Wood injury update (Rotoworld)

YearofDaCubs · December 20, 2005

Choi not getting reps in Sept whenever & Wood getting one more outing on 9/29 are trivial. People were also predicting Kerry would get hurt too btw.

HE NEEDED SURGERY. How can any outings, nevermind however many there actually were, be trivial?

That outing set the surgery back what a few days?? The doctor's said he wouldn't hurt the arm any further. Apparently, all those years of Medical School paid off.

He pitched in relief for all of August. I'd like that month back now that the prognosis of "he'll definitely be ready by opening day" has changed to "he definitely won't be ready by opening day".

Well, that's a different point now. My "trivial comment" was in regard to the appearance on 9/29 after Lawton had been dealt.

Yes, nealry a whole month isn't trivial, and I'd like those 24 days back too, but I didn't want to concede w/ 53 games to go. Wood had some awesome appearances out of the pen.

Wow. If I didn't know any better I would think you work for the Cubs orgnization. Leaving Wood to pitch out of the bullpen was a huge screw up if it meant he would not be ready by opening day. 1 month in sports is an enormous amount of time. That month could have been used to start rehab one month earlier. It was a huge screw up.

jjgman21 · December 20, 2005

Why do people insist upon taking a contrarian position no matter what the specific criticism of the Cubs, or Hendry?

I posted this earlier, but it bears repeating-contacts and decisions on who is signed and retained can be fairly questioned and defended, some more than other. However, the decision to take a guy who needed surgery and waste a month when

-the team was 4.5 back behind 6 other teams
-he was going to give us 1 inning every 3 days out of the pen
-The guy in question is one of your best SP when healthy

was inexcusable no matter what logic you use.

I think it was an idiotic move, but believe a contrarian position is legitimate.

The doctors said that Wood would do no harm to his shoulder going one inning at a time. so the Cubs said they would use him in relief as long as they were in the wildcard picture.

so let's look at was going on at the time he was brought back. the Cubs were 4.5 games back of the WC with tons of games coming up against the teams ahead of them. at that time we expected Nomar back, the addition of Williamson, had just got a leadoff man. there was every reason to believe they could catch up. and your premise is flawed as Wood was working every other day pretty regularly (not once every three days as you state). there was definitely reason to think the Cubs had a chance to get to the playoffs and that Kerry Wood out of the pen would help.

Another thing, you'll notice the thread posted by UK was started on August 11, the day after the Cubs had just been swept by the Mets and Reds. there's a huge difference of claiming "we told you so" at that point vs. when Wood actually returned.

after that losing streak, there wasn't much point in running him out there. however, if I am not mistaken, the doctors didn't say surgery was necessary until about August 24. that is where the true blunders came. when they ran him out there after saying he needed surgery. but anytime before that, there certainly is a case to be made that the criticism is overblown.

BigbadB · December 20, 2005

anytime before that, there certainly is a case to be made that the criticism is overblown.

I think an argument could also be made that we aren't medical staff, we don't have the x-rays or the experience to make these decisions. I think an argument can be made that WE trusted management to make the decisions that wouldn't hurt the team in the long run.

I don't think anyone can be upset at any Cub fan that Kerry Wood might not be ready for the start of opening day, however, regardless of what their opinion was back in August.

UK1679666180 · December 20, 2005

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/PremiumForum/viewtopic.php?t=23456&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=23456&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Another thing, you'll notice the thread posted by UK was started on August 11, the day after the Cubs had just been swept by the Mets and Reds. there's a huge difference of claiming "we told you so" at that point vs. when Wood actually returned.

Long before he came back.

jjgman21 · December 20, 2005

anytime before that, there certainly is a case to be made that the criticism is overblown.

I think an argument could also be made that we aren't medical staff, we don't have the x-rays or the experience to make these decisions. I think an argument can be made that WE trusted management to make the decisions that wouldn't hurt the team in the long run.

I don't think anyone can be upset at any Cub fan that Kerry Wood might not be ready for the start of opening day, however, regardless of what their opinion was back in August.

oh, I'm upset too, but it cuts both ways. everyone gets upset when the Cubs seem to take too long in letting players rehab and now they are upset that they didn't just put him on the shelf. if the Cubs did make a run in August and came up a couple games short because of our terrible pen, people would be up in arms that the Cubs refused to let Wood try to go out of the pen.

another thing to keep in mind is that Kerry needed this surgery, but before Wood went into the bullpen, there was no talk whatsoever of surgery, just rest and rehab. had the Cubs not run him out there they may have kept that approach, there would have been no surgery, and the 2006 version of Kerry Wood may very well have looked like the 2004 version of Matt Morris.

and I also agree with what someone else said above, even if Wood had the surgery in early August, the Cubs wouldn't let him return until May anyway.

edit: I stand correct by UK's post. there was a possibility of surgery.

