C.Rector
-
Posts
307 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by C.Rector
-
-
Whoever wins the competition in Spring Training for the 5th Starter spot should be the #5 starter.
-
I think Maggs will hit .325, 35 hr's, 135 rbi's this year. He's gonna make sure that he gets his 15 mill a year...
So, he's going to make an all out effort in 2004 so that he can become aslacker in the years ahead?
-
He had a bad year in GIDP's and in going for HR glory when going for lesser hits would have been in the team's better interests.
-
Key paragraph in the Mariotti screed:
"I think I have market value similar to that of Vladimir and Tejada,'' said Ordonez, apparently not bummed about his proposed role in the aborted Nomar Garciaparra trade. "It could be even more if you take into account that the market is going up again. I want a five- or six-year contract so I can relax and be in one place for a long time. I hope that can be in Chicago, a city that I like a lot.''
Hmmmm.....Ordonez wants to "relax" during his absurdly long 5 or 6 year contract.
Sounds more like he wants to slack off. The only way that I'd go for such a deal is if the money is non-guaranteed and the team has the right to terminate it at any time without suffering any penalties for doing so.
Magglio is one greedy jerk. Perhaps he'll be happier playing in Detroit with I-Rod.
-
From:
http://www.blackhawkzone.com/commentaries/020404.php
Wirtz Announces 120 Year Plan
By Hawkey
Date: 02/04/2004
In response to an ESPN poll which ranked the Chicago Blackhawk hockey franchise as the worst professional sports franchise in North America, longtime Blackhawk Owner, Bill Wirtz, at a hastily-called press conference this morning, unveiled a 120 year plan to bring his franchise back to respectability.
(Blackhawkzone.com) "Fortunately," said Wirtz, "because we're ranked last, there is nowhere to go, but up. Under the terms of our 120 year plan, we only have to move up one ranking spot per year, y'know, baby steps, instead of trying to do it all at once.
"We've been devising this plan over the last 43 years (since the Hawks last won the Stanley Cup.) We've been testing different approaches as far has hiring/firing coaches, general managers and related personnel, as well as various drafting and trading techniques, and we feel we have perfected these areas."
When asked for specific examples, Wirtz replied, "In the area of coaching, for example, we've found that it is best to hire one without any input from the general manager, since Bob (Pulford) is the true general manager-for-life; and, since the gm is replaced, on average, every 18 months, he is nothing more than a figurehead, anyway. As far as firing coaches, we prefer the way we did it with Billy Reay (a note under his hotel room door.)"
Wirtz also stated that his 120 year plan also included a revamped marketing approach. "I've determined that I have to relinquish the marketing duties, for which I have been solely responsible. Pully will be my new Director of Marketing. It is simply too much for me to handle, anymore. I have instructed him to try to eliminate the televising of away games, and to work with the print and broadcast media to eliminate any mention of the Blackhawks in their publications and broadcasts, from here on in. I feel that this will expand the team's "mystique", and it will protect our loyal fan base and season ticket holders."
When it was posed to Wirtz that this type of marketing wasn't working now, he countered with, "Of course, it's working! We are light-years ahead of every other sports franchise in the marketing department. Time will be our judge."
Wirtz then wondered aloud why the same person was posing all the questions at this press conference, at which point Bob Pulford stood up and said,
"Because I'm the only other person here, Bill."
-
The real question is whether last year's Cubs will inspire this year's Cubs.
-
Well, that was certainly an interesting albeit messed up thread...........
-
Indians and Taigas may not be in our division in 3 years. Twins may be contracted.
Are you suggesting that the AL will go back to 2 divisions in 3 years?
-
Frank Thomas is a franchise player. You simply cannot trade him away.
Now, the likes of Magglio, GIDPaul, CLee, Billy Botch, or Cruddy Crede, that's a different story altogether.
However, Perez by his lonesome for any of the above named would be an awful deal for the Sox.
If KW were to make a deal like what's rumored to be in the works, then he should be fired.
-
Why draft another RB when the Bears already have A-Train and Brock Forsey. The team already has serious deficiencies on both the defensive and offensive lines as well as a need for a new QB to back Grossman up so we don't have to rely on has-beens like Chris Chandler and Kordell Stewart who never was any good in the first place.
-
From:
http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/co...ia/x04-ard1.htm
Einhorn: Sox owners plan to stay the course
Wednesday, February 4, 2004
In the context of a man who has stared down more than his share of health problems the last few years, it's good to hear Eddie Einhorn isn't planning on going anywhere anytime soon.
