ToupeeOnFire

What I find amazing is that the Cubs actually scored 10 more runs this year than last. Think about that for a second...Derrek Lee had one of the greatest seasons by a Cub firstbaseman ever in 2005, yet they still scored 10 runs less than this year's feable squad. Cub first baseman last year (mainly Lee) created 158 runs, this year's Cub first baseman (Blanco/Moore/Hairston/Lee/Mabry/Walker/Nevin) created only 86 runs, that's a difference of 72 runs! And that's not counting the ripple effect of weakening second base by moving Walker to first and playing Neifi at second. Nor does it account for any psychological effect, which is unmeasurable. This only underscores what a waste it was to surround Lee with such a pathetic offense last year (batting Patterson and Neifi 1 & 2? thank you Dusty!). It also leads you to wonder what might have been. Lee probably wasn't going to duplicate 2005, but even a typical Lee season would give the Cubs a 20 run advantage; and if his 2005 season was a sign of real improvement, the run advantage would have been quite a bit more. That wouldn't have turned the Cubs into automatic contenders, but who knows how a healthy Lee might have affected the chain of events that eventually led to a 96 loss season. Oh well, can't cry over spilt milk at this stage. And there was no way of knowing that it would take a .500 record to compete for the division, so I don't think things would have changed all that much in terms of player acquisitions.

I get the postseason games fine. The $10 charge only applies to those who don't already have Gameday Audio.

Wow, some of you are being harsh. While I am not sold on Girardi, you cannot deny his team vastly exceeded expectations. People were predicting them to finish dead last and rightfully so. I don't care how good their prospects were; young teams with a preponderance of rookies, no matter how talented, generally struggle. For the Marlins to come back after a rough start and flirt with the .500 mark for a good part of the second half was a remarkable accomplishment. Who could have expected Hanley Ramirez and Dan Uggla to play as well as they did? Ramirez was considered a prospect, but who could have expected that he and his .720 OPS in AA would translate into an .833 OPS in the bigs. Or how three rookie pitchers, all 22 years or younger - Josh Johnson, Scott Olsen, and Annibel Sanches (none of the them consiered can't miss) - would turn in outstanding rookie seasons. I don't have any pre-season projections in front of me, but I imagine just about every rookie played at the high-end of their expectations. Tom Tippett and his baseball simulation, Diamond Mind, had the Marlins pegged for a 69-93 record. Of course he also had this to say about the Marlins, which sounds remarkably prescient: The million dollar question is: how much credit does the manager deserve? Was he just the lucky beneficiary of inheriting an outstanding group of major league ready prospects; or was it his guidance, patience, and coaching that allowed the young players to flourish? My guess is that it is mostly the former, but it's hard not to give him some credit for how the team exceeded expectations with a very young core. I have reservations, but I wouldn't be too upset if they hired him.

No thanks. Dusty and Morgan would be a mutual admiration society. While Dusty broadcasting has some great comic potential, there is only so much a viewer can take.

Wang is cruising along, but Torre replaces him with a lefty to face Granderson with 2 outs and nobody on. Very LaRussaesque. Granderson homers and now the Tigers have the tying run at the plate. Scratch Joe Torre off the list of potential Cub managers,

Also true. Neifi on the playoff roster? Scratch Jim Leyland's name off the list of potential Cub managers. (as if)

I made some of the same points over in Transactions. I think he would strike a good balance between player manager and disciplinarian. And while there are probably things he'll do that will frustrate you, I don't think he is stubbornly old-school like Piniella would be. Plus, I think he is well aware of the Cubs problems of not getting people on base and walking too many batters on the pitching end. He is not my ideal candidate. To me, Davey Johnson, Larry Dierker, maybe even Terry Francona would be more attractive choices. But of the realistic options, he is probably first on my list, unless someone can convince me of the virtues of Joe Girardi. One caveat though, I do worry about his loyalty to veterans over younger, more productive players. He fiddled around with a washed up Mark Grace for far too long when he had younger and better options. I'm not sure if that is a pattern with Brenly, but it does give one pause.

So you'd send up Bowen or Klesko? Yes.

How could you have Bellhorn up in that situation? I can't think of a worse player I would want to have batting in that situation (maybe Neifi). Scratch Bochy off the list of potential managerial candidates.