Edited December 20, 2005 by jjgman21

jjgman21 · December 20, 2005

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/PremiumForum/viewtopic.php?t=23456&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=23456&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Another thing, you'll notice the thread posted by UK was started on August 11, the day after the Cubs had just been swept by the Mets and Reds. there's a huge difference of claiming "we told you so" at that point vs. when Wood actually returned.

Long before he came back.

fair enough. doesn't change that there should be no moritorium on arguing the costs and benefits of the decision. I thought he should be shut down and have surgery as well

erik316wttn · December 20, 2005

That isn't the only "hard" question I'd like to see answered by Hendry.

By the way, I had a nice breakdown of when Wood started in relief that somehow disappeared when I timed out. The gist is that Wood pitched more innings between August 5th-29th than Novoa, Wellemeyer, Ohman and Williamson.

The first 3 games Wood entered were hopeless no-chance-to-win games where the Cubs were down by 5 or more runs. In that span of the 3 games he pitched in relief, the Cubs went from 54-55 to 54-61.

Matt Lawton was traded on August 27th, a sign the team was giving up, yet there was Kerry Wood on the mound August 29th in a meaningless game the Cubs were losing 9-4. Not that Lawton ever did anything to help the team, but the the team was more than done.

If he isn't ready, and I mean truly ready, on opening day, someone's got to go.

The boneheaded moves this organization has made are beyond belief. Whether it be not giving Choi reps in September rather instead of letting McGriff chase a home run record he never achieved, batting Neifi and Macias 1/2 in a batting order, bringing in Chad Fox 8 times in a 10 game span, bringing scrub utility man Enrique Wilson to the organization while sending Cedeno to the minors, Murton getting basically no respect from management when all he did was hit the ball, etc....

I could go on and on, but it's too frustrating to do so.

Derek Lee, Aramis Ramirez, Kenny Lofton, Mark Grudzelaniek,Eric Karros
Juan Pierre, Mark Prior, Carlos Zambrano, Matt Clement, Moises Alou, Michael Barrett, Ryan Dempster,Jerome Williams, Matt Murton!

Oh the pain!!! Jim you shouldn't have! How dare you!!!

Neifi Perez, Jose Macias, re-signing Alfonseca and giving him a nice raise, Enrique Wilson, Rey Ordonez, all the points BBB made, especially the whole Wood thing, the big gaping hole in RF right now, and numerous other things I'm sure I've forgotten.

I can play that game, too.

UK1679666180 · December 20, 2005

doesn't change that there should be no moritorium on arguing the costs and benefits of the decision.

Why not? That decision merits cost and benefits analysis, we're potentially witnessing it now as there's plaenty of debate whether Wood will be ready.

It's a move that happened in the past that could be dictating the future, that deserves discussion.

It was a poor move under any circumstances, whether you had nor problem with it at the time or were against it.

It turned out to be a gamble with little reward and a higher risk since surgery was needed and it possibly delayed heading into next years with a pitcher that would be making over 11 million and is slated to be a key component of next year's squad.

It was a careless short-term move with damaging long-term potential.

BigbadB · December 20, 2005

Neifi Perez, Jose Macias, re-signing Alfonseca and giving him a nice raise, Enrique Wilson, Rey Ordonez, all the points BBB made, especially the whole Wood thing, the big gaping hole in RF right now, and numerous other things I'm sure I've forgotten.

I can play that game, too.

No one is going to deny that picking up Ramirez and Lee ended up to be pure brilliance on Hendry's part. But, they were pretty easy trades to make. Pittsburgh wanted to be rid of Aramis when his contract his 6m a year. The Marlins couldn't trade Lee the previous year. NO ONE wanted him. If Lee didn't have the 2005 season he had, he'd still just be mediocre offensive production for a 1b. I hope he continues to dominate. Regardless of how easy or difficult it was for Hendry to get these players, he did it and deserves credit for it. But, I can't just sit there and say "Jacque Jones will be a good addition because of how well the Lee deal worked out".

He's made other good moves as well. I was a big fan of the Nomar deal. That one didn't work out. But, I wouldn't classify it as a failure because Nomar got hurt. It was the right deal to make. It just didn't work out.

I admit originally liking the signing of Baker. I was wrong about that in a big way. Now that I have first hand knowledge of how Baker manages, I should be able to change my view.

I liked the Williamson pick up. If he can closely resemble his better years, he'll be an awesome reliever for us for dirt cheap.

I liked the trade for Lawton. It didn't work out, but it was a move I do not deny that I was in favor of. However, I would have liked to have seen that move much earlier than when it actually happened. Why he was so bad with the Cubs is still a head scratcher.

