Collateral Estoppel

My Vote Goes to Joe, Plus a Bonus Taxi Adventure

2005-03-08T18:09:00.000-06:00

I listened to Pat and Ron last Thursday as the Cubs beat the A's 2-1 in the Cactus League opener, and since then I haven't really followed it very closely, mostly because I'm not terribly worried about this team. I think the offense will be there, despite much media worrying about how they are going to replace 70+ homers from Sosa and Alou (neglecting to mention that Sammy hit .253 last year). Aramis is going to do what he does, D-Lee will be steady at first, Todd Walker and Nomar are going to be solid up the middle, Corey will cut down on his strikeouts, Burnitz will hit 30 homers, and whoever plays left (I prefer Jason Dubois, but I would have nothing against Todd Hollandsworth) will be fine. Plus Michael Barrett can hit.

Pitching? The rotation is fine. Closer spot? That's where the title of this post comes in. Let's review: the Cubs win 88 games in 2003 and come within a game of winning the pennant. Joe Borowski saves 30-something games. Last year, the Cubs win 89 games and miss the playoffs by three games. The numbers of games that I can count off the top of my head that the Cubs blew a lead in the ninth inning last year? At least seven (both games in that May DH in Pittsburgh, a June home game against the Bucs, an April home game against Cincy, an August game in Houston, the September game at Shea, and the final week blowup against the Reds [again!] at Wrigley, one that I personally witnessed). How many wins would that have been with a healthy Joe? Theoretically 96, as there are no guarantees that he would have done the same thing last year. But anything would have been better than Latroy Hawkins trying to get the last three outs.

I realize that three of the games I listed were blown saves by Joe himself, but it was obvious last year that he was not the Joe of 2003. That's why I think he's the closer until something goes wrong. I really like Ryan Dempster, but he's kind of the right-handed swing guy of the bullpen (with Glendon Rusch as the lefty, but I think he should be in the rotation). Chad Fox? Good setup man, not a closer. You don't need an overpowering closer to win in the playoffs. After all, how much good did Eric Gagne do the Dodgers in the NLDS last year? He never had any leads to protect. Keith Foulke and Jason Isringhausen are both good closers, but nobody will ever mistake them for Dennis Eckersley, Bruce Sutter, or Lee Smith at their primes. What the Cubs need most is consistency: one guy that everybody knows is coming into the game in the ninth inning to get the last three outs. I think Joe is that guy if he is healthy. Fortunately, nobody cares what I think, least of all Dusty Baker.

Time for a Chicago cab story: today my wife and I went to the Field Museum to see the Jackie Kennedy exhibit (my wife's namesake). We go outside of our building to get a cab. Our building is right across from Navy Pier, and the Field is about two miles straight down Lake Shore Drive. The exit even says "Museum Campus" on the sign. So we get in the cab, tell the driver where we're going, and he sort of doesn't understand. I repeat it, and he says OK and we go down Lake Shore. We're cruising down until we pass the exit we should have taken. I start to think, okay, we're going past Soldier Field for some reason, and we'll take the next exit. But we pass that one, and soon we're coming up on McCormick Place. So I tell the driver, we're going to the Field Museum. He thought we were going to the Museum of Science and Industry, which is down in Hyde Park. So we get off at 31st and turn around, and we thought he had turned off the meter because of his horrible knowledge of Chicago destinations. We finally get off at the correct exit, and we get to an intersection where a left turn takes us to the Field, and straight takes us to the Shedd Aquarium and Adler Plantarium. Even though the Field is a huge building and there are signs all over it, the driver doesn't seem to know where it is, and as my wife says to turn left, he goes straight instead. Of course, the road loops us back around, where he proceeds to stop next to a parked taxi to ask this driver where the Field is. The other driver, somewhat incredulously, says that it's right next to us. So we finally get to the South Entrance and the meter says $4.10. I didn't even want to tip the guy, but I give him a twenty and tell him to give us $13 back. He starts telling us that it's really $7.90 plus this $4.10; apparently he didn't actually turn the meter off, he just sort of cut it in half. We tell him that we weren't the ones who didn't know where the Field was, and we finally agree to give him $10, and upon exiting the cab my wife tells him that he was the worst cab driver we've ever had, which was true.

What's most inexplicable about this was that if there was a top ten list of destinations that Chicago cab drivers should be required to know how to get to, the Field is definitely on the list. We weren't asking for some small museum (and if we were, I would have given the address as well), we wanted to get to the biggest museum in the third biggest city in the US, and the cab driver didn't seem to know where it was or how to get there. Unbelievable. And don't get me wrong: 99% of the drivers either me or my wife have are no problem and know exactly where they're going. I even had one get me to Webster and Southport when all I gave him was the address of 1401 W. Webster, and I didn't even know where the hell I was going. But to not know the Field? That's like not knowing how to get to the Met or the Guggenheim in Manhattan. It's completely unacceptable for a cab driver. Is it worth calling the city's cab hotline over? No. Does it make me think that the proposed cab fare increase is not a good idea? Yes, especially if a knowledge of city streets and destinations is not going to be a requirement for being a cab driver in this city.

The new dugout and bullpen seats go on sale this weekend, and the registration starts on the Cubs website tomorrow. I'm there, especially if I could get lucky enough to snag them for a weekend series in the summer. Mucho resale value there for the ones I wouldn't use.

And as Selection Sunday for the NCAA Tournament approaches, I realize that the only way my alma mater, UC Santa Barbara, will be a participant is for them to win the Big West Tournament and defeat top-ranked Pacific along the way. If that's what's required, then I know my Gauchos can do it. If not, I'm still going to win any tournament pools I enter.

Just Like I Planned

2005-02-26T02:15:00.000-06:00

The virtual waiting room really started to clear out after 11:00 tonight, to the point where I was frequently getting back to the schedule where you could pick your game without being kicked back into the room at all. In the end, my final tally is 11 games total, one with two tickets so my wife can go, and the other ten single tickets. The singles allowed me to go to two Cardinal games and a couple others the Cubs website is indicating is either sold out or has only scattered singles available. My games are scattered throughout the year (I tried to get one game per homestand, of which the Cubs have 12 this year), and overall I'm very pleased. The only annoying aspect was having to buy one game per transaction, meaning I had to put credit card info in eleven different times, which means I'll probably also end up with 10 different envelopes containing one ticket each in the middle of March, when they mail them out (the bleacher ticket I got was will call or print at home only; they wanted another $2.50 so I could use my own ink and paper, but I said no thanks). I need to resist the urge to keep buying tickets to games I know I could go to, because I know I will go overboard (that happened last year when I went to 18 games total, but my rationale is that it was my first full summer in Chicago). So eleven is it. I really need to get season tickets as soon as I have an income.

I like the bleachers the best, but I only got one game, on April 24th against Pittsburgh, due to their almost complete unavailability. This only means one thing: save me a seat, Al, because I'm coming over to right field!

It Actually Works

2005-02-25T18:28:00.000-06:00

When Cubs playoff tickets went on sale for the Divisonal Round and then the NLCS in 2003, I endured the so-called "virtual waiting room" online in an attempt to get tickets. That endeavor was unsuccessful, which led to me spending of $250 for a bleacher seat to Game 1 of the NLCS, probably the best $250 I have ever spent in my life. The Cubs lost that one on Mike Lowell's homer in the 11th, a ball that I can still remember the distinct sound it made when it clanged into the basket in front of the shrubbery in center. However, that game provided Sammy Sosa's two-out, two-run blast to tie the game in the bottom of the ninth, my favorite Sammy moment and the absolute loudest I have ever heard Wrigley, even louder than the day the Cubs swept the Pirates in the doubleheader and clinched the division.

But I digress; the point is, I got on the computer today at 1 o'clock, entered the virtual waiting room, and, to my surprise, it let me in at about 4:30 or so to buy tickets. Of course, I was limited to one game, and by then the Red Sox and the White Sox series were both sold out, as was the home opener and a few Cardinals games, and I'm fairly certain I'll be able to get tickets for the other games that I want, so I snatched up a couple field box outfield seats for the June 7th game against Toronto, so my wife and I can go sit in a close section for her one game of the year that she can stand. I also like to see random American League teams when I get the chance, since I'm not interested in venturing down to the Cell to see the Palehose. I'm currently in the virtual waiting room again, and I will likely be doing this all weekend, but I want to go see the Cubs, dammit, and I'm not going to be denied. At least it worked once for me so far.

The Cubs Are Back, and So Am I (and Hopefully on a Regular Basis)

2005-02-23T19:40:00.000-06:00

With the news that the 2nd Annual Cubs Blog Army over at Northside Lounge predictions contest is upon us, and as a member of said army despite my complete lack of posts for about, oh, seven weeks now, as some famous actor once said in something (I think it was Jason Alexander as George in Seinfeld), "I'm back, baby!" I try not to predict anything about the Cubs because of my complete and utter lack of objectivity, but I will do anything for the purposes of competition and/or gambling.

Anyway, to recap all that's happened since January 3rd, my last post: the Patriots won the Super Bowl (I predicted their two AFC victories, as you may or may not have noticed), and Sammy Sosa got traded. Both events were expected, and both made me happy. I already like the Cubs' attitude this year. A little less pressure, combined with a lot less bad apples in the clubhouse, should mean a better team (not that 89 wins is bad).

Last year I did the whole wristband thing at Wrigley and waited almost nine hours there on that Friday before I finally got to buy, but it's not happening this year. I've figured out a process that will allow me to go to most of the games that I want without resorting to trying to get them right away. Unfortunately it won't work for you unless you want to go to games by yourself. Since that doesn't bother me, and since I'm not very good company when the Cubs are losing, it's a great system.

Why the Playoffs Are Different

2005-01-03T14:32:00.000-06:00

Now that January (and cold rain here in Chicago) is upon us, it is not too crazy to turn our eyes to the impending beginning of spring training in a mere six weeks or so. With Carlos Beltran still unsigned, and it appearing that it will stay that way for at least a week, I am still confident that Jim Hendry will step in at some point and make a competitive offer for his services. You and I both know that the Tribsters are capable of paying both Sammy and Beltran for 2005.

