Sport must love it when I read the paper on our walks.

This morning, I looked up from my paper to see a woman passing by. She gave Sport and me a funny look. She looked at him, then she looked at me. A smile slowly crept across her face. I figured this was the usual smile Sport tends to elicit from oh, everybody, because he’s so darned cute.

But no.

I looked down and saw that a giant bagel was hanging out of Sport’s little mouth. Thankfully, I was able to snatch it away before he did too much damage.

I don’t think spending $11 million over three years for a guy who’ll only pitch 80 innings makes a lot of sense, but if you’re going to do it, I’m glad LaTroy Hawkins is the guy to do it with. He throws hard and he isn’t really old (about to turn 31).

Once again, Cubs General Manager Jim Hendry seems to be playing to Dusty Baker’s weakness. With Hawkins, the Cubs will have four excellent relievers in the pen. Hopefully that will be enough to keep Baker from abusing his young starting staff so badly. But I think the rest of the bullpen should be had on the cheap with castoffs and minor-leaguers.

As for the Red Sox’s acquisition of Schilling, it obviously gives them a big leg up in a potential playoff matchup against the Yankees. The rotation will be a far cry from this year’s, “Martinez and Lowe, watch out below.”

But don’t give them the AL title yet. The Manny Ramirez matter needs to be handled somehow.

Here’s the possible impact of the Luis Castillo’s re-signing with the Marlins:

* Along with the Marlins’ re-signing Lowell, it’s a sign that Pudge Rodriguez may have to move elswhere — perhaps the Cubs! They only have so much money to go around. If nothing else, they’re clearly demonstrating what their priorities are. In spite of his October heroics, Rodriguez’s market value is still low because of his age and injury history. His 2003 performance has “contract year” written all over it. His value may be depressed enough to make the Cubs’ competitive, if the rumored deal for the Pirates’ Jason Kendall doesn’t work out.

* The downside of it is that Castillo was probably the best second baseman available, a hole the Cubs cannot fill from within. Vina and Grudzielanek are both older, have injury histories and really aren’t great leadoff material.

And you thought bunkers were so 1950s. Au contraire:

Constructed of 6500 PSI high tensile reinforced concrete and a proprietary blend of composite fibers and enhancers, the patented aerodynamic “DSS” boasts 12-inch thick steel reinforced walls that provide ample protection from normally unsurvivable forces including category 5 hurricane winds, flying debris, blizzards, fires, earthquakes and other all-too-common threats.

As the folks at U.S. Bunkers Inc. say, “It’s life assurance, not life insurance.”

“Damn!”

That was my first reaction to the news that the Cubs had traded promising young first baseman Hee Seop Choi to the Florida Marlins for very good-and-getting-better, older-but-still-only-28 Derek Lee.

But upon reflection, it seems like a good deal for the Cubs, especially if they can sign Lee to a longer-term deal (2004 is the last year of his current contract) and the player to be named later is not a top prospect, which it is unlikely to be since this was mostly a salary dump for the Marlins.

The Cubs organization may, as a whole and especially given Dusty Baker’s temparement, lost patience with Choi. A better way to phrase what has happened is that their 2003 season sped up their timetable for success.

A .500 team still developing its young pitching and young position players in a stronger dvision would have let Choi play regularly after coming back from his concussion. Certainly, the Cubs had enough confidence in Choi’s long-term future to politely say no to Jim Thome’s come-ons in the 2003 off-season. He was old and expensive.

Lee brings power, speed, defense and a good eye at the plate, in spite of more than 140 strikeouts. He’s an offensive upgrade at first base on a team that needs as much offense as it can get and couldn’t afford to hope that Randall “Sausage King of Chicago” Simon wouldn’t descend into his usual mediocrity.

The other below-average positions are tough to fill because of already existing contracts. Moises Alou has one year left at $9.5 million, Alex Gonzalez has a year left at $4.5 million and Damian Miller has another year at $3 million. None of them is worth the money, and it’s unlikely anyone else will take on that salary.

As far as second base goes, the most that can be hoped for is someone who has a little speed, gets on base and can field OK. The pickings this off-season are slim and likely to be overbid. It’s not the position to spend a lot of money on in terms of investing in offense.