In the context of his place in the investors group that owns the White Sox, fans might be disappointed to hear the same.
"I read the papers, I see people say you shouldn't have a budget, we should sell the team and all that," Einhorn said. "I don't believe in that. I believe you should do what we've tried to do."
And will continue to try to do, as far as Einhorn and team chairman Jerry Reinsdorf are concerned.
"He's never talked to me about getting out for any reason," Einhorn said of Reinsdorf. "If you like something, stay with it.
"I don't want to get out, either — even though I have a more limited role, I like doing it."
Einhorn was in an expansive mood at last weekend's SoxFest, so I took advantage. The Sox's vice chairman, who was the club's public point man as president and CEO for the first 10 years of the Reinsdorf era, chatted about a number of topics, from TV deals old and new, to the Sox's books and the one he's writing, to his health and that of ownership's financial plan.
Taking the last first, it's safe to say the plan includes continuing to own the Sox.
"I don't think we have an obligation to get out if we want to run it the way we want to run it," said Einhorn, who heard suggestions to the contrary from fans during SoxFest. "I don't think the fans have suffered, because there's no guarantee that you're going to win by spending money.
"We've been competitive. Sometimes we're not as competitive as we want to be, but we've been competitive over the years.
"When you're in it this long — we're like the third-oldest ownership in baseball — you're going to take a lot of hits along the way because it's hard to win."
Harder, some might argue, when you're spending less than half of what the Yankees and Red Sox are spending, or a little more than two-thirds of what the Cubs are spending.
"You're relating that to something that I don't know is true anymore," Einhorn said. "It helps to have more. But I don't know that just having it guarantees you're going to win. I think that's what people need to understand.
"The Mets are the best example, because they finished dead last and had to redo their whole team."
The Sox aren't about to redo their approach. They will work within a budget, not worry about making money but try not to lose much.
"We have a philosophy to try to run it at even," Einhorn said. "We haven't paid a dividend in 24 years.
"Our group isn't in business to lose the kind of money that Arizona loses and the Dodgers lose — $40 (million) to $50 million a year. We're not in that business. The Cubs aren't in that business.
"Jerry's philosophy is we try to run it, most of the time, on an even basis.
"I feel the same way. As much as I want to win, I wouldn't have any fun being in this business if I ran a team to lose money just to win — or with the hope of winning. I don't think that's a good way to run a team."
Not that Einhorn is running the Sox. That's Reinsdorf's job, and has been since Einhorn more or less rode off into the sunset in 1990.
Though many believe Einhorn was sent away because Reinsdorf, incredibly it seems now, had emerged as the lesser of two public relations evils, Einhorn said his departure was planned all along.
"When I originally got into this deal, I wasn't even supposed to come here," Einhorn, a lifelong New Jersey resident, said. "I was head of sports at CBS in New York. When Jerry came to me to get into this, I was supposed to be the adviser from outside.
"There were some changes in the ownership group, Jerry wasn't through with his business yet, so I kind of got called out to run it. I never intended to do it forever.
"For 10 years, I was the president. I just decided, well, that's enough. I've got other things to do. I had a television business, my family. I decided to go home.
"And, to be honest, it's very tough doing a two-man act in sports. You can't be Del Webb and Dan Topping (the owners who sold the Yankees to CBS in 1965 for $11.2 million). Somebody's got to be the bottom-line guy."
Since stepping aside, Einhorn, 68, has battled health problems off and on. He began dealing with the early stages of kidney disease in 1993, underwent treatment for prostate cancer in 2000, had a kidney transplant in 2002 and had health problems related to that procedure as recently as last baseball season.
At SoxFest, however, Einhorn appeared to be in good shape and was clearly in fine spirits.
"I feel great, I don't even take a nap these days," Einhorn said. "I've got a lot of energy. I'm busy.
"I'm writing a book on the 40th anniversary of when I started my TVS company on college basketball."
TVS grew to be the leading syndicator of sports programming in the 1970s, spurred in part by Einhorn's staging of what some consider the greatest college basketball game ever, between UCLA and Houston at the Astrodome in 1968.
No. 2 Houston, behind 39 points from Elvin Hayes, beat No. 1 UCLA and Lew Alcindor 71-69 in the first nationally televised regular-season college basketball game ever.
