.

I figured it was as truthful as W., but that was just me. :D AZs got a couple OFers I would probably make the trade for.

Dayton Moore as GM and Orel Hershiser as manager. I'd prefer Mark Shapiro as GM and Buck Showalter as manager (at least short-term) . No thanks to Buck Showalter...I'd take just about anyone but him.

Technically not a baseball transaction, but it appears Anna Benson is headed for Free Agency! http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/404483p-342548c.html

I don't think I'd put much stock into it. The trade makes sense for the Angels, but not really for us. We're not overloaded with top OF prospects like they are IF prospects. I wouldn't ever put any creedence into any rumor broke by cubs.com's message board. As a matter of fact, that probably guarantees that it won't happen.

That hurts TX coming out of the gate...at least we're not the only ones with our studs hurting. Maybe they can use this to convince Rajah to sign on and help a home town team in their time of need, thus eliminating the Asblows from signing him later :D edit: link: http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/9347310

Selling the Cubs would be the beginning of the end for the Trib, I think. The internet is slaughtering print media sales. If they should spin anything off, it should be the Trib paper itself. I don't think anyone whose primary business is print media is doing well nowadays. I wouldn't be disappointed if they did sell though. In fact, I hope they do. I just think it would be a bad move strategically in the long run for them if they do.