Now that Randy Johnson is finally out of the National League (thank God, the Cubs never hit him, though this year they do play in Yankee Stadium) and in the Bronx, all the East Coast-centric pundits are ready to proclaim the Yankees' rotation as one of the best ever. If they could somehow convince me that Carl Pavano is not a fluke and that Mike Mussina has not passed his prime, I might be inclined to believe them. But if trading what remaining talent the Yankees have left in their farm system to acquire a 41-year-old pitcher with back problems is their panacea, who am I to question it? And, for the record, I'll take the Cubs' rotation for 2005, even with Matt Clement's departure to Boston: Prior, Wood, Zambrano, Maddux, and Rusch. I don't care if the Cardinals picked up Mark Mulder (though he is quite good, the Cubs can usually hit lefties), the Cubs have the best rotation in the division, and I would argue in the entire league. Atlanta's acquistion of Tim Hudson is a good one, but Russ Ortiz and John Thomson are still prominently involved. Houston's depends on Roger Clemens' whims, and the Dodgers should be decent with Javy Vasquez, but in the end I'll take the Cubs. Of course, there is bias involved.

And now I turn to the most powerful sports team in my fan garage, if you will: the Patriots. A workmanlike 21-7 dispatching of the 49ers yesterday ended their season at 14-2. If the Colts beat the Broncos, they will travel to Foxboro, but if the Broncos win in Indy (not likely), the Pats will host the winner of the Jets-Chargers game. Since we all know that the Pats are capable of beating the Colts, and beat the Jets twice, the only unknown here is the Bolts. They are a good team, despite the liability of being coached by Marty Schottenheimer, but since the Broncos have only slightly better odds than a snowball in hell of winning in Indy, we'll let the Steelers worry about the Bolts.

I will say this much: Bill Belichick knows how to coach in the playoffs. His last postseason loss as head coach? Over ten years ago with the Browns. The Pats went 3-0 in the 2001 playoffs and 3-0 in the 2003 playoffs. They didn't have home-field for the AFC Championship in 2001 either, just like this year. It's funny how similar this year is to the playoffs of three years ago, minus the fact that nobody thought the Pats were any good entering those playoffs. The Steelers were already booking their flights to New Orleans after the Pats escaped in the Snow Bowl against the Raiders (the "tuck rule" game, whose play was ruled correctly to the consternation of many Raider fans). Enter an unproven quarterback in Kordell Stewart, the Pats pick him off three times, and, along with a blocked field goal returned for a touchdown, they go to the Super Bowl instead. Now, I am aware that the Steelers have the best defense in the NFL, and that they have won either 13 or 14 in a row (I'm not exactly sure, but I don't want to look it up). However, the Pats always stop Jerome Bettis when it counts, they didn't have Corey Dillon when they lost in Pittsburgh on Halloween, nobody knows what Ben Roethlisberger is going to do when it counts in the crunch time of the playoffs, and no coach on the league is better at putting game plans together than Belichick. All told, I like their chances in the AFC Championship. Of course, they do have to get there first, so let's not put the cart ahead of the horse. (And I did accurately predict their loss in Miami.)

They're Allowed to Lose One Game

2004-12-21T17:25:00.000-06:00

I did predict it, though it was definitely tongue-in-cheek. I thought that last night's game was a trap game for the Patriots: the Dolphins always play them tough, Tom Brady never plays that well against them, and they never seemed to put it away when they had multiple chances to do so. But, come on, they're still 12-2. Let's get some perspective here. They didn't blow home-field because they needed a Steelers loss to get it anyway. Two main reasons why this loss isn't that big of a deal:

1) They won the AFC Championship in January 2002 in Pittsburgh with Drew Bledsoe coming off the bench and a team that was not as battle-tested at this year's version, so it's not like home-field is an essential component to them returning to the Super Bowl. Plus Corey Dillon was still missing the playoffs with the Bengals then.

2) They hold the tiebreaker over the Colts for the second bye, and though I hear that the Chargers hold the tiebreaker over the Pats (I'm not sure how unless two of the Bolts' losses came against NFC teams), the Colts and the Bolts are playing each other on Sunday, and, barring a tie (highly unlikely), somebody has to lose. Because the Pats beat the Colts in Week 1, a Colts win would help sew up the second AFC bye. Not that I don't think they could win two games on the road to get to Jacksonville, but I'd prefer that they don't have to.

Onto what little Cubs news there is. Tim Kurkjian just said on Sportscenter that the Yankees are set to offer Carlos Beltran about six or seven years at about $17 million. You're telling me the Tribune Company can't find that kind of cash? They gave it to Sammy, and they can give it to Beltran. Beltran doesn't necessarily want the money, though having Scott Boras as your agent does little to suggest otherwise. My point is that Jim Hendry hasn't even stepped up to the plate yet, so let's see what kind of offer the Cubs put out there before we cede Beltran to the Yankers just yet.

On a completely unrelated note, the Cubs resigned Jose Macias to a one-year deal. I actually don't mind Macias: he plays a few positions, he hustles, and he has occasional pop. You need guys like him around. I also saw that Kent Mercker signed with the Reds. They can have him.

I'm Back

2004-12-18T14:12:00.000-06:00

That's right, finals are over, I can have my life back, and it's just in time for the Patriots' inevitable run through the AFC playoffs on the way to the Super Bowl. If anyone legitimately thinks that the Steelers are beating the Pats in the AFC Championship, they're insane. You can't beat the Pats right now. (Watch, now they'll lose to the Dolphins Monday night.)

But, considering as how this blog is supposed to be about the Cubs some of the time, and I'd like to be an esteemed member of the Cubs Blog Army, it's time to discuss everything that's gone down in the past month or so.

Sammy Sosa: Is he staying? Is he going? Do I even care any more? Don't get me wrong, I love Sammy, and he was my favorite player for a long time after Ryne Sandberg officially retired, but he's slow, he can't field anymore, he strikes out too much (of course, he's always done that), and he doesn't really hit singles anymore. That said, I'm not sure why another team would want him, but we shall see. The point is, however, that trading him is not a necessary event for the signing of...

Carlos Beltran: This is a must sign for the Cubs. They pick him up, stick him in center, move Corey Patterson to left, and with the rest of their lineup, they can throw Jason Dubois in right and it would be fine. Scott Boras is a moron, and he's not going to get 10 years and $200 million for Beltran. I think the Cubs can get him for about 8 and $140 mil or thereabouts. Beltran says he loves Chicago, we all know how well he hits at Wrigley, and does he really want to go to the Bronx? Not with their ancient pitching staff (and Carl Pavano is a one-year wonder, I can tell you that much).

Matt Clement: Hey, he had some good years, but I was never truly confident having him on the mound, and he was truly snake-bit for most of 2004. Good luck to him in Boston; the thing that I'm most happy about is that he went to the American League and he won't have the chance to torment the Cubs for the next three years. (See Greg Maddux, 1993-2003.)

Todd Walker and Nomar Garciaparra: Two underrated resignings, especially considering that Nomar is amenable to sticking around after 2005. If you give him a full season at Wrigley, I have no doubt that he's going to hit over .300. I love Walker too; he needs to be starting if for no other reason than the Cubs need another left-handed bat.

Neifi Perez: Just one of those useful guys you need around to play a lot of positions. I have a lot of faith in Dusty Baker guys.

So how would this lineup look on Opening Day in Phoenix?
Walker 2B
Garciaparra SS
Beltran CF
Ramirez 3B
Lee 1B
Patterson LF
Barrett C
Dubois (or whoever) RF
P

Rotation:
Wood
Prior
Zambrano
Maddux
Rusch

Where can I pick up my World Series tickets? Oh, the optimism of December.

I also want to congratulate the men's soccer team of my alma mater, UC Santa Barbara, who agonizingly lost the national championship in a shootout to Indiana last week. My Gauchos have still only won one national championship in the history of the university, and I thought this one was going to be the second. At least they got UCSB mentioned on Sportscenter for something.

And to part, overheard on the #66 bus as I got on this week:
Driver: "You need to stand behind the yellow line."
Crazy old man: "Only God tells me what to do."
He got off two stops later, but I was wondering how long he tormented the bus driver that night.

A Perfect Ten

2004-11-13T19:12:00.000-06:00

That's the idea this week. Here we go...

NY JETS (+1 1/2) over Baltimore; Jets
*Yes, I'm aware that Quincy Carter is QB for the Jets. But as good as Baltimore's defense is (though it's not that good), I don't think an offense led by Kyle Boller is capable of scoring more than 10 points in the Meadowlands on what will undoubtedly be a chilly and windy afternoon/evening. Though I wouldn't mind a few field goals from Matt Stover, since he's the kicker on my fantasy team.

Houston (+9 1/2) over INDIANAPOLIS; Indy
* The Colts can't play defense, but the Texans are getting too many points not to bet on them. Fortunately for me, I'm starting both Brandon Stokely and Jabar Gaffney tomorrow, so as long as it's a high-scoring affair, I can't lose.

ATLANTA (-3 1/2) over Tampa Bay; Atlanta
* I still like the looks of the Falcons in a weak NFC, even considering the shellacking they took in KC a few weeks ago. Plus I have Warrick Dunn and need him to step it up.

Detroit (+3) over JACKSONVILLE; Detroit
* The Lions play well on the road, and, without Byron Leftwich, the Jags aren't left with much besides a defense that can't create turnovers (seriously, their defense was the most frustrating to have on my fantasy team; they would give up less than 20 points every game but would get maybe one takeaway, so that's why I've switched to the Bears). I'm still not sold on Detroit, but I have a hunch.