"No one's ever written a book on the Houston-UCLA game, believe it or not, and I did that 36 years ago last (month)," Einhorn said. "I just interviewed John Wooden, Guy Lewis, Elvin Hayes ... the guys who are left from my era.
"I love it, because I kind of walked away from the game 25 years ago to get into this."
Einhorn hopes to have the book out next year. By then, Sox fans will be well-familiarized with what might be called a new version of Einhorn's other sports broadcasting innovation.
Comcast SportsNet Chicago will launch Oct. 1 and will carry Sox, Bulls, Cubs and Blackhawks games.
In the early days of their Sox ownership, Einhorn and Reinsdorf launched SportsVision, a pay channel offering Sox, Bulls, Blackhawks and Sting games. The biggest problem was that most of the Chicago area was not yet wired for cable.
For those of you too young to imagine such a backward time, SportsVision came into homes via a scrambled, over-the-air signal. Subscribers paid a monthly fee for a box that descrambled the image, a technology pioneered in Chicago by a movie service known as ON-TV.
SportsVision lost millions and was sold in 1984 to what would become Fox Sports Net.
"We started all this," Einhorn said. "I wish we could've hung on with our SportsVision from years ago.
"In those days, this was not the city to start in. I wish I was in Boston, because Boston was able to hang onto theirs.
"Chicago wasn't cable. We had to come up with this thing with over-the-air, this whole technical thing that was very difficult in a market that had free television for all those years. SportsVision had to go with ON-TV instead of the regular cable route. It made it more complicated, and then we ran out of money.
"At that time, you had to invest to keep it going, and with the salary crunch in baseball, we just decided it was better to sell the rights and keep the money in the players. We'd have had to make too big an investment."
Perhaps ironically, Einhorn, who made his fortune in TV and who, according to his bio in the Sox media guide, is recognized as the architect of baseball's first billion-dollar TV contract, didn't have much of a role in the Comcast deal.
"Jerry and I talked about it," Einhorn said. "They negotiated a good deal. It's a different deal than we could've done 24 years ago.
"The whole thing is much bigger now, the players are different. They own all the cable systems.
"It's a good deal for what it is now."
Good deals for Sox fans, Einhorn said, have been tougher to come by this year.
"The breaks we got last year we didn't get this year," Einhorn said, comparing the three-way trade to acquire Bartolo Colon to the failed bid to land Nomar Garciaparra. "There were logjams, other deals pending."
Speaking of Colon, Einhorn revived an old Sox management guideline when addressing the rotund pitcher's decision to sign with Anaheim.
"We were in it," he said. "A guy offers four years, that's not a prudent thing to do, I'm sorry — to sign a pitcher for four years who's had some problems.
"The guy in California, he wants to do it and he's got his reasons, but I don't think that's a prudent thing for us to do."
Nor, Einhorn contended, is it a prudent thing for Sox fans to write their team off so soon.
"I think we'll be competitive this year," he said. "I'd like to have a little more flexibility, and I think we'll get it. You know we're going to make some moves later."
Moves that risk big money? Probably not.
"It's the philosophy, and I think it's a good one," Einhorn said. "If we lose, we're not going to lose a lot."
Phil Arvia can be reached at [email protected] or (708) 633-5949.
-
From:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sport...all/7860711.htm
Bottom line: Pudge makes a dash for dollars
DAN LE BATARD
Having considered lucrative offers from teams in Siberia, Iraq and Hell, Marlins superhero Pudge Rodriguez opted instead Monday for Detroit, where he can spend the remainder of his career counting his money.
Reached exclusively by The Herald at his home Monday, a heartbroken but reasonable Satan said, ``I just couldn't guarantee a catcher his age a four-year contract. I'm evil, dude, not crazy.''
You'll find greed and gluttony in these pages about as often as boxscores. Fans not angered or repulsed by the scent of it are merely numb by now, lobotomized, the dollars not registering in any real-world context. But salary is how athletes keep score between games, so it takes Pudge but a few months to go from lovable face of an underdog team to yet another rented mercenary blowing through South Florida on his way to the next bank.
Why live year-round in the beach mansion with your yacht, the kids, that giant statue of yourself and merely many millions when you have a chance to upgrade to the billowing factories in one of America's most depressing cities and yet more millions?
Rarely in the history of games has an athlete gone from so high to so low while this overtly reaching down to grab more and more cash.
CASHING IN
Where is the precedent for what Pudge just did?