So Hendry had to upgrade somewhere, and in spite of Choi’s enormous talent and potential, his gamble was that for 2004 at least Lee would be a big upgrade. That’s probably right. He may hit 40 home runs playing in Wrigley Field instead of the Fish Bowl.

The Cubs may yet get Javy Lopez or Ivan Rodriguez at catcher and be willing to bit the bullet on Miller’s $3 million salary as a backup. Ironically, the Lee trade puts the Marlins in a better position to sign Pudge.

We shall see.

You’ve probably heard lots of good things about “Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World.”

Here’s the kicker: they’re all true. The movie poster for “Master & Commander” should next to the dictionary definition for the word “entertainment.”

Every moment of this movie is entertaining, involving, engrossing and purely enjoyable. I say this as someone who’s not necessarily a fan of the naval adventure flick, a genre whose time had long passed well before “my time” started ticking.

The battle sequences were exciting, the relationships between the central and supporting characters were very well drawn, and Russell Crowe (as usual) is fantastic as “Lucky Jack” Capt. Aubrey.

I was in Indianapolis earlier this week covering an agents’ convention there and was looking to kill some time at night.

The other movies playing at the downtown mulitplex-in-a-mall were: “Tupac Shakur: Resurrection,” “Radio,” “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” and two or three other movies I had absolutely no interest in seeing. I’d read favorable reviews of “M&C” in both Chicago papers, so I thought I’d give it a shot.

Often, my attitude or mood about a movie influences how much I enjoy it. So, I didn’t have a negative attitude toward “M&C” but I definitely wasn’t gung-ho to see it, either. Which is why I was so pleasantly surprised. Really, honestly, truly: it’s the best thing out there right now, and easily one of the best movies of the year.

Go see it.

Must be “Survivor.” I know the Rockets aren’t playing! … Now where’s that smiley button on here?

Chicago Tribune baseball columnist Phil Rogers fantasizes about a trade for Alex Rodriguez, “A dream shortstop.”

But if such a trade were to happen, it would be more like a nightmare. Rodriguez may be the best all-around player in the game today, but he is vastly overpaid and his interminable contract only calls for even higher salaries in the years to come.

If A-Rod were a basketball player who could pretty much win singlehandedly every game out, then it might be worth it. But, after all, he still only gets four or five at bats and a few chances in the field. To pour that much money ($179 million) into one player would handicap any kind of flexibility the Cubs might have down the road.

Yes, it’s quite possible the Cubs will find a way to screw up this golden opportunity to build a perennial contender, but at least they now have the option of not screwing it up. With A-Rod on board, all choice in the matter would be gone.

And I, for one (and Karen, for two), thought the conclusion to “The Matrix” trilogy was pretty outstanding, in spite of the critical drubbing it has taken.

First and foremost, the guts of what made “The Matrix” a sensation in the first place — the action sequences — are amazing. The two big set pieces — the battle in Zion and the final showdown between Neo and Agent Smith — are both fierce, mind-blowing, edge-of-your-seat jawgapers. To the extent that anyone disagrees, they are simply spoiled; no “Matrix” sequel could have the same impact the original did. You can’t do anything again for the first time.

The other major criticism I’ve read here and there is that the conclusion to “The Matrix” trilogy is insipid and illogical. Huh? Were these people paying attention to the first film? Remember, when Trinity brings Neo back to life by kissing him passionately and declaring her faith in him as The One.

Yeah, that was totally consistent with the proclamation earlier in the film that if a person is killed in the Matrix he’s dead in reality as well because “the body cannot live without the mind.”

All Movie Guide’s Jeremy Wheeler, in a very insightful review linked above, sums it up this way:

In no way will ‘Revolutions’ please everyone — some have walked away completely disappointed, while others came in looking for flaws — but if you stand back and look at the entire trilogy, there’s an undeniable theme that each film completely embraces and is the backbone of the series. … ‘The Matrix’ ends with love causing a miracle. ‘Reloaded’ ends with love causing a miracle. ‘Revolutions’ ends with love affecting everything and creating a new world.

All of the people who have lambasted both “Reloaded” and “Revolutions” — critics and fanboys alike — seem to have forgotten the “rules” constructed by the Wachowskis from the very beginning. Those rules are that love, faith and the human will to choose freely one’s own destiny are ultimately more powerful than any external control. That may or may not be true, and it may or may not be logical in the strictest sense, but those rules are strictly adhered to across all three films.