ST. LOUIS (PK) over Seattle; St. Louis
* If I were an actual bettor this game would scare the hell out of me. I would like Marc Bulger to have a good game tomorrow for my sake, but the Pats exposed them last week with a patchwork secondary. Matt Hasselbeck isn't exactly setting the world on fire, but Seattle still has Shaun Alexander, whom I desperately wanted to draft with the eighth overall pick (he got taken seventh, and I got Randy Moss, which was fine before he got hurt). I guess I'm just picking home field here.

Kansas City (-3 1/2) over NEW ORLEANS; KC
* The Saints' defense is even more porous than the Chiefs', and that's saying something. Any team with Priest Holmes should put serious points on the board, and New Orleans won't be able to keep up.

WASHINGTON (-3) over Cincinnati; Washington
* Both of these teams suck. That's the bottom line. I'm picking the 'Skins because they have Clinton Portis and I can't even remember right now who Cincy's QB is (I'm pretty sure it's still Carson Palmer).

Minnesota (+4) over GREEN BAY; Minnesota
* The Vikes hung with Indy last week and the Pack have struggled at Lambeau. Even without Randy Moss I think Minnesota will find some way to pull this game out, though it certainly won't be through defense alone.

ARIZONA (+2 1/2) over NY Giants; Arizona
* The Cards usually get too many points, and this is another example. I'll take Dennis Green in a matchup against Tom Coughlin any day, plus the Giants seem to be fading.

SAN FRANCISCO (-1) over Carolina; SF
* I have no faith in the Niners here, but I have negative faith, if that's even possible, in a Panthers team which has maybe the worst running game in a decade flying across the country and winning this game.

NEW ENGLAND (-7) over Buffalo; NE
* I'm not fond of the line here because the Bills are playing well right now, but the Pats have always been able to beat Buffalo under Bill Belichick, Week 1 in 2003 notwithstanding.

Philadelphia (-6 1/2) over DALLAS; Philly
* Pittsburgh exposed Philly last week, but that will probably just serve to piss Andy Reid off, plus were are dealing with Vinny Testaverde here, and we all know what to do by this point (it worked last week, though I didn't articulate it).

And the lock of the week: Pittsburgh (-3 1/2) over CLEVELAND; Pittsburgh
* The Steelers are playing well right now. Are they better than the Patriots? Hell no. Let's see how they do in Foxboro before we send them to Jacksonville as representative of the AFC. But they're certainly good enough to beat the Browns in Cleveland by a healthy margin.

For some reason the Bears-Titans line is off, so I'm not picking that one. I don't think the Bears can win two games in a row on the road, but we'll see.

Who Knew Mail Fraud Could Be So Interesting?

2004-11-10T20:35:00.000-06:00

Just a rhetorical question there. Go check out 18 U.S.C. sec. 1341 if you don't believe me. And before I proceed with my recap of my Week 9 picks, an alert to anyone stumbling across this: there is lots of talk about sports, especially the Cubs (I talk about poker when I get a chance to play, but it's been so long since I have, so there's nothing to say. At least it's about gambling, sort of). It's all I have time to talk about right now. I never said I was an interesting person. My wife will tell you that I can be quite boring sometimes. If you don't like all this talk about sports, and particularly the NFL right now, don't read it. Feel free to move on. Click on one of my links to far superior blogs; I highly recommend Guinness and Poker myself. Just don't draw conclusions about me just because of what I choose to discuss in my own little space on what our president calls the "internets."

Time for a Week 9 recap, full of picks made out of sheer stupidity in hindsight.

Bears beat Giants by 7; missed both. 0-1, 0-1
Bills beat Jets by 5; missed both. 0-2, 0-2
Steelers beat Eagles by 24; missed both. 0-3, 0-3
Redskins beat Lions by 7; missed both. 0-4, 0-4
Bengals beat Cowboys by 23; got both. 1-4, 1-4
Raiders beat Panthers by 3; got the spread but picked Carolina to win. 2-4, 1-5
Cardinals beat Dolphins by 1; got both. 3-4, 2-5
Seahawks beat Niners by 15; missed the spread but picked Seattle to win. 3-5, 3-5
Patriots beat Rams by 18; missed both. 3-6, 3-6
Broncos beat Texans by 18; missed the spread but picked Denver. 3-7, 4-6
Ravens beat Browns by 14; got both. 4-7, 5-6
Colts beat Vikings by 3; missed the spread but picked Indy. 4-8, 6-6
And the lock of the week: Chargers beat Saints by 26; got both. 5-8, 7-6

Somehow I neglected to pick the KC-TB game, so we just won't count it. I would have gotten it wrong anyway.

Records after Week 9: 62-64-3 ATS, 77-52 straight up, 3-1 lock of the week.

The Dog Days

2004-11-06T16:20:00.000-06:00

That's where I'm at in this semester. Ugh. And that's a good way to describe my Week 8 picks, so let's head to the recap.

Bears beat Niners by 10; missed both. 0-1, 0-1
Packers beat Redskins by 14; got both. 1-1, 1-1
Eagles beat Ravens by 5; missed the spread but picked the Eagles. 1-2, 2-1
Giants beat Vikings by 21; missed both. 1-3, 2-2
Titans beat Bengals by 7; got both. 2-3, 3-2
Chiefs beat Colts by 10; missed both. 2-4, 3-3
Cowboys beat Lions by 10; missed both. 2-5, 3-4
Texans beat Jaguars by 14; missed both. 2-6, 3-5
Falcons beat Broncos by 13; got the spread but picked Denver to win. 3-6, 3-6
Seahawks beat Panthers by 6; missed the spread but picked Seattle. 3-7, 4-6
Steelers beat Patriots by 14; missed both. 3-8, 4-7
Chargers beat Raiders by 28; got both. 4-8, 5-7
Jets beat Dolphins by 27; missed the spread but picked the Jets. 4-9, 6-7
And the lock of the week: Bills beat Cardinals by 24; missed both. It happens. 4-10, 6-8

What a horrible week. Plus I called Baltimore "Buffalo" and didn't catch it. Fortunately nobody reads this anyway.

So through Week 8, here are the records: 57-56-3 ATS, 70-46 straight up, 2-1 lock of the week. Let's do Week 9 quickly:

NY GIANTS (-9) over Chicago; Giants
NY Jets (-3) over BUFFALO; Jets
Philadelphia (-1) over PITTSBURGH; Philly
DETROIT (-3 1/2) over Washington; Detroit
CINCINNATI (+1) over Dallas; Cincy
Oakland (+7) over CAROLINA; Carolina
Arizona (+3) over MIAMI; Arizona
SAN FRANCISCO (+6 1/2) over Seattle; Seattle
ST. LOUIS (+2 1/2) over New England; St. Louis
Houston (+6 1/2) over DENVER; Denver
BALTIMORE (-6) over Cleveland; Baltimore
INDIANAPOLIS (-6) over Minnesota; Indy

And the lock of the week: SAN DIEGO (-6) over New Orleans; San Diego

That is all.

Now It's Our Turn

2004-10-29T14:01:00.000-05:00

Congratulations to the Red Sox. If there's any American League team I "root" for (and by root I mean don't mind seeing win), it's the Red Sox. My dad once got Marty Barrett's autograph on a Red Sox pennant for me, so I suppose that's my connection to the '86 team.

I'm genuinely happy for all the long-suffering Red Sox fans out there, especially the ones who endured '46, '48, '67, '75, and '86. Those who are my age never really suffered enough; I barely recall the '89 NLCS myself, and I was eight years old. I am happy for Bill Simmons, aka the Sports Guy, whom I have been reading since 1998, way back when he could only be found on the Digital City Boston section of AOL. His readership was measured in the hundreds and he personally returned e-mails within about two hours because he had nothing better to do. But he and his father deserve this one, no doubt about it.

And in that same link is an e-mail he was sent by a Cubs fan, which I will copy here:
"For Cubs fans, you know what this feels like? I just figured it out a moment ago. It's like having this friend who suffered with you through thick and thin, sharing in your deepest pain and your greatest hopes. Finally, one day, your friend finally gets what you've both been hoping for. And you're really, really happy for them, but you can't deny that you're also jealous. And you're a bit sad, and a bit scared, because you know that from now on, you're going at it alone. (Also, you have an annoying little brother with the same problem, but nobody gives a crap about him and neither do you.)"

Of all the e-mails he posted from Cub fans, this is the one that is closest to how I think the Cubs fit into everything. First of all, I have never equated the Red Sox and Cubs in terms of their failures. Boston had lost four straight seven-game World Series before they won, all of which have occurred since the Cubs were in their last Series. The Red Sox have usually put decent teams on the field, whereas the Cubs have, more often than not, been just downright bad for the past 59 years (dating back to '45, their last Series appearance). I mean, the Cubs just this year posted back-to-back winning seasons for the first time since '72 and '73. That's downright incredible when you think about it. They've never really had a legitimate chance to win a World Series because their good teams were always one-year flukes, for the most part; the team of the late-'60s should have made the playoffs at least once, but they were penalized by the lack of divisions until '69, and we don't really need to revisit that year. The '84 team came the closest, closer than last year's, but they weren't a truly great team (though both they and the '89 team led the league in wins, which is interesting.)

I guess my point is that we haven't really suffered with the Red Sox. They made the World Series four times. They had their own demons that go back to Bucky Dent and the Yankees. Let's face it, the Cubs have just been bad most of the time. The Cubs are really more like the Indians; lots of bad teams with a couple good ones here and there. It's just that the Indians strung their good seasons together in the late-'90s. (By the way, go to Baseball Reference, look at the '95 Indians page, and tell me how that team did not win the World Series that year. It was far and away superior to the '97 team that was two outs away.) The Tribe hasn't won a Series since '48, but at least they've been recently.