He didn't merely leave a reigning champion. He left a reigning champion that led the league in feel-good, Florida's joy and enthusiasm making work not only a pleasure but a fountain of youth. The man was kissing teammates to celebrate playoff victories, for the love of Morganna.
And Pudge didn't leave this to join merely a bad team or a last-place team or even baseball's worst team; no, he left it to join a national laughingstock that needed a late winning streak to avoid by one loss becoming the worst team in more than a century.
So he cashed in, in other words. Chose money over winning, chemistry, pride, relevance, desire, competition and everything else pure and holy in sports.
Yes, Pudge knows his finances and spending needs better than we do. Yes, he has a finite amount of time when he can earn like this. And, yes, we never seem to begrudge movie-star salaries the way we do those of athletes.
But where is the financial line? The sanity? Pudge has made $60 million the past six years. He made plenty of millions the six years before that, too. How much is enough? Does he need more statues of himself? More yachts? Post-career, the man can make more money signing memorabilia for a couple of hours than a guy tarring roofs will make all year. But he needs more.
Pride and ego wouldn't allow Rodriguez to settle for anything less than the $40 million he coveted, so he got it in the most fraudulent way possible -- from one of the most abysmal teams in the history of sports, and with most of the money not even guaranteed. If Rodriguez gets hurt either of the next two years, he isn't going to see half that money. Given the state income tax differences between Michigan and Florida, Rodriguez as an injured Tiger isn't going to make much more than he would have as a healthy or injured Marlin.
Well, at least we have the memories, right?
They, unlike Rodriguez himself, are priceless.
-
Article by Bill Madden From:
http://www.nydailynews.com/11-05-2002/spor...4p-140504c.html
Boras starting to bore us
Continues to price his clients out of market
It's Super Bowl Sunday, Greg Maddux, do you know where you're playing yet? And how about you, Travis Lee and Ron Villone? Wouldn't you agree that, as Yogi once said, it's gotten late early here? And as for you, Pudge Rodriguez, aren't you wondering how, after a renaissance season with a world champion team in your home town, you somehow wound up signing a conditional contract with Detroit?
For all intents and purposes, the winter baseball market is just about closed out. We are down to the dregs now - the Shane Spencers, Jose Mesas, Tyler Houstons, et al - signing non-guaranteed minor league contracts. The two pre-eminent unsigned free agents are Maddux and Rodriguez, while Lee, a .275 deft-fielding first baseman, and Villone, a serviceable lefthanded pitcher, are probably the best of the remaining crop. Not coincidentally, all four happen to be represented by Scott (Avenging Agent) Boras.
Eventually, all four will find jobs, but one thing is certain - none will be with teams of their choice. Maddux, the 37-year-old four-time Cy Young winner, has already priced himself out of his three top teams of choice - Atlanta, Arizona and San Diego - and, on Boras' orders, is sitting on a two-year offer in the $14 million range from his original team, the Cubs. Maddux has said if he'd had his druthers, he would have never left Atlanta but that the Braves never made him an offer. That was because Boras let the Braves know from the get-go the price to keep Maddux was going to be for far too many dollars and years than they were willing to consider, and they weren't about to get burned again by offering him arbitration.
Similarly, the 32-year-old Rodriguez, who lives in Miami, wanted to stay with the world champion Florida Marlins where he'd resurrected his career last year. But, alas, they insulted him by offering him a three-year, $24 million contract that represented a pay cut from the $10 million he earned in '03. So he severed relations with them and then proceeded to price himself out of his next two choices, the Chicago Cubs and Baltimore Orioles. With all his options dried up, I-Rod was left to deal with the desperate Detroit Tigers who are admittedly over-paying to get free agents to come to a 119-loss team this winter. But while the Tigers were willing to meet Boras' $10 million-per-year asking price, they weren't quite so desperate as they seemed, tossing in one significant condition that essentially made their four-year, $40 million offer guaranteed for only two years. By including an "out clause" that allows them to void the contract after the 2005 season if Rodriguez goes on the disabled list for a lumbar spine injury for 35 days or more in either '04 or '05, they covered themselves in case he suffers the injury that sidelined him for five weeks in 2002. None of the offers Rodriguez turned down had such a clause.