How about they hire Piniella to announce? As brutal to the ears as that would be, it would keep him out of the dugout.

What do you like about Francona? Francona was on the Discovery Channel's show about the science of baseball (i.e., sabermetrics) and talked glowingly about the *new* types of analytical analysis. I don't know if affects his management though. That he had Youkilis as his leadoff hitter most of the season would make me believe it does affect his management. They actually had Brian Roberts most of the season. Youkilis had 391 AB and Roberts had 560 AB in the leadoff spot. Both had very respectable OBP. although... 951 leadoff at bats? Coco Crisp was #2 at leadoff for Boston with 236. Roberts left Boston a while ago. Brian Roberts played for Boston? I think you mean Mark Bellhorn.

Open this link and stare at the graphic for inspiration. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v511/freejju/industywetrusty.jpg Dusty can't win All we know is Dusty can't win

What does knowing the city or the fans mean? How does it help anything? Guillen had very little to do with the White Sox success. It was about getting a bunch of decent pitchers to all have career years at once, and fielding a very powerful lineup. It wasn't Ozzie-ball. His ties to Chicago were superficial as far as how it affected the play of his team. I'm not saying Joe can't get the job done, that he'd be a horrible pick or that I'd be pissed if he was the manager. All I'm saying is his ties to Chicago and the Cubs are completely meaningless when judging whether or not he'd get the job done. The most successful management group since I've followed the team was the Green/Frey/Zimmer grouping, and of that group, only Zim had any sort of ties to Chicago. Durocher is the most successful manager of the modern era, and he had no ties to Chicago. I think the Cubs have gone out of their way to hire managers outside of the organization. Over the last 25 years or so, apart from Don Zimmer, every manager they've hired has been an outsider. Start with Dusty Baker and go on down the list: Baylor, Riggleman, Trebelhorn, Leferbvre, Michael, Frey. Over the years, whenever the job opened up, Billy William's name always came up, yet he was passed over repeatedly. I think it has been the Cub MO to hire managers who lack the Cub "taint" while giving token coaching jobs to former players (Fergie, Williams, Sarge, etc.). It goes without saying, former Cub or not, they need to hire the best guy.

What is the fascination with Fredi Gonzalez? Is it just because he doesn't have a track record? Is there any evidence that Gonzalez would be better/have a different philosophy from any other shlub the Cubs could hire? Seeing the media begin to pimp Lou Piniella makes me physically ill. He's basically Dusty Baker with lighter skin pigment and a more ornery attitude. Jay Mariotti wrote a piece today basically saying that Piniella should be the top candidate and wondering why he would want to grace the Cubs with his presence (at least that is what I think he said, it's hard to make out the point in one of Jay's rambing, incoherent columns); which just further convinces me that he shouldn't be anywhere near Wrigley in 2007. Out of the three candidates mentioned, I think I honestly would have to say that Bob Brenly would be the most appealing candidate, which is something I can't imagine I would be saying a couple of months ago. Are there any really big negatives with Bob? Well, yeah, there was the World Series debacle; but he actually ending up winning it in the end. He doesn't seem stubbornly old school to me, either. Not like a Dusty Baker or Lou Piniella would be. He also seems to have the right temperment with enough easy-going pleasantness to go along with the fire and discipline needed when the situation demands it (at least from what I can recollect of his Arizona days). Call me crazy, but I think out of all the candidates mentioned, BB would be my choice. Even if those aren't the only candidates and the field is wide open, I would seriously consider Brenly.

I agree, that's very unfortunate.

Damnit Jim, fire them now and talk to them later.

What's the "obviously" count?

Davis? I suggested Daniel Manning earlier. I thought one of his positives when they drafted him was that he could return punts.

Ha ha, I never knew Lovie's middle name was Lee. Lovie Lee Smith. Maybe he can close for the Cubs next year.

Hester doesn't return punts next week, book it.

Robbie Gould pads his fantasy stats.

Tommie Harris! I'm surprised Hasselback is still in there.

Time for Grossman to grab some bench. Bring in Griese or Orton and continue to get Benson some reps.

That was a throw!

Wow, two successful wide receiver screens in a game. That hasn't happened since the Gary Crowton era. Good to see Benson make some runs.