I don't really attach too much significance to the fact that the Cubs haven't been to the Series since 1945. That really doesn't bother me that much, because even if, say, the '84 team had beaten the Padres, it is doubtful that they would have beaten the Tigers, who were a force that year. Would it make things better if, right now, it would be only 20 years since the Cubs won a pennant? No, because we'd still be 96 years without a championship. It is somewhat remarkable that it's been 59 years, but the Cubs have only had four opportunities to even win it through the playoff system introduced in '69; you can count on one hand the years between '46 and '68 when they legitimately had a shot at the pennant (I'd say '46, '67 and '68 are it; '52 was the only year in the '50s where they were even as good as .500). Moreover, I would rather they not win the pennant than win it and lose in the World Series. If that happens, you start to get a complex about it, just like Red Sox fans had. That's why, when (and notice I said when, not if) the Cubs win the Series, which hopefully will be next October, they need to just march through the whole damn thing and kick some ass. The Diamondbacks did it, the Angels did it, the Marlins have done it twice, and the Cubs are certainly capable of doing it. And for the record, there is no curse, but that's a topic for another day.

The White Sox really have it worse off than the Cubs do. Their fans don't even like their team half the time, they play their home games in an antiseptic park on the South Side, nestled between train tracks and a traffic-clogged expressway, their owner is despised, and they have worn some of the worst uniforms in baseball history. They haven't been to the Series since '59 and they haven't won it since 1917. The one thing I am genuinely scared of is the White Sox winning the Series before the Cubs do (or, God forbid, if they beat the Cubs to do it). A Cubs-Red Sox used to be a dream World Series; now most people would like to see a Cubs-White Sox series, but not me. This city would burn down no matter who won; this city takes its baseball more seriously than any other city. (By the way, it always bugs me when people call St. Louis such a great baseball city. You know why they love the Cardinals? Because they have to live in St. Louis! If you've ever been there, which I have, you've seen that there is nothing else to do there, especially in the summer. Plus they let the Browns move to Baltimore in '54.)

The whole Cubs-White Sox dichotomy is another reason why it's somethimes it's tougher to be a Cubs fan in Chicago. With the Red Sox, the only people who wanted to see them lose were Yankee fans, but that was more along the lines of Yankee fans regarding the Red Sox as a nuisance, not a threat. But with the Cubs, we have to deal with genuine contempt and hate from White Sox fans. I think that's why fans are so cynical about the Cubs here; we have to deal with White Sox fans who would almost rather see the Cubs fail than their own team win. This may sound hard to believe, but it's true. And that's why that writer's little brother comparison to the White Sox was so apt. The White Sox really would have been better off had they just moved to Florida back in 1990 when they had the chance, because Chicago was, is, and always will be a Cubs town.

I know I have more to say on this topic, but I can't think of it right now, and I need to make my Week 8 NFL picks. I don't think I actually have any readers anymore, but if anyone is out there, here they are.

San Francisco (+1 1/2) over CHICAGO; San Fran
*I can't pick the Bears right now, plus I might start Tim Rattay this week on my fantasy team.

Green Bay (-2) over WASHINGTON; Green Bay
* Besides actually thinking that the Packers will win, I have another reason for this pick: as many are aware by now, since 1940 the result of the Redskins last home game before the election has been an accurate predictor of the victor; if the Redskins win, the incumbent party stays in the White House, and if they lose, so does the incumbent party. I'm voting for Kerry, and thus I'm rooting for the Packers on Sunday.

PHILADELPHIA (-7 1/2) over Buffalo; Philly
* Though the Eagles failed to cover last week, Buffalo can't hang with them.

MINNESOTA (-7) over NY Giants; Minnesota
* With or without Randy Moss, the Vikings are looking very tough to beat right now (of course, we've seen this before...).

TENNESSEE (-3) over Cincinnati; Tennessee
* I flirted with picking the Bengals, but Steve McNair will probably have to be dead to not play, plus the Titans are better on both sides of the ball. I think.

Indianapolis (-1) over KANSAS CITY; Indy
* This would be the lock of the week were it not so easy to predict.

Detroit (+3) over DALLAS; Detroit
* I can't believe the oddsmakers keep favoring the Cowboys. I refer you and them to my rule about the Cowboys: never bet on a team with a 40-year-old Vinny Testaverde prominently involved.

Jacksonville (+1) over HOUSTON; Jax
* The Jags would be the team of destiny this year were they not in the same conference as the Patriots.

Atlanta (+7) over DENVER; Denver
* After the Broncos laid an egg in Cincy on Monday, I have no idea what to make of them, but I don't think Falcons can actually win the game. I would just be happy just to see Warick Dunn score three touchdowns, personally.

SEATTLE (-8) over Carolina; Seattle
* It's put-up-or-shut-up time for the Seahawks; if they can't beat the Panthers, who come in without any semblance of a running game, at home, they deserve what they get.

New England (-3) over PITTSBURGH; NE
* I'm riding the undefeated train until it derails, whenever that may be.

SAN DIEGO (-6) over Oakland; SD
* Do you believe in the Bolts? They're looking better and better every week.

Miami (+7) over NY JETS; Jets
* The Dolphins, to their credit, don't quit, and after smoking the Rams last week, I think they'll keep it close in a loss.

And the lock of the week...
Arizona (+3) over BUFFALO; Arizona
* Dennis Green knows what he's doing, and the Cards' defense forces a ton of turnovers, which is always bad when Drew Bledsoe is your quarterback.

First the Red Sox, Then the Cubs

2004-10-27T14:56:00.000-05:00

If only us Cubs fans knew what this feeling of anticipation was like, being up 3-0 going into Game 4, knowing the Curt Schilling and Pedro Martinez are available for later starts if necessary. I suppose this would be like starting Greg Maddux in Game 4 of next year's world Series knowing that Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, and Carlos Zambrano were available for the next three games if the Cubs lost. Next year might be it; I for one fully expect a healthy and dominant Prior and Wood for 35 starts each.

In any event, I keep reading the Cardinal players bitching about not having home-field advantage for the Series. I read some particularly inane quote from Ray King (a former Cub, by the way) saying that the team with the best record shouldn't be penalized. Memo to Mr. King and all the other morons who think the winner of the All-Star game shouldn't be given home-field advantage: WORLD SERIES HOME-FIELD HAS NEVER BEEN GIVEN TO THE TEAM WITH THE BEST RECORD. I find it amazing that everyone complaining about how the All-Star Game decides home-field conveniently overlooks the fact that Major League Baseball didn't exactly have the best method before 2003: they alternated between AL and NL. That's right, the reason the Diamondbacks won Game 7 at home in 2001 was because that was the NL's year to have home-field. That's it. And had MLB kept that system, the Red Sox would still have home-field, because the Angels had it in 2002 and the Marlins should have had it last year. Whether you like the All-Star game solution or not, at least the players are deciding it on the field. The reason nobody noticed the old system was because it seemed like the best team had home-field when it was really just coincidence.

And let us not overlook the ex-Cub factor in the playoffs, which says that the team with the most ex-Cubs loses. The Yankees' collapse can be somewhat explained by the fact that Miguel Cairo (!) was their starting second baseman, Jon Lieber was one of their big starters, and Tanyon Sturtze, Felix Heredia, and Tom Gordon were in their bullpen. Five ex-Cubs is just too many. The Cardinals have Tony Womack, Julian Tavarez, and the aforementioned King. The Red Sox are stuck with only Mark Bellhorn. Coincidences? You be the judge. (For the record, I can't think of any ex-Cubs on the Astros...thinking...wait, that's right, Jose Vizcaino is one. I think that's it.)

Time to recap Week 7. I have the feeling that I went 7-7 in both picks, but let's see...

Bucs beat Bears by 12; got both. 1-0, 1-0
Ravens beat Bills by 14; missed the spread but picked Baltimore to win. 1-1, 2-0
Lions beat Giants by 15; missed both. 1-2, 2-1
Eagles beat Browns by 3; missed the spread but picked Philly to win. 1-3, 3-1
Jags beat Colts by 3; got the spread but picked Indy to win. 2-3, 3-2
Vikings beat Titans by 17; got both. 3-3, 4-2
Dolphins beat Rams by 17; got the spread but picked St. Louis to win. 4-3, 4-3
Chiefs beat Falcons by 46; got both. 5-3, 5-3
Patriots beat Jets by 6; missed the spread by one-half point but picked NE. 5-4, 6-3
Packers beat Cowboys by 21; got both. 6-4, 7-3
Cardinals beat Seahawks by 8; got the spread but picked Seattle to win. 7-4, 7-4
Saints beat Raiders by 5; missed both. 7-5, 7-5
Bengals beat Broncos by 13; missed both. 7-6, 7-6

And the lock of the week: Chargers beat Panthers by 11; you're damn right. 8-6, 8-6

I knew this week would end up being a pain in the ass, and I was right.

Records through Week 7: 53-46-3 ATS, 64-38 straight up, 2-0 lock of the week.

Predictions Galore

2004-10-22T13:54:00.000-05:00

The curse has not yet been reversed, but, for the Red Sox, beating the Yankees is a good start. So do I think they will beat the Cardinals in the World Series? Yes. I saw the Cubs tangle with the Cards 19 times, winning 8 of them, and the Cards are hardly unbeatable. If you shut down Pujols, Rolen and Edmonds are prone to falling into slumps. Edmonds can be gotten out by pitching inside, and Rolen will chase breaking balls. Walker's bat isn't as quick as it used to be, and nobody else in their lineup should scare Boston too much. I also think the Fenway advantage will come into play; I know these two played each other last year during interleague, but I don't know if it was in Boston or St. Louis. In any event, the right-handed hitters aren't used to seeing the Monster, and I don't think Sanders can handle playing balls off of it very well. Overall, I think if there's any year for the Red Sox, this is it. Boston in 6; they need to clinch at home for closure.

On the college football front, Brock Berlin has hardly been stellar for Miami, but he has won the games he has needed to, and I fully expect this week to be another victory, this time over NC State. And after Florida State exposed Virginia last week, I'm not so worried about the Cavaliers in three weeks.