This "voidable contract" is unprecedented in baseball and, in the words of one baseball person, goes to the very integrity of the game. "Is Pudge going to take a hit at the plate if might void his contract," the person asked. But with Boras it's always been only about the money, and he vowed to I-Rod he'd get him that $10 million per. Just like he vowed to Alex Rodriguez he'd get him $20 mil per. Who cares if his clients are doomed to playing out their careers with hopeless last-place teams? How long do you think it's going to take I-Rod (after hitting in spacious Comerica Park on an everyday basis) to follow A-Rod's lead in begging to be traded? What's amazing is that these guys never ask themselves: "Will my lifestyle be altered on $8 million per year instead of $10 million?" Instead of promising to get them the biggest contracts, Boras ought to be asking them where they want to play and then try to make that happen rather than scaring off teams like the Mets (for A-Rod), the Braves (for Maddux) and the Marlins (for I-Rod) with his bluster.
Meanwhile, for all his self-acclaimed negotiating brilliance, Boras has about the worst record of any agent in the game over the past couple of years. Earlier this winter, he turned down a reported three-year, $35 million offer from the Phillies for Kevin Millwood, claiming he had "numerous five-year offers." Then, a month later, confirming that was all bull, he accepted arbitration from the Phillies. I would love to know how he was able to convince Millwood that a non-guaranteed $12 million (through arbitration) is really better than a guaranteed $35 million. It was the same thing - just on a lesser scale - with Kenny Rogers last year.
Rogers made it known he wanted to stay in Texas, but Boras turned down the Rangers' two-year, $11 million offer, claiming he had other four-year, $40 million offers. They, of course, never materialized and when Texas didn't offer Rogers arbitration, the best he could get was one-year, $2 million from Minnesota. This winter, he re-signed with the Rangers for two years, $6 million, but he's still $3 million short of their original offer.
You have to wonder, too, if Rey Sanchez has bothered to do the math on all the money Boras has cost him. In 2001, the Royals offered Sanchez a two-year, $7.5 million deal and when Boras turned it down, they traded him to the Braves. That winter, the best Boras could get him was a one-year, $700,000 deal plus $150,000 in incentives with the Red Sox. In 2003, Sanchez signed for one-year, $1.3 million plus $100,000 in incentives from the Mets, and, finally, this winter he signed a $1.4 million, one-year deal with Tampa Bay. All told, that's $3.25 million over three years, or an approximate $4.3 million shortfall from the offer Boras turned down from Kansas City.
Oh yes, one more thing: Over the last five years Boras has lost nine out of 10 arbitration cases, including Charles Johnson twice. Some avenging.
It's A Madd, Madd World…
# Proving once more baseball is truly the "last chance saloon" of professional sport, the Padres announced they're inviting their former NL MVP Ken Caminiti to spring training as an instructor. This is the same Ken Caminiti who admitted to Sports Illustrated he used and abused steroids, was busted for cocaine in 2001, placed on three years probation and tested positive again last January.
# Now you can visit your favorite Hall of Famers in cyberspace. Whitey Ford (Whiteyford.com) and Tom Seaver (Tomterrificseaver.com) have their own Web sites. We remember when you could visit Whitey in Astoria.
# If you're wondering why New York investment mogul Stuart Sternberg would be willing to buy 77% of the Devil Rays without a controlling interest in the team or an option to buy out general partner Vince Naimoli, here's one theory: The Devil Rays get approximately $50 million in combined revenue sharing and their share of the national TV contract. Their payroll is $20 million and all their other organization expenses are approximately $10 million. That's a $20 million profit before they sell one ticket or one hot dog.
Say It Ain't So
"If we knew in October we had that much room in our payroll we'd be a lot different team today."
— A high-ranking Mariners official lamenting the fact that closer Kazuhiro Sasaki waited until two weeks ago to inform them he was walking away from the remaining $7.5 million due him and staying in Japan. The official cited Vladimir Guerrero and Miguel Tejada as two players the M's would have pursued harder.
Originally published on February 1, 2004
-
Don't give Koch $10 mill after he has not even thrown one pitch in a White Sox uniform(in fact, don't even make that move at all....Foulke is off the books quicker then anyways). Don't pick up Jose's $5 mill option after he hits .240 25 70,
2 things:
Koch is being paid 6.37 Mil not 10 Mil.
Shortstop is basically a defensive position, so the relevant stats for judging Valentin's performance are fielding, not batting.