By juxtaposing the hard, cold mechanical worlds of the Matrix, Machine City and even Zion with the ultimately transformative power of faith and love, the Wachowski brothers argue that those latter qualities can overcome anything — even an unconvincing temporary truce with the machines. Love conquers all, don’t ya know?

Well, you’d be grumpy too if you had the misfortune of reliving a small part of your childhood last weekend on cable: “The Care Bears Movie.” The caliber of this mid-’80s flick’s animation is to “Finding Nemo” (which I also saw last weekend) as William Shatner’s voice is to Andreas Bocelli’s.

That this movie (which I’m quite sure my mother dutifully suffered through — unlike “The Smurfs and the Magic Flute,” which she decided to wait out in the theater lobby while I watched), essentially one giant commercial for the plush bears marketed by American Greetings was actually a hit is amazing to me.

It just goes to show you how really stupid kids are. Apparently, the movie inspired three sequels — I never knew that — and a TV show on ABC. Hmph.

I love the official Care Bears Web site, by the way, which boasts: “Care Bears became ‘America’s Teddy Bear’ with over 40 Million Care Bears toys sold between 1983 and 1987 alone.” Uh-huh. Wonder why they didn’t include any figures from the last 16 years.

Anyway, you can get all your Care Bears wallpapers and AOL buddy icons there, at “Download-a-lot.” If you actually get that reference, I fear for you.

Once you’ve had enough of that, fill out this quiz to find out which dysfunctional care bear you are.

And if the quiz results don’t come out right, take out your frustration on the Evil Care Bears by shooting the bejesus out of them.

It used to be that “news” stories in The Onion eerily foretold future trends, but this oft-linked story, “Americans demand increased protection from selves” comes a little bit late in the game.

Still funny, though:

“We can all agree that many choices are too important to be left up to a highly flawed individual,” Nathansen said. “Decisions that directly affect our health, or allow us to expose ourselves to potential risks, should be left to the wiser, cooler heads of the government.”

Yep. They’re from the government, and they’re here to help you help yourself.

My favorite part of Richard Thompson’s live performance of his “1,000 Years of Popular Music” had to be hearing a full house at the Old Town School of Folk Music sing along with him on the chorus of Britney Spears’ “Oops! I Did It Again.”

I must confess: I’m not that innocent. Thanks for giving me the extra ticket, Rob!

First, congratulations to the Marlins. They were clearly the best team this October, and the Cubs ought to take some measure of consolation in the fact that they came much closer to beating them than anyone else did during the postseason. Josh Beckett’s complete-game shutout of the Yankees on only three days’ rest will go down as one of the all-time great World Series performances. He was amazing.

While it feels a little better to know the Cubs got beaten by the best, and that the Yankees have now gone a whole three years since a World Series title, there are still some people who insist that Cubs fans should be thankful their team failed again to win the big prize.

You see, the fans have so strongly identified with the Cubs as “lovable losers” that there’s no way they could recover from the tragedy of a championship — or, worse yet, a series of championships. This is the basis for an obnoxious Oct. 19 Chicago Tribune story by Rex W. Huppke.

The headline? “Back from the brink”:

Glenn Stout, a baseball historian and author, said a championship season could have forever changed the relationship of the team and its devoted followers.

“I think the identity would change, and I think expectations for the team would change,” said Stout, who has long chronicled baseball’s other premier losers, the Boston Red Sox.

“Since the Cubs haven’t been really even close for so long, that’s kind of allowed that lovable loser mentality to maintain. People think, `Who cares what happens? It’s nice to be at Wrigley Field.’ But once they win, I actually think that there would suddenly be expectations for them and losing would suddenly be not so acceptable.”

Do we expect the Cubs to win? No, we don’t. But that does not mean we don’t passionately thirst for a winning team. Losing, like death, is never “acceptable.” Both are inevitable, but if a person handles death well she’s praised for her calm in the face of mortality. Cubs fans, on the other hand, are patronized as suckers for their steadfastness in the face of losing.

Losing may have been the usual for a long time, but it’s not comfortable and it’s not lovable. There’s a rather large group of thumb-suckers out there who think Cubs fans can’t handle success, and are therefore somehow undeserving it. That’s just B.S.