And now come the Week 7 NFL picks. This week has some tough lines and some tough games. I can't really get a read on it at all; I'm either going to do really well or really bad. But, on the heels of a successful Week 6, here we go. Those who actually read this know the drill by now.

TAMPA BAY (-7) over Chicago; Tampa Bay
* I can't pick the Bears with their QB situation as it is right now.

Buffalo (+6) over BALTIMORE; Baltimore
* I don't really like either of these teams, but Buffalo isn't as bad as they look and the Ravens can't score, so it should be close, at least.

NY GIANTS (-6 1/2) over Detroit; G-men
* I was never on the Lions bandwagon, but I would definitely be off it now.

Philadelphia (-7) over CLEVELAND; Philly
* The Eagles are a lock to cover and win every week.

Jacksonville (+9 1/2) over INDIANAPOLIS; Indy
* The Colts are getting too many points, but I don't think they're going to lose the game.

MINNESOTA (-7) over Tennessee; Minnesota
* Even if Randy Moss doesn't play, the Titans aren't going to stay within a touchdown in the Metrodome.

MIAMI (+6 1/2) over St. Louis; St. Louis
* I think the Dolphins will keep it close, but they shall remain winless.

KANSAS CITY (-4) over Atlanta; KC
* I actually have no idea who's going to win this game, let alone whether KC will win by 4. This is a gut pick based on what I saw of the Chiefs against the Ravens a few Monday nights ago.

NEW ENGLAND (-6 1/2) over NY Jets; New England
* Is there bias here? Yes. Should I pick the Jets? Until the Patriots lose, or at least fail to cover, I'm not going against them. 20 in a row is worth something.

GREEN BAY (- 3 1/2) over Dallas; Green Bay
* Remember my rule from last week, which was proven quite nicely in the fourth quarter: Never bet on a team with a 40-year-old Vinny Testaverde prominently involved.

ARIZONA (+7) over Seattle; Seattle
* The Cards are a lot better than they look, but I think Seattle win pull it out for fear of falling to 3-3.

OAKLAND (-3) over New Orleans; Oakland
* With a line of three Vegas is basically throwing its hands up in the air and saying, "you decide." I don't think either of these teams is very good, but something tells me Oakland will win.

Denver (-6) over CINCINNATI; Denver
* They way the Broncos are taking it to everybody right now, the Bengals can't hang with them, especially after losing by 17 in Cleveland.

And the lock of the week...
San Diego (+3) over CAROLINA; San Diego
* I still don't think Drew Brees is all that good, but after losing by a point in Atlanta last week, and looking good the two weeks before, and with the Panthers having an extremely unstable running back situation, look for the Bolts to steal this one.

My local CBS affiliate has wisely decided to show the Jets-Pats game, so I will get to watch them for the first time since the Colts game. Can you imagine Boston on Sunday? Pats at 4 o'clock and Game 2 of the World Series at 8? Those who are going to both are incredibly lucky and very likely to miss the first pitch due to traffic.

Watching the Red Sox and the Cardinals celebrate their pennants makes me want the Cubs to win the World Series even more. 2005 isn't too far away, but it can't come soon enough.

Pressure? What Would You Know About Pressure?

2004-10-20T13:09:00.000-05:00

What an appropriate line from one of my favorite movies, "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective." Of course, Jim Carrey's next line is, "Well, I have kissed a man," so it guess it doesn't all apply to tonight's Game 7 in the Bronx, but hey, I thought it was bad enough last year before the Cubs had their Game 7 against the Marlins. The difference there was that I knew the Cubs were going to lose. I'm only pretty sure the Yankers are going to lose tonight. If the Red Sox lose tonight in excruciating fashion, there might be a rash of suicides tonight in Massachusetts. Then again, I was thinking during Game 6 that if God was really on the Yankers' side, Tony Clark would have hit a pennant-winning three-run homer in the ninth last night. So maybe tonight is the night Derek Lowe pitches a perfect game or something. It would certainly be fitting.

And since we're on the topic of pressure, I'd like to thank the Sports Guy for pointing out in note #3 what I said yesterday: not only are the Yankers facing the pressure of being the Yankers team that loses to the Red Sox, they might become the first team in Major League Baseball history to blow a 3-0 lead in a best-of-seven. They've been playing best-of-seven serieses for 100 years in baseball (excepting the years where the World Series was best-of-nine). No team has ever coughed up a 3-0 series lead. And of all teams, the New York Yankees might be the ones to do it. If there is a baseball God, surely He will come through tonight for all of us Yankee-haters. It's bad enough when your team blows a 3-1 lead as the Cubs did last year. But 3-0? If the Cubs did that, I don't even know what I would do. So let's not even think about it.

And I do actually have personal fan experience with this situation. I'm a Dallas Mavericks fan, owing to my formative years in Dallas, and in 2003 they raced to a 3-0 lead in their first-round series with the Blazers. And just like the Yankers, they destroyed Portland in Game 3, in Portland. The Mavs lost Game 4, but that was no big deal, because the NBA does 2-2-1-1-1 until the NBA Finals (instead of baseball's 2-3-2), so they went home for Game 5. But when they lost that one, then they had to go back to Portland for Game 6, which they lost by about 30 in front of a deafening Rose Garden crowd. So then it was back to Dallas for Game 7, and I couldn't even bear to watch the first half. I did not want the Mavs to be the first NBA team to blow a 3-0 lead. Fortunately, they didn't, but when Fox showed the graphic of teams forcing a Game 7 after being down 0-3, I knew who the 2003 under the NBA column was referring to. And I still contend that the Mavs would have beaten the Spurs in the Western Conference Finals had they dispatched Portland in four or five games.

In any event, this should be a Game 7 for the ages. The Astros may also punch their World Series ticket today, but I think the Cardinals will find a way to win. Besides, they need to give Roger Clemens a chance to blow a big game as he does every October. Match this against Tony LaRussa's tendency to choke, and something's got to give.

Okay. Time to recap my Week 6 picks. Let's see how successful I really was.

Redskins beat Bears by 3; missed both. 0-1, 0-1
Bills beat Dolphins by 7; Fins missed covering by a point, but I picked Buffalo. 0-2, 1-1
Jets beat Niners by 8; got both. 1-2, 2-1
Patriots beat Seahawks by 10; got both. 2-2, 3-1
Eagles beat Panthers by 22; got both. 3-2, 4-1
Browns beat Bengals by 17; got both. 4-2, 5-1
Packers beat Lions by 28; missed both. 4-3, 5-2
Texans beat Titans by 10; picked the Texans to cover but thought Titans would win. 5-3, 5-3
Falcons beat Chargers by 1; Falcons didn't cover but at least they won. 5-4, 6-3
Jags beat Chiefs by 6; got both. 6-4, 7-3
Broncos beat Raiders by 28; got both. 7-4, 8-3
Vikings beat Saints by 7; got both. 8-4, 9-3
Rams beat Bucs by 7; got both. 9-4, 10-3

And the lock of the week? Steelers beat Cowboys by 4; you better believe I got both of those. 10-4, 11-3

So the week was as successful as I thought. Now I know not to pick the Bears to win another game this season. Maybe I'm starting to figure this whole NFL thing out.

Picks through Week 6: 45-40-3 ATS, 56-32 straight up, 1-0 lock of the week.

The Walking Wounded

2004-10-19T14:14:00.000-05:00

That's certainly the appropriate term to describe my fantasy football team. First it was Charles Rogers, then Stephen Davis, Kevin Jones, Santana Moss, and now Randy Moss might not play this week. Add Warrick Dunn, who may or may not be injured, and my team is lucky to be 3-3. Davis and Jones are supposed to be back this week, and Randy Moss will likely play even in a limited role, so all is not lost. But I have enough problems scoring points as it is; I don't need any more injuries.

Fortunately I think I did quite well with my Week 6 picks, even though I don't put any actual money on them. If I keep this up I might be inclined to, however. A recap is likely coming tomorrow.

The baseball games last night were very good. I got home at about 6:30, just after Derek Jeter hit the three-run double, and the Yankers didn't score for the remaining three and a half hours of the game, so maybe I brought the Red Sox good luck. If they win tonight with Schilling, anything can happen in Game 7. And you could add to the pressure of not wanting to be the Yankers team that loses to Boston the pressure of not wanting to be the first team in baseball history to cough up a 3-0 lead in a best-of-seven. As for the NLCS, the Cardinals are in danger of blowing it, which should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Tony LaRussa's managing history, as I pointed out last week. I realize there's not much you can do when you only get one hit, but this team still won 105 games this season. I actually have to give the Astros a lot of credit; they had a hell of a month of September to win the wild card, and the Cubs' supposed "collapse" wouldn't have been as much so had Houston not won 19 in a row or whatever at home to finish the season.

In any event, I should finish (or at least continue) my Cub grades soon, and I know I will eventually. So stay tuned if you are interested.

The 'Cane Train Keeps Rollin'

2004-10-15T14:30:00.000-05:00

This post will be short and sweet as there is much to do this afternoon. Miami's offense looked dismal last night in the first half and their defense wasn't much better, but they figured it out and came back to beat Louisville. Now their toughest remaining test is Virginia on November 13th in Charlottesville. I know I already put the Canes in the Orange Bowl, but if they beat the Cavs they should have no problems running the table.

The Patriots go for 20 in a row against Seattle on Sunday, who doesn't look as tough after their fourth quarter meltdown against the Rams (of all weeks not to start Marc Bulger!). This is, in my ten year history as a Pats fan, the first game I think they have played against the Seahawks in all those years. The NFL schedule is unbelieveable sometimes, especially since most of those years Seattle was still in the AFC.

Here we go with my Week 6 picks for those awaiting them eagerly (I highly doubt that anyone is, but you never know). I've decided to make a lock of the week because most of the previous weeks I have thought there was a game that was guaranteed both spread and straight up-wise. Of course, if it's wrong, then it just proves that I should not be a professional gambler. Anyway...

