Magnetic Curses

um, because bruce miles stated on this site that he didn't? conversely, how are you so certain that giles had no desire to leave san diego? "first choice" and "no other possibilities" are two different things. giles may have wanted to stay in san diego, which does not prove he wouldn't be open to playing for 3/39 in chicago.

Will there ever be a day when people stop pretending like Giles was available to us? i'd settle for a day when people stop pretending like they know he wasn't.

looking at positional holes is primitive and too conventional. you must look at what team holes he needed to fill, mostly OBP, which he did not come anywhere near upgrading enough. this is a team that will hit for a decent average, not get on base any other way besides hitting the ball, and finish in the bottom half of the league in runs scored. did he upgrade the bullpen? maybe, but that wasn't the area we needed to upgrade. a team that leads the NL in hitting should not finish 9th in runs scored, that's pitiful and hendry's a freaking blind man if he can't connect the dots. I think he did improve this team in OBP as well. Barrett, Lee, Walker, and ARam are pretty good in OBP. Murton is an improvement over anything we had in LF last year. Pierre is an improvement over CPatt and Hairston. Cedeno will at the very least meet Neifi's numbers. Jones has the potential to outdo Burnitz. Hendry did bring in players that could improve OBP( Pierre Jones) and name players starters who shoudl as well (Cedeno Murton). judging from last year's numbers, pierre is a slight upgrade in OBP, but jones is not. their combined OBP from last year is .324, which is exactly what our team OBP was from last year. the combined OBP from hairston/patterson (in CF) and burntiz was .300. so it looks like somewhat of an upgrade. however, when you take into account that this team didn't even look at giles, and passed on bradley in CF. those two had a combined OBP of .396, a SIGNIFICANT upgrade.

a .315 OBP will make me very upset. and, more likely, if he hits .285, his OBP should be somewhere in the .340 neighborhood. a .740 OPS will NOT appease me, and he can keep the stolen bases if he's not getting on base.

when you get that much pressure, the QB begins to anticipate being rushed and hurries his throws, often causing INT's.

looking at positional holes is primitive and too conventional. you must look at what team holes he needed to fill, mostly OBP, which he did not come anywhere near upgrading enough. this is a team that will hit for a decent average, not get on base any other way besides hitting the ball, and finish in the bottom half of the league in runs scored. did he upgrade the bullpen? maybe, but that wasn't the area we needed to upgrade. a team that leads the NL in hitting should not finish 9th in runs scored, that's pitiful and hendry's a freaking blind man if he can't connect the dots.

oh man, now you're in for it.

Personally, if my offense was virtually incapable of putting more than 20 points on the board, I would be nervous about this game, no matter how good my defense was. "virtually incapable"? this offense is a different creature with grossman under center. plus, if the panthers can't score more than 3 points, i like the bears' chances. This is a different Panthers team than the last time they met, but it's also a different Bears team. I think the Panthers put up more than 3, and I also think Chicago puts up more than 20. My pick: Chicago 24 Carolina 16. i don't buy that this is a different panthers team. well, maybe "different", but not exactly "better". the panthers were tearing up the NFC before their last meeting. so i have a hard time believing that just because they lost to the bears in week 11 after winning 6 straight that they were somehow a worse team way back then.

i 'd like to see hill get a shot. but i'm resigned to the idea of the cubs never ever giving him one. hell, dontrelle willis would either be at AAA, or a rule 5 casualty by now. his cummulative numbers are good, i don't see why he doesn't at least get 10 starts in a row to see what he can do. This is a good point, and further illustrates the weird rush to keep, er, Rusch. I still like Williams, though. He was very good in '03, was pretty good as a Cub last year, and is younger than Hill. it's not that i dislike williams at all, i think he's been given a shot and has shown that he's okay. i just think that hill can be very good. Williams's ERA, WHIP, and K/BB as a Cub place him as a 2 starter in the NL. Also, despite his MLB experience he's younger than Hill. I think he's better than okay. last year his era was at 4.26, giving him an era+ of 100, right at "okay". he's not a bad pitcher.

there's no room for a player to be that pitiful at getting on base. i don't want them on my team, period. it's inconclusive whether bunting, hitting and running, or moving runners over with "productive outs" helps a team at all. what IS conclusive is that making less outs helps your team win. when a good hitter volunteers an out to the other team, he's saying, "yes i know that i have a 35% chance of not making an out, but i'm going to bunt the guy on second over so the guy behind me can have a 27% chance of hitting him in. what's more, is that i also average over a half of a base when i swing away, but i'm still going to eliminate any possibility of doing so, and forget about a big inning, im settling for getting a runner in scoring position."