It’s said that being a Cubs fan prepares you for life. Well, I feel comfortable speaking for most Cubs fans when I say that I have been more than adequately prepared for life. Now I am prepared to win.

It was a damn shame the Cubs-Red Sox World Series didn’t come off, and at least one person is paying the price for it: Grady Little won’t be back next year in Boston.

Dave Veres, Dusty? Dave F. Veres?!

Sometimes, it’s hard to imagine that a manager is really serious about winning when he makes such boneheaded moves. Runners on second and third in the seventh inning, still only down two runs, and Baker goes to about his fifth-best reliever. Remlinger was available. Borowski was available. Hell, even Zambrano and Clement should have been available.

This is even assuming we give Baker the benefit of the doubt that it was the right thing to bring Wood back out in the sixth after having already given up six runs. Most intelligent Cubs fans won’t give him that much. It’s certainly hard to fathom how he left Prior out to dry in the eighth inning of game six after Ivan Rodriguez whacked a curve ball that had more hang time than Michael Jordan at his peak.

Game seven of tonight’s Red Sox-Yankees game echoed the Cubs-Marlins game six eerily. The BoSox were up by three runs with their best pitcher in the mound, five outs away from going to the Series. And the Yankees started sending screaming liners all over the place. Grady Little even comes out to the mound after the Williams RBI single.

He’s got a great lefty in the bullpen in Embree, with three lefties in a row coming up. But Little stays with Martinez even though the Yanks were obviously figuring him out. He proceeds to give up the lead before Embree and Timlin come in and keep the game tied. Little absolutely blew this game for the Red Sox, no question about it.

I don’t think you could go so far with Baker. The Marlins did what they weren’t supposed to do — they beat Prior and Wood. Prior gave up five runs (only three earned) and Wood gave up seven. The Cubs didn’t get as far as they did with those kind of performances, or by winning those games. In that sense, while Baker made some important strategic errors, he was more obviously done in by his team’s failure to execute the way they had all season long. Alex Gonzalez’s error was emblematic of that failure. That said, Baker’s abuse of Wood, Prior and Zambrano throughout the course of the regular season (and especially of Prior in the game two laugher) may have been a factor in how they performed in the NLCS.

Anyhow, the magic number for a Cubs-Red Sox World Series was down to two. And it stays there. Who the hell am I supposed to root for now? It’ll have to be the Marlins. If they could come back from 3-1 to take the pennant from the Cubs, they better damn well beat the Evil Empire.

While I’m really disappointed, there is much cause for hope, at least for the Cubs. They have an extremely promising nucleus of young talent (Wood, Prior, Zambrano, Patterson, Ramirez and Choi) along with some older players who will be in the mix for a while yet (Sosa, Alou, Clement), a healthy farm system and a lot of dough to spend in the offseason (thanks to greater ticket revenues and the contract expirations of Alfonseca, Veres, Estes, Grudzielanek and Karros).

With Hendry as GM and Baker to lure in the talented players, the Cubs should put a much better ballclub on the field next year. It’s too early to say how good of a ballclub, and it would be silly to expect that next year’s team will achieve more than this year’s did. The 2003 Cubs were aided greatly by subpar years from the Cardinals and Astros, and they got hot at just the right time. Prior and Wood led the way by going on the equivalent of a 30-game hit streak at the same time down the stretch and in the playoffs.

Next year’s Cubs may even fare worse, if certain things don’t go their way. New free agent hires may not perform up to expectations. Prior, Wood and Zambrano may not pitch as well, or worse yet get hurt. If Grudzielanek re-signs with the Cubs, he very well could revert to his traditional form, as compared to his way above average year in 2003. As always with the game of baseball, it’s a crapshoot. Which is why, in spite of my optimism, it still hurts to see this chance at the pennant slip away.

In spite of all that, I’ve got high hopes for 2004. I do not believe it will be like 1985, 1990 or 1999, when the Cubs followed up postseason appearances with below .500 seasons. The Cubs may not make the playoffs, but they should be in the hunt for a long while.

Hope springs eternal in the human breast, especially in the hearts of Cubs fans. But next spring, that hope will be driven as much by the head as by the heart.

So just wait. Yeah, just wait.

Until next year.