CHICAGO (pk) over Washington; Chicago
Miami (+6) over BUFFALO; Buffalo
San Francisco (+10) over NY JETS; Jets
NEW ENGLAND (-4) over Seattle; New England
PHILADELPHIA (-8 1/2) over Carolina; Philly
CLEVELAND (-3) over Cincinnati; Cleveland
DETROIT (-2) over Green Bay; Detroit
Houston (+6 1/2) over TENNESSEE; Tennessee
ATLANTA (-5) over San Diego; Atlanta
JACKSONVILLE (+2) over Kansas City; Jax
Denver (-1 1/2) over OAKLAND; Denver
Minnesota (-3 1/2) over NEW ORLEANS; Minnesota
ST. LOUIS (-6 1/2) over Tampa Bay; St. Louis

And the lock of the week is...
Pittsburgh (+3) over DALLAS; Pittsburgh.
How the Steelers are getting three points in this game is beyond amazing. Didn't the line makers see last week's Giants-Cowboys game? Never bet on a team with a 40-year-old Vinny Testaverde playing a prominent role.

Quick Recap

2004-10-13T13:50:00.000-05:00

Allow me to quickly recap my Week 5 picks before I tighten up my paper for printing in a few hours. By the way, I thank the Titans' defense for holding Ahman Green to 33 yards rushing, and Brett Favre for throwing both his touchdown passes to Bubba Franks, allowing me to escape with a victory in fantasy football this past week. I hate sweating through Monday night games fantasy-wise.

Pats beat Dolphins by 14; got both. 1-0, 1-0
Steelers beat Browns by 11; got both. 2-0, 2-0
Colts beat Raiders by 21; got both. 3-0, 3-0
Lions beat Falcons by 7; got the spread but picked Atlanta. 4-0, 3-1
Bucs beat Saints by 3; missed both. 4-1, 3-2
Giants beat Cowboys by 16; got both. 5-1, 4-2
Vikings beat Texans by 6; would have gotten the spread had Minny scored a field goal and not a touchdown in OT, but at least I picked them to win. 5-2, 5-2
Jets beat Bills by 2; missed the spread but picked the Jets. 5-3, 6-2
Bolts beat Jags by 13; got both. 6-3, 7-2
Broncos beat Panthers by 3; missed the spread but picked Denver. 6-4, 8-2
Niners beat Cards by 3; narrowly missed both. 6-5, 8-3
Rams beat Seahawks by 6; missed both. 6-6, 8-4
Ravens beat Redskins by 7; missed both. 6-7, 8-5
Titans beat Packers by 21; completely missed both. 6-8, 8-6

The ones I got, I got, but the ones I missed, wow, did I miss them. Of course, Seattle blowing a big lead at home didn't help, and I'm done picking the Packers to do anything for the time being. Oh well, Week 6 awaits this Sunday.

Records through Week 5: 35-36-3 ATS, 45-29 straight up. The moral of these records: don't look to me for bets on the spreads, but I can handle the money line. Sort of.

S-A-T-U-R-D-A-Y...Night!

2004-10-09T19:10:00.000-05:00

I don't know much about the Bay City Rollers, but they graced the music world with the classic "Saturday Night" song, which I've always thought was kind of catchy, and certainly applies right now.

Big college football day today, or, as ESPN.com termed it, "Showdown Saturday." Oklahoma still has Texas' number, USC survived against Cal, Michigan owns Minnesota, Wisconsin went to the Horseshoe and won, but the biggest of them all might have been Tennessee beating Georgia in Athens. I thought Georgia was a good candidate to run the table, but now that they, Cal, Texas, and Minnesota all have losses, the number of undefeated teams has been pared down significantly. If you ask me right now, I think USC and Miami will be meeting in the Orange Bowl for the national championship. There is obvious bias to that, but with the Hurricanes' defense, I'm not sure how they don't get there unless they forget how to score. Virginia is pretty much their only tough game left, on November 9th in Charlottesville. I'm not counting Louisville or NC State as tough games, even if they do play the Wolfpack in Raleigh.

The Red Sox look like they're in pretty good shape in the AL. As far as the NL is concerned, I am the only one who finds it interesting that, since the realignment in 1994, no NL Central team has won the pennant? The Cardinals came close in '96, blowing a 3-1 lead against the Braves, and we all know what happened last year, but the last team currently in the Central to represent the NL in the World Series is the Reds in 1990, when they were in the West. It's really quite amazing when you think about it. I guess my point is that, with one more win for each the Cards and Astros, that distinction will definitely come to an end. It will likely come to an end anyway with the way St. Louis is playing, but never underestimate the ability of a Tony LaRussa managed team to choke under pressure (see '96 NLCS and '88 and '90 World Series).

The Cub grades will have to wait a few days. I need to hack out my Week 5 NFL picks before I wrap it up. As always, first pick is against the spread, second is straight up, home team in caps.

NEW ENGLAND (-13) over Miami; New England
PITTSBURGH (-6) over Cleveland; Pittsburgh
INDIANAPOLIS (-9) over Oakland; Indy
Detroit (+7) over ATLANTA; Atlanta
NEW ORLEANS (-3) over Tampa Bay; NO
NY Giants (+3 1/2) over DALLAS; G-men
HOUSTON (+4) over Minnesota; Minnesota
NY JETS (-7) over Buffalo; Jets
SAN DIEGO (+3) over Jacksonville; San Diego
DENVER (-5 1/2) over Carolina; Denver
SEATTLE (-7) over St. Louis; Seattle
Arizona (+1) over SAN FRANCISCO; Arizona
WASHINGTON (+1) over Baltimore; Washington
GREEN BAY (-3) over Tennessee; Green Bay

Thursday Thoughts

2004-10-07T13:19:00.000-05:00

So many things to talk about...

* First, let's recap my Week 4 picks, because Week 5 is drawing near and I need to make my picks soon.

Eagles beat Bears by 10; got both. 1-0, 1-0
Giants beat Packers by 7; missed both. 1-1, 1-1
Browns beat Redskins by 4; missed both. 1-2, 1-2
Patriots beat Bills by 14; got both. 2-2, 2-2
Texans beat Raiders by 13; got both. 3-2, 3-2
Colts beat Jags by 7; missed both. 3-3, 3-3
Steelers beat Bengals by 11; got both. 4-3, 4-3
Falcons beat Panthers by 17; got both. 5-3, 5-3
Cards beat Saints by 24; got both. 6-3, 6-3
Jets beat Dolphins by 8; got both. 7-3, 7-3
Broncos beat Bucs by 3; a push but I picked Denver. 7-3-1, 8-3
Chargers beat Titans by 21; completely missed this one. 7-4-1, 8-4
Rams beat Niners by 10; got both. 8-4-1, 9-4
Chiefs beat Ravens by 3; missed both. 8-5-1, 9-5

Not too bad overall. These totals bring my records up to 29-28-3 ATS and 37-23 straight up through four weeks. I never claimed to be good at picking the lines.

* The Patriots go for 19 in a row at home against the Dolphins on Sunday. The Pats have played the dumbest schedule so far; they haven't played a home game in almost a month, had ten days off between playing the Colts and the Cardinals, then had their bye, and now have three home games in a row. The NFL schedule is so ridiculously easy to make too. In any event, though the Bears are off this week, I know that our local CBS affiliate (WBBM, for those interested) will not be showing us the Pats game. I'm not sure who has the doubleheader this week, but I just know we'll get the Raiders-Colts game instead. Why? Because Indy is only a few hours down the road, and obviously we care about our neighbors to the southeast. Of course, if the Pats play like they're capable of, the game won't be all that exciting anyway, so, as usual, I guess I have no point.

* Let me reiterate to everyone complaining about the Cubs not making the playoffs: 89 wins is not a failure. The Cubs were not a great team this year; they were good, but they relied way too much on the home run and their bullpen was pretty bad most of the year. They probably should have won the wild card, but when you consider that the Astros had to go 37-10 in their last 47 just to get in, it doesn't look so bad. I'm not blaming anything on injuries, but the Cubs certainly had their share of bad breaks both on and off the field. So, without further ado, time for the CE Cub Grades, starting with the outfielders today. (By the way, the grades will cover every player who put on a Cub uniform in 2004.)

Moises Alou
The bad: His baserunning was marginal at best and atrocious at worst. His range is that of a 38-year-old, though there were few balls I think he didn't get to that he should have. He needs to keep his mouth shut.

The good: Plays to win and obviously cares about the game and the team. Led the team in homers and RBI while hitting .293. Stayed healthy all year. Was generally good for clutch hits. Only struck out 12 more times than he walked.

The CE Assessment: I love Moises, and I hope he stays. The Cubs won't pick up his option but are supposedly going to offer a one-year deal in the neighborhood of $6 million, which seems fair to me. I think he is likely to stay for that money because he would be guaranteed to start next year here and I think he knows he won't get much more anywhere else. Though he is a bit too emotional at times, it's obvious he cares, and I'll take that any day of the week. He gets an A from me.

Corey Patterson
The bad: How about 168 strikeouts? Only walked 45 times. Hit lefties better than righties, which I guess isn't really bad more than it is odd. Was not productive with runners in scoring position (.240) or runners on in general (.261). Leadoff is probably not his best spot.

The good: 32 stolen bases led a slow team. 24 homers and 33 doubles are good. Was never hurt and led the team in ABs. Made only one error and gunned down a number of runners. Still has outstanding speed, which he needed with the Cubs' corner outfielders.

The CE Assessment: I like Corey, and I've becomed used to his strikeouts by this point, though he definitely needs to stop chasing the high fastball. He always hustles and can make things happen when he puts the ball in play. He should be in center for many years to come, even if he isn't a star like they thought he might be. Despite his deficiencies, I give him a B+.

Sammy Sosa
The bad: A .253 average is horrible. Only knocked in 80 runs on 35 homers. Was worse than Corey with runners in scoring position (.224) and runners on (.224). Seems to be slower than he used to, though I guess that's not really a shock. Injuries are becoming a concern.