Personally, if my offense was virtually incapable of putting more than 20 points on the board, I would be nervous about this game, no matter how good my defense was. "virtually incapable"? this offense is a different creature with grossman under center. plus, if the panthers can't score more than 3 points, i like the bears' chances.

nice recovery. but those fumbles can be just as attributable to the bears being unable to swarm to the ballcarrier as much due to increment weather conditions and being blown off the line of scrimmage. I saw the game. The Bears were exceptionally unlucky on the fumbles. After the 3rd fumble Darrryl Johnston (IIRC) remarked that it seemed every ball had bounced the Steelers' way and predicted the next loose ball would also go to the Steelers because it was just one of those days. The announcers had a good laugh when the 4th fumble bounced right to a Steeler. i saw the game as well, and was simply answering the statement goony made about pitt making no mistakes. and i remember a couple of those fumbles being on the ground without many bears in sight.

he should be concerned about the bottom line, that's part of his job description. you see, a baseball team should run at a profit, or else it's just financially unfeasible to continue running it. the trib will not divert money from other holdings to bankroll the cubs, nor should they have to. the moment that they start to run in the red, they'll sell--which is understandable. the trib is doing what they're obligated to do, make money for their shareholders while allowing the cubs a large enough payroll to acquire the pieces that it needs. if the cubs don't compete, it's not the fault of the trib, it's the fault of the GM and manager. I'm not saying divert money from their affiliates or run in the red. How about using the money from the additional bleacher seats, their ticket scalping business, their dot.com business, the $ from the rooftops owners and all their other cub related businesses that they don't include when discussing their "bottom line" with us lowly fans. The cubs were purchased for 20 million in 1981 and are now worth over $500 million - not a bad unrealized (for now) gain for their shareholders. We can only hope that someday soon the Tribune corp. will realize the huge profit they've made on the Cubs and sell to an owner committed to winning. ain't inflation good for investments? regardless of what they bought the team for, their costs of running the team aren't the same that it was in 81 either. their profit can't be measured by 1981 standards. and neither can the costs for running the team. if the cubs went over the luxury limit, it's a pretty good assumption that they'd be running in the red.

the top 3 teams in the NL in runs scored are the same top 3 in OBP, and the top 2 in walks are the same top 2 in runs scored. anyone think that walks have anything to do with runs scored? the cubs were first in the NL in hitting, yet 9th in runs scored and dead last in walks. could their lack of patience have anything to do with it?

the best thing that a player can do to help the team win is get on base, which means displaying patience at the plate. all that other stuff is cliche. if the team improved it's OBP, it would improve it's runs scored, and we wouldn't notice if player X bunted or made contact on a hit and run--because it would be moot. as much as people like to deny it, baseball is a sport of collective individual statistics. there is no team flow like in football or basketball. if player x gets on base and hits the ball hard, he will contribute to the team without ever laying down a bunt or hitting a sac fly.

This could be true. Maybe that is Wasserstrom's job, to find the obscure stats that make a guy look good. He was a PR guy before moving into the data department, or whatever the heck it is. But I also think he looks at a guy's stats when thinking about signing him, but does so in a very subjective and not very meaningful manner. For instance, I think when looking for a guy to fill RF, he had his scouts draw up reports for every available veteran RF (except Giles since he was obviously unavailable), then he looked at a list and said, "You know, Jones hit .300 in 2002 and 2003, he's had over 80 RBI a few times, the scouts like his swing, he can catch the ball and run a little, I can afford him. He's my guy." Hendry looks at stats with a glass full, not half full or empty, kind of attitude. If a veteran has done something good in the past, then he's capable of repeating that now, so he's signable. He completely ignores trends, refuses to believe that guys peak around 26/27/28, and never looks past the most basic numbers. oh man, that's so like past cub gms.