-
Some time later in response to criticism from Cubs fans, the Cincinnati fan posted the following:
http://redsbaseball.blogspot.com/2004_01_2...ll_archive.html
Neyer Handicaps the NL Central
Rob Neyer just posted a column discussing something I'd intended to discuss tonight. I took a lot of flack on a Cubs message board for my NL Central predictions recently. Here were my predictions:
1. Houston
2. St. Louis
3. Chicago
4. Cincinnati
5. Milwaukee
6. Pittsburgh
I based those predictions on Houston badly underperforming their pythagorean record last year, and on how many more runs St. Louis scored than Chicago and Houston.
Houston has only gotten better, and their runs scored differential had them at 95 wins last season. I think its very likely that they'll end up in the mid 90s in wins, with St. Louis in the high 80s, and Chicago in the mid 80s.
Neyer on the NL Central race:
Here's a salient fact: in 2003 the Cardinals scored 876 runs, which was 71 more than the Astros scored and 151 more than the Cubs scored. Yes, the Cubs had better pitching than the Cardinals ... but it wasn't that much better. It wasn't better enough to offset the difference in their runs scored.
So (you might be asking) how did the Cubs beat out the Cardinals by three games in the standings?
Simple: one-run games. The Cubs were 27-17 in one-run games (in the National League, only the Giants were better), and the Cardinals were 14-25 in one-run games (only the Mets were worse). There is one, and only one, legitimate explanation for those one-run records, and that explanation is blind luck. I know many of you believe that one-run records are determined largely by bullpens and/or "chemistry," but there simply isn't any evidence that either of those plays a significant factor in one-run games. Last year in one-run games, the Tigers had a winning record (19-18) and the Braves had a losing record (17-25).
If you accept the truth -- that the outcomes of one-run games are heavily freighted with luck -- then you also have to acknowledge the possibility that the Cardinals were actually better than the Cubs last season. After all, the Cards outscored their opponents by 80 runs, the Cubs by only 42.
Yes, the Cubs have improved this winter, with the addition of Derrek Lee and the presumed additions of full seasons from Corey Patterson and Aramis Ramirez. But Lee replaces Eric Karros (who was actually pretty decent last season), and Patterson's healthy days replace Kenny Lofton's productive fill-in time.
Of course, I'm simplifying for the sake of my argument. Full seasons of Lee, Patterson, and (especially) Ramirez represent real upgrades for the Cubs. And just getting Shawn Estes out of the rotation, no matter who takes his place, will help. Too, the Cardinals haven't exactly made a big splash this winter, their big moves consisting of signing Jeff Suppan and Reggie Sanders.
So yes, the Cubs are ahead of the Cardinals in the Hot Stove Derby. Not by a lot, though. They haven't separated themselves from the Cardinals. And they're still behind the Astros.
Here's what I said last Monday about St. Louis:
Minor quibbles aside, the Cardinals should have one of the best lineup's in the game, and could very well score the most runs in the National League.
And yet no one seems to be mentioning them when it comes to the NL Central race. Analysts have all but written off the race as a Cubs/Astros only affair, and if I was a Cardinal fan, I'd be a little annoyed.
Runs Scored 2003
Cardinals: 876
Astros: 805
Cubs: 725
Obviously that doesn't mean the world, as the actual standings last season finished in inverse order compared to the runs scored standings, but if the Cardinals score 150 more runs than the Cubs again this year, we may see a different result.
The Cubs and Astros simply don't have as much margin for error as the Cardinals. St. Louis can beat other teams to death...
Barring the normal deviations like injuries and unexpected trades and acquisitions, I don't really see how Houston loses the division this year.
-
A great many of you have expressed the belief that the Cubs are a lock to improve on their 2003 just 5 outs from the World Series performance. Well, a Cincinnati Reds fansite has done a team by team preview of the 2004 National League Central Division race and has predicted that the Cubs will finish in 3rd place.
http://redsbaseball.blogspot.com/2004_01_1...ll_archive.html
2004 Outlook
The Cubs are roughly the same team they are last year, with a couple of key additions.
Derrek Lee should make a difference with an offense that has struggled to produce runs in large quantities, and La Troy Hawkins makes a solid bullpen top notch.
The Cubs roster took a hit losing Kenny Lofton and Randall Simon, and the people who will be sitting on the Cubs bench don't inspire confidence. Todd Walker will be the best of the bunch, but after him there's nothing but mediocrity. Tom Goodwin, Ramon Martinez, and Todd Hollandsworth should make Cubs fans a little worried.
The Cubs are probably the least injury proof of any of the top three teams in the NL Central. They lose Sammy Sosa? They're done. Prior? Done. Wood? Done.