The good: Always plays hard. Is still a longball threat. His power numbers remain excellent. Seemed to cut down on the strikeouts this year. Generally plays right field adequately.

The CE Assessment: It's hard for me to be objective about Sammy because he was my favorite player for a long time and I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt in most situations. As for what happened on Sunday, I don't know what to make of it. I don't think the Cubs will be able to find a taker for him, so it will be interesting to see what happens. The Cubs obviously won't pick up his option in 2006, so next year might be it for Sammy. All in all, despite a lot of things, I give Sammy a B.

Todd Hollandsworth
The bad: He got hurt in June and didn't play for the rest of the season.

The good: Excelled in everything he did. Hit .318, slugging of .547, hit .400 with RISP and two outs, hit .381 with runners on, and was a huge pinch-hitting threat before he went down.

The CE Assessment: This guy kicks ass. I think his loss was huge down the stretch, and I hope he's back with a vengeance in 2005. I think everyone remembers his game-tying homer against John Smoltz in Atlanta back in April and his circus catch in the extra-inning game in Anaheim. I'm pretty sure he's signed for next year but I'm not positive, though in any event he's almost certain to come back. He may have only played three months, but he gets a big fat A from me.

Tom Goodwin
The bad: Hit .200 in 105 ABs. Only knocked in three runs.

The good: Can still play the outfield well. Stole five bases without being caught.

The CE Assessment: Once upon a time I wondered why the Cubs didn't have a guy like Tom Goodwin, and now that they have him I wonder why I asked that question. He wasn't a huge threat off the bench and provided little in his spot starts. It doesn't look like he'll be back. He gets a C-.

Ben Grieve
The bad: Nothing really, he just wasn't that great.

The good: Nothing in particular, he just wasn't that bad.

The CE Assessment: The Cubs picked him up to be a Todd Hollandsworth replacement, and he was no Todd Hollandsworth. He did very little of note and most likely won't be back. He gets a C.

Jason Dubois
The bad: Didn't get enough time to show what he could do.

The good: Hit .217 in 23 ABs, which is respectable in your first stint in the bigs. Five RBI in those ABs. Had a slugging of .435.

The CE Assessment: I think he's the future in either left or right, and the Cubs need to give him a serious shot during spring training next year (though that largely depends on Moises and Sammy's fates). He absolutely tore up AAA and has the potential to put up some big power numbers. That said, it's tough to grade him on 23 ABs, so let's just call it incomplete.

David Kelton and Calvin Murray
Kelton has probably missed his chance with the Cubs, and Murray hardly warrants mentioning.

Onto the infielders, along with the Week 5 NFL picks either tomorrow or Saturday. Tonight brings a new episode of The Apprentice. It will be interesting to see who does the majority of the bitching among the women this week.

Spring Training 2005: T-Minus Four and a Half Months

2004-10-05T14:30:00.000-05:00

Ah, the fallout of 2004. I'm especially enjoying how the media is throwing the word "collapse" around and claiming that it wasn't Chip Caray and Steve Stone's fault that the Cubs went 2-5 during the last week. The last part is true; the Cubs, specifically Moises Alou and Kent Mercker, spent too much time bitching about what was being said about them on TV. But the Cubs did not collapse; the media were the ones who proclaimed that the Cubs were the favorites to win the pennant and the World Series, while any serious Cub fan was cautiously optimistic about our chances this year. And since when is 89-73 a failure? Yeah, they missed the playoffs, but they won more games this year than they did last, and they were over .500 in consecutive seasons for the first time in 30 years, so it's obvious the Cubs are building. 2004 was never intended to be a one-year shot at the title. That's what makes this postseason so important for the Cardinals, and the Astros to a certain extent. The Cards caught lightning in a bottle by winning 105 games, and they know they're not going to do it again, so it's imperative for them to prove that they're not a hot-hitting fluke. The Central is up for grabs next year, especially if Carlos Beltran leaves Houston (for the Cubs?...), and you have to like the Cubs' chances.

Anyway, a number of Cub related things are coming on this site, including my personal grades of each player with their outlook for 2005. First I'm going to list the three best games I went to this year. I went to 18 total, by far the most I've ever been to in one season, and the Cubs went 13-5. Not only that, but of the five losses, all five were by one single, skinny run. I know for a fact that they are unlikely to win at a .722 clip in future seasons in my presence, and the fact that I witnessed no blowout losses is quite amazing. I actually could not ask for anything else. When I was younger all I wanted was for the Cubs to win; I didn't care how they did it or how many runs they had to score, and I still feel that way. Onto the countdown:

3) August 25: Cubs 4, Brewers 2
Back when the Cubs were hot, they were trying the sweep the Brewers and win the fourth in a row. After there was about a hour and a half rain delay, Greg Maddux mowed the Brew Crew down fairly quickly, giving up only one run. After Paul Bako tied the game with a solo homer, Moises Alou hit a solo shot of his own to give the Cubs a 2-1 lead going into the ninth. Enter LaTroy Hawkins, who promptly coughed up a run to tie the game. In the bottom on the ninth, Mark Grudzielanek led off with a triple that might have been foul (it looked fair to me), was left on third by Bako and Todd Walker, and was brought home with the winning run by Corey Patterson's game-winning two run homer. This was the first (and only, for right now) time I saw the Cubs win on a walk-off homer.

2) July 4: Cubs 2, White Sox 1
My parents were in town for the holiday weekend and my dad went with me, his first trip to Wrigley in ten years. The Cubs did not disappoint. In a battle of lefties, Glendon Rusch held the upper hand over Mark Buerhle after Buerhle served up a solo homer to Derrek Lee, and the Cubs carried a 1-0 lead into the ninth. Enter LaTroy Hawkins (this sounds familiar...) who promptly gave up a solo homer to Carlos Lee to ignite the Sox faithful and tie it at 1-1. Bottom of the ninth, Shingo Takatsu and Damaso Marte combined to walk three, including Todd Walker with two outs and the bases loaded, as the Cubs won to sweep the Sox in one of the loudest crowds I have ever heard at Wrigley.

1) June 19: Cubs 4, A's 3
This was the first Mark Prior start I saw, and he opposed Mark Mulder, who was nasty as usual. On a rather cool Saturday afternoon the Cubs trailed 3-2 going into the bottom of the ninth, and things did not look good, especially after Chad Bradford, the A's closer at the time, got the first man out. But then Todd Hollandsworth got an infield hit, and Todd Walker followed with a single to right. First and second, one out, and, before fans could even talk strategy, Michael Barrett lined a fastball into the right field corner. Around came Hollandsworth to tie it, and you knew Walker was getting waved around. The throw was late and Walker belly-flopped into home with the winning run as the rest of the team swarmed home plate. One of only two times in my life I have jumped up and down out of sheer excitement at a sporting event.

I'm not going to handicap the playoff field because I don't really care. If the Red Sox make the World Series I will go against my National League preference and root for them. Actually, I can't really root for any of the NL teams this year, for obvious reasons.

Watch for my Cub grades later this week, hopefully. I will definitely recap my Week 4 NFL picks soon, which was the most dismal performance a fantasy football team of mine has ever put up. I'm glad the Vikings are out of byes, because I need Randy Moss every week from here on out.

It's Over

2004-10-02T16:23:00.000-05:00

Did I think this team was going to win the World Series before the season started? I thought they had a decent chance, but they were no lock. Did I think they were at least going to make the playoffs? Yes. Was this season a disappointment? For some strange reason, I don't think that it is, at least as of this writing. As my friend Paul reminded me, nothing with the Cubs ever comes easy. And even if they had won the wild card, they would have been forced to win three series in a row without having home field in any of them. There's a lot to talk about concerning this team, including how 2004 really went and what the outlook for 2005 looks like. It's premature to do so before the season officially ends, but this team is built for the long haul, not just one season. And, though I speak solely for myself on this one, I would much rather have 2004 end this way than to have them lose in either the Divison Series, NLCS, or World Series, because everybody's hopes would have gotten really high, especially the further they went. At this point, winning the pennant is not enough; they need to win it all. Which is why winning the Central was so important. Hey, it was the Cardinals' year in the division; I highly doubt they will be able to duplicate it next year. But look for my recap of 2004 and look ahead to 2005 in the coming days and/or weeks; it will likely be a rolling thing.

Now that I won't be watching the playoffs, time to shift attention to the NFL, where the Patriots have won two of the last three Super Bowls and 17 games in a row. I like their chances in Buffalo tomorrow; they've always thrown Drew Bledsoe for a loop, and they're coming off a bye. After that comes three home games in a row, though one is against the Seahawks, who are playing quite well so far. First things first, however, they need to beat Buffalo to go to 3-0.

Onto the picks for Week 4. First is ATS, second is straight up, home team in caps.

Philadelphia (-9) over CHICAGO; Philly
GREEN BAY (-7) over NY Giants; Green Bay
Washington (-3) over CLEVELAND; Washington
New England (-5 1/2) over BUFFALO; New England
HOUSTON (+2 1/2) over Oakland; Houston
JACKSONVILLE (+4) over Indianapolis; Jacksonville
PITTSBURGH (-4 1/2) over Cincinnati; Pittsburgh
Atlanta (+3 1/2) over CAROLINA; Atlanta
ARIZONA (+3) over New Orleans; Arizona
NY Jets (-6) over MIAMI; Jets
Denver (-3) over TAMPA BAY; Denver
Tennessee (-3) over SAN DIEGO; Tennessee
St. Louis (-3 1/2) over SAN FRANCISCO; St. Louis
BALTIMORE (-5 1/2) over Kansas City; Baltimore

The Cubs: Rare, Medium, or Well Done?