he should be concerned about the bottom line, that's part of his job description. you see, a baseball team should run at a profit, or else it's just financially unfeasible to continue running it. the trib will not divert money from other holdings to bankroll the cubs, nor should they have to. the moment that they start to run in the red, they'll sell--which is understandable. the trib is doing what they're obligated to do, make money for their shareholders while allowing the cubs a large enough payroll to acquire the pieces that it needs. if the cubs don't compete, it's not the fault of the trib, it's the fault of the GM and manager.

i 'd like to see hill get a shot. but i'm resigned to the idea of the cubs never ever giving him one. hell, dontrelle willis would either be at AAA, or a rule 5 casualty by now. his cummulative numbers are good, i don't see why he doesn't at least get 10 starts in a row to see what he can do. This is a good point, and further illustrates the weird rush to keep, er, Rusch. I still like Williams, though. He was very good in '03, was pretty good as a Cub last year, and is younger than Hill. it's not that i dislike williams at all, i think he's been given a shot and has shown that he's okay. i just think that hill can be very good.

The problem is he does look at statistics, but they are the wrong ones. He lumps all stat heads together when he dismisses numbers the way he does, whether it's somebody who has studied the game and numbers, put forth a solid unbiased analysis of the data or a guy who says "he only hit .250 with 60 RBI last year, he stinks." i agree with you. but i think that he acquires guys and then scrambles to find useless statistics to validate his actions and appease disappointed fans, such as the confusing burnitz statistic.

nice recovery. but those fumbles can be just as attributable to the bears being unable to swarm to the ballcarrier as much due to increment weather conditions and being blown off the line of scrimmage.

-signed howry, left eyre for the sox. not offered new contract to rusch, let him excercise option. -offered 3 years, 40 mil to giles-if rejected, gone to 45 mil. told him that he could keep his house in san diego, airplanes were invented a long time ago. -pick up walker option. -give hill spot in rotation. -sign mabry. -re-sign neifi to smaller deal, tell dusty trap door to be installed in dugout with sea bass wearing lasers on heads. -trade patterson, hairston, williams for bradley. -NRI Branyan 1. Walker 2b 2. Bradley CF 3. Lee 1b 4. Giles RF 5. Ramirez 3b 6. Murton LF 7. Barrett C 8. Cedeno SS Neifi Mabry Blanco Greenberg Branyan 1. Z 2. Prior 3. Wood 4. Maddux 5. Hill Wuertz Ohman Howry Williamson Rusch Novoa (let dusty keep 12 pitchers, to keep him happy despite neifi-trap-door in dugout) Demspter

hendry doesn't look at the last line on his bubble-gum card, though. jeez, how much more low brow can hendry get? every time he opens his mouth something ignorant comes out. i can't believe this guy is talking contract extension. time and time again hendry has refused to look at statistics, and time and time again it has cost him. he's a stubborn man who doesn't learn from mistakes and refuses to see better ways of approaching his problems. that's why he's done a crappy job. his steatements regarding jones cause me to believe that he honestly doesn't care about OBP or any other important stat, and he's prepared to ride his little philosophy out until the end.

i 'd like to see hill get a shot. but i'm resigned to the idea of the cubs never ever giving him one. hell, dontrelle willis would either be at AAA, or a rule 5 casualty by now. his cummulative numbers are good, i don't see why he doesn't at least get 10 starts in a row to see what he can do.

goony, how can you say that? pittsburgh fumbled FOUR times. guess how many times we recovered the ball? zero. i was literally screaming at the television at this point, jumping up and down. they had 70 yards rushing in the first half, plus the screen pass to parker for the long gain. it wasn't like pittsburgh didn't make any mistakes, either. the bears looked like they were on ice skates the entire game. they couldn't capitalize on any of pittsburgh's four fumbles, they got roughed up up front. it was like the steelers were going bobbsledding and the bears were the sled.

Then call me foolish. They lost because they are a bad matchup with Pittsburgh, especially in a must-win game for Pittsburgh when the Bears aren't in a must-win situation and have multiple defensive starters sitting and/or nursing injuries. The weather did not lose that game. Domes do not favor the Bears, and the D can play very well in bad conditions. weather may not have lost that game, but it sure didn't help.