Lack of depth will have to catch up with them at some point.
I honestly see last season as a fluke. Houston should have won the division, and handily, but luck was the Cubs friend for once. I don't see it happening again, in fact I see them finishing no better than third.
The Cubs are my pick for flop of the season, and I fully expect many "What's wrong with the Cubs?" articles as we progress into the season.
They won't be terrible, but I don't see them being much better than the team that won 88 games last season. I expect another year with a win total in the low to mid-80's, but that's not going to be enough this season.
(Thanks to Northside Baseball for pointing out my mistake in having Hawkins as closer as opposed to Borowski, and for pointing out my mistake with Ohman as well. Both have been corrected.)
Cubs Blog:
The Cub Reporter
My early NL Central Predictions:
1. Houston
2. St. Louis
3. Chicago
4. Cincinnati
5. Milwaukee
6. Pittsburgh
-
Gery Hunsicker of the Houston Astros is the single best GM in MLB and he's not even in this poll.
-
I don't think he had much of a choice to beat out DJ last year. Hell, Miles beat out both of them, but KW wouldn't let JM keep him.
Why wouldn't KW let JM have Aaron Miles as starting 2b?
And, what do you think of this business of failed GM Harrelson claiming that JM was responsible for Harris's performance last year because he allegedly forced Harris to bunt?
-
It all depends on Ozzie. If he's good, then he should do better than 86 wins. If he's bad, then he'll do worse than 86 wins.
-
It will be most interesting to see if the hyper-critical Baggs is able to create something good here. So far, all he's done is attack and criticize.
-
The underlying theme of this thread is that fans are branded for life when exposed to an exciting, competitive team during formative, influential years. How many 10 year olds in Chicago this summer will be branded SOX fans, as opposed to CUB fans. You were a kid once, weren't you Jerry?
How interesting that the most optimistic folks concerning the Cubs's chances are either in the media or are Internet Sox Fans. Most of the Cubs fans I know personally here in McHenry County are fairly pessimistic about the Cubs this year especially since Dusty Baker aka the Pitcher Torturer will still be the manager.
As for the idea that a team's success leads it to gain new fans, the White Sox have almost always outperformed the Cubs during the Reinsdorf Era, but that has not led to their out gaining the Cubs in the hearts and minds of the youth of Chicago. In the Second City, losing gets you farther than winning does as shown by the fact that the Bears and the Bulls regularly sell out their home games and the Blackhawks, despite their horrible record, still get more than 10,000 fans per home game. Finally, if you were to ask the typical Chicago sports fan what they think about the Chicago Fire, he or she would likely tell you that it was caused by Mrs. O'Leary's cow.
-
Exactly. I have talked to people about this and most people that were around say that this was a sox town until the early 80's. The upperdeck in Wrigley was closed down for most games through the 70s becuase they couldn't draw enough. I don't know if this is totally true, just going by what I have been told by people I have discussed this with. Would anyone like to share their knowledge of this?
That's a lot of nonsense. Chicago has been a Cubs town since the late 60's. Ever since 1981 when Reinsdorf bought the team, the White Sox have almost always won more games than the Cubs. The whole idea that Chicago went from the Sox to the Cubs despite the Sox being a better team most years is sheer nonsense.
Its just another fallacy dreamt up by the fans who dump on the ownership.
-
2 things:
1st: Grossman may be a lot better than the other Bears QB's of the Jauron Era, but he's still really not what you'd call a franchise QB. Also, the fact that he got injured so early after getting regular playing time indicates that he could be injury-prone. We need to get another QB in the draft for insurance.
2nd: Angelo is definitely a control freak and the way that Lovie acted at the press conference indicates that he's nothing but a subservient piece of Jello in Angelo's clutches. When you combine that with the fact that according to the new Offensive Coordinator, the team's new offense is so complicated that it could take a whole year for the team to learn it, you have a situation where at least next season could be a disaster.
Angelo may not be Michael McCaskey, but he's just as incompetent.
-
Good point you just proved. It's for the party, not the event. And for the record.. SB ratings have gone down the past several years. The Daytona 500 is fast becomming the most watched sporting event.
Watching auto racing is like watching water boil. Other than the thrill of seeing someone get killed, why does anyone watch it?
who should be the 5th man in the rotation
in Pale Hose Talk
Posted
Interesting that nobody has yet mentioned Francisco Campos.