2004-10-01T14:45:00.000-05:00

I thought the Cubs were done after Wednesday's loss. Yesterday's did not help the situation any, obviously. But the Cubs were probably done after last Saturday's loss in New York, which is what I worried about at the time. As I listened to the radio while walking to the subway after the game had ended, I thought that that kind of loss was one you don't really recover from this late in the season. Now that they've only won one game since, I hope that I'm not right.

I don't like how the Cubs need both the Giants and the Astros to lose now. And that assumes that the Cubs sweep the Braves. I just don't like anything concerning this race right now. Have the Cubs collapsed? I don't know. I do know that I know of at least five games earlier this season that the Cubs should have won, and had they won them they wouldn't be in this situation. Take the April 17th game against the Reds at Wrigley, when Kerry Wood couldn't finish his start and coughed up a one-run lead in the ninth. Or the June 4th game against the Pirates at Wrigley, Mark Prior's first start, when they lost a 1-0 lead in the ninth. Or that Saturday night game in Houston in August when the Cubs rallied in the ninth to take the lead but gave it up in the bottom of the inning. Or that fateful doubleheader in May when Joe Borowski and LaTroy Hawkins each blew a save. That's five wins right there. I know that I have the tendency to do this every year; think back to the games that got away. Pitchers are going to blow saves, the idea is to minimize the number that are blown. I guess I don't really have a point here.

And now the Braves are up 2-0 in the second. Things are not looking good. If the Cubs were steak on the grill, they'd be pushing medium well.

NFL picks coming later tonight; I don't have the lines with me right now.

I Hate LaTroy Hawkins

2004-09-30T14:42:00.000-05:00

I can count on one hand the number of Cubs I have hated over the years. Actually, the number is zero. I was not a Mel Rojas fan, but I didn't hate him. But I cannot stand LaTroy Hawkins anymore, and if the Cubs make the playoffs even after their abysmal loss yesterday, watching him attempt to close out games is going to be like pulling teeth.

Yesterday's blown save marks the third one-run blown save that I have personally witnessed. Three! And I've only been to 18 games this year. They came back and won the first two, but that's not the point. Here is the point: I can forgive the triple he gave up to D'Angelo Jimenez, because Jimenez was looking first pitch fastball, and he got one. But that's the problem. All Hawkins throws is fastballs, and I think that's what I can't stand the most. So with Jimenez on third, he blows two 93 mph fastballs past Austin Kearns to make it 0-2. Real life not being the scene in Major League when Ricky Vaughn struck out Clue Haywood on three fastballs, each one faster than the last, what pitch would be logical for Hawkins to throw on 0-2? I don't know what Michael Barrett called, but it was a fastball. And here's the kicker: right before Hawkins threw it, I thought to myself (and would have said this out loud had I been with anyone), "I hope this isn't a fastball." It turned into an even faster ball after Kearns hit an absolute rocket into left center, a ball that stayed in the yard only because it had no elevation. And that was that, really. At least Kyle Farnsworth was electric; I nominate him or Mike Remlinger for the closer spot, which I feel is now open.

Will the Cubs make the playoffs now? I have no idea. If the Astros had been playing a team that was not absolutely laying down for them (the Cardinals), they likely wouldn't have the scant lead they do. At least the Rockies will try to beat them this weekend. And the Giants, who knows. The Cubs have to start scoring runs, because it's the offense that's the problem right now, other than Hawkins.

And here's what bugs me the most about Hawkins. Here's his quote: "I gave up a run, but it could have been worse. I could have given up another." Translation: "I suck, but at least I didn't lose the game, that's what Jon Leicester did. So go bug him." Way to admit your mistake, LaTroy. Did you see what Greg Maddux said on Tuesday night? That's what you say to the media after you blow a save. "I messed up, threw a bad pitch, and he hit it. I'll get him next time." Don't pass the buck. One more strike and the Cubs would have won. He could have thrown four sliders in a row and if Kearns had the eye to lay off all of them, more power to him, he earned the walk. The pitcher's spot was up next, and I wasn't scared of anybody on the Reds' bench. Why throw a fastball on 0-2? Why?

I realize Aramis Ramirez and Moises Alou both hit into rally-killing double plays. I realize that the Cubs probably could have scored more than two runs yesterday. I realize that Dusty Baker could have pinch-ran for Aramis in the 12th, though I'm not sure who it would have been (maybe Goodwin, I guess). But none of that is the point. Yesterday, for 26 outs and two strikes, two runs were enough to win. On September 29th, with four games left, that game has to be won. And it wasn't. And the only way Hawkins can redeem himself for me is by being on the mound when the Cubs win the World Series. A tough standard, sure, but fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... And he's done it more than twice.

In today's game, Mark Prior has struck out 10 through five, though the Cubs have yet to score. If they lose this one, they're in trouble.

NFL picks coming tomorrow. After two or three games I should have a decent grasp on it by now, hopefully.

The North Side Hit Men

2004-09-28T19:14:00.000-05:00

If the Cubs can score 12 runs a game for the rest of the week, I have no doubt that they will win the wild card. Though this is highly doubtful, I do like how the bats came to life last night with four homers, and though the wind is blowing in tonight, I think they'll hit well. Greg Maddux is on the bump, and this is his kind of game with runs sure to be at a premium.

Time to quickly recap my Week 3 NFL picks:

Vikes beat Bears by 5; missed the spread but got straight up. 0-1, 1-0
Steelers beat Fins by 10; missed both in a total brain lock. 0-2, 1-1
Jags beat Titans by 3; got the spread but picked the Titans. 1-2, 1-2
Giants beat Browns by 17; got both. 2-2, 2-2
Ravens beat Bengals by 14; missed both. 2-3, 2-3
Texans beat Chiefs by 3; got the spread but picked KC. 3-3, 2-4
Saints beat Rams by 3; got the spread but picked the Rams. 4-3, 2-5
Eagles beat Lions by 17; got both. 5-3, 3-5
Falcons beat Cards by 3; missed the spread but picked Atlanta; 5-4, 4-5
Broncos beat Bolts by 10; a push and I picked the Broncos; 5-4-1, 5-5
Colts beat Pack by 14; got both. 6-4-1, 6-5
Seahawks shut out Niners; missed the spread but picked Seattle. 6-5-1, 7-5
Raiders beat Bucs by 10; got both. 7-5-1, 8-5
Cowboys beat Redskins by 3; missed both. 7-6-1, 8-6

So a lackluster week picks wise. I missed a couple easy ones and that always hurts the record. Oh well, there's 13 weeks left. Go Cubs!

Picks through Week 3: 21-23-2 ATS, 28-18 straight up.

All Cubs, All the Time

2004-09-27T13:47:00.000-05:00

Quick thoughts with seven games left:

* I am a huge Joe Borowski fan. Last year I did not worry about him saving games at all, and he rewarded my faith by only blowing one save that I can think of right now. I wish I had the same faith in LaTroy Hawkins, but I don't. I don't feel good when he comes in the game like I did with Joe. The Cubs were fortunate to win Tuesday's game after he blew the save, and lightning was not going to strike twice on Saturday. Though I blame Ryan Dempster for walking two guys with a three-run lead, I don't understand why you throw a guy with one major league homer any pitch that is not a slider with two strikes. If he can lay off them and take the walk, more power to him. But don't leave a fastball over the plate.

* Saturday's game, as soon as the lead was gone, turned into one of those games I knew the Cubs weren't going to win. Sometimes you just know that they're going to lose, and Saturday was one of those times. I try to be as optimistic as I can about the Cubs, but when you are one strike away from winning the game and give up a three-run homer to tie the game, it's hard to believe that you're going to come right back and score a run or two and then get three more outs.

* I'd like to blame Sunday's crappy offensive output on it being the 12th game of a 12 game roadtrip, and on them actually facing a decent pitcher, but they had their chances and couldn't cash them in. They haven't really been scoring much of late, except the six on Thursday, so it's going to have to be the offense that puts them in the playoffs.

* Moises Alou needs to quit bitching about the umpires, but in his defense, the pitch that he took for strike three with the bases loaded in the fifth Sunday was not even close to being a strike. I would love to know how a slider from a lefty can cross the plate at the knees when it almost hits a right-handed batter in the ankle. Plus the umpire took about two full seconds before he rung Moises up. Make up your mind.

* If the Cubs go 7-0 on this homestand, they will win the wild card, because tonight's game is the game in hand that they have over the Giants. They win, they're one game up. They lose, they're tied. I like that Carlos Zambrano is on the hill; he's been lights out at home lately.

* I had said before the Cubs went on the road that I would be happy with an 8-4 record. Why does that feel so disappointing now?

* Finally, today is September 27th, which marks the one-year annivesary of the happiest Cubs day of my life. I was in attendance at Wrigley last year when the Cubs swept the Pirates and, coupled with the Astros' loss to the Brewers, won the division. No crowd, except maybe the Game 1 of the NLCS crowd, at Wrigley has been more electric than the one that day. When, during the first game, the scoreboard put a three-spot up for the Brewers in the sixth to make it 5-0 or something like that, we went nuts. When the Astros game ended, a few people with cell phones were spreading the news around, but as soon as the scoreboard guys took the blank tile off of Milwaukee's final score panel to put the five in, everybody stood and applauded the scoreboard. It was amazing, and it was so unexpected that Mark Prior had to step off the mound. But that's when we knew all the Cubs had to do was win and they were in. The break between games was full of buzz, and when Sammy Sose homered to give the Cubs a 1-0 lead in the first, people were ready to go nuts, which we did as soon as Jose Hernandez hit into a double play to end it. Nothing will top that memory for me unless I'm at Wrigley when they win the World Series.

*I really like the Cubs' chances in the playoffs, but they have to get there first. I said about a month ago that the first team to 90 wins should win the wild card, and the Cubs could do that as soon as Wednesday. I still think that it's true.

7-0 is best. 6-1 should be good enough. 5-2 is pushing it. 4-3 and we'll need some major help. Ron Santo's back in the booth tonight, and as he tells Dusty at the end of every pregame interview, "Sounds like a winner to me. Let's go get 'em."