There were a lot of moves that Hendry made that I really liked. Unfortunately, the bad moves or non moves at this point outweigh the good.

I'm a big Kerry Wood fan. Always have been. I hope he will be fully healthy for 2006 and beyond. I wish management would not have gambled on him in the bullpen so that we could have just gotten him healthy for the start of 2006.

jjgman21 · December 20, 2005

doesn't change that there should be no moritorium on arguing the costs and benefits of the decision.

Why not?

because the point is to get to the WS and win it. whether the Cubs were capable of that was debatable. whether Kerry Wood out of the pen would have helped them achieve that is debatable.

there's a train of thought that if you have a shot you have to go for it. I don't subscribe to that notion, but believe others should have the right to express it.

this situation is not so cut and dry as you make it out to be. the payoff in some people's eyes was the ultimate payoff, winning the world series. therefore a contrarian position is completely justifiable and appropriate, whether you agree with it or not.

goonys evil twin · December 20, 2005

doesn't change that there should be no moritorium on arguing the costs and benefits of the decision.

Why not?

because the point is to get to the WS and win it. whether the Cubs were capable of that was debatable. whether Kerry Wood out of the pen would have helped them achieve that is debatable.

there's a train of thought that if you have a shot you have to go for it. I don't subscribe to that notion, but believe others should have the right to express it.

this situation is not so cut and dry as you make it out to be. the payoff in some people's eyes was the ultimate payoff, winning the world series. therefore a contrarian position is completely justifiable and appropriate, whether you agree with it or not.

Anybody who thought the Cubs had a shot at winning the world series when Wood was sent to the pen was insane.

I don't care if there is a train of thought that says you have to just go for it. There's a train of thought that you can't use rookies down the stretch or in the playoffs as well, but that's been proven wrong over and over. There's a train of thought that says strikeout totals are the one thing you should most avoid in a player, and that's been proven wrong. There are lots of trains of thought, but that doesn't mean they have any basis in reality. Keeping Wood active was beyond moronic last year. Unfortunately it was only one of several boneheaded decisions.

erik316wttn · December 20, 2005

Neifi Perez, Jose Macias, re-signing Alfonseca and giving him a nice raise, Enrique Wilson, Rey Ordonez, all the points BBB made, especially the whole Wood thing, the big gaping hole in RF right now, and numerous other things I'm sure I've forgotten.

I can play that game, too.

There were a lot of moves that Hendry made that I really liked. Unfortunately, the bad moves or non moves at this point outweigh the good.

And I think that's the point of the whole issue. I point you back to my "Alex Gonzalez" argument I made about a week ago in regards to keeping Hendry.

Outshined_One · December 20, 2005

They pitched him in relief the day before he was schedule to undergo surgery for crying out loud! How could anyone defend a move as stupid, reckless, and poorly thought out as that?!!

jjgman21 · December 20, 2005

doesn't change that there should be no moritorium on arguing the costs and benefits of the decision.

Why not?

because the point is to get to the WS and win it. whether the Cubs were capable of that was debatable. whether Kerry Wood out of the pen would have helped them achieve that is debatable.

there's a train of thought that if you have a shot you have to go for it. I don't subscribe to that notion, but believe others should have the right to express it.

this situation is not so cut and dry as you make it out to be. the payoff in some people's eyes was the ultimate payoff, winning the world series. therefore a contrarian position is completely justifiable and appropriate, whether you agree with it or not.

Anybody who thought the Cubs had a shot at winning the world series when Wood was sent to the pen was insane.

Wildcard standings as of 8/5/04

Cubs 60-48

SD 58-50

SF 58-52

Phil 56-52

Hou 54-54

Fla 53-54

insane. INSANE I TELL YOU!! all one needed was a decent short term memory.

Furthermore, look at the post above for all the reasons to think they had a shot at the time. between July 25 - August 1, the Cubs had two ninth inning wins, they added Nomar, Williamson, and Lawton, Hill looked incredible in his start, Aram won player of the week for the previous week.

even so, your insane comment is only an opinion, thus adding no more weight to the alleged necessity of stiffling all contrary opinions.

BigbadB · December 20, 2005

Wildcard standings as of 8/5/04

Cubs 60-48
SD 58-50
SF 58-52
Phil 56-52
Hou 54-54
Fla 53-54

insane. INSANE I TELL YOU!! all one needed was a decent short term memory.

Furthermore, look at the post above for all the reasons to think they had a shot at the time. between July 25 - August 1, the Cubs had two ninth inning wins, they added Nomar, Williamson, and Lawton, Hill looked incredible in his start, Aram won player of the week for the previous week.

even so, your insane comment is only an opinion, thus adding no more weight to the alleged necessity of stiffling all contrary opinions.

The Cubs were 54-55 on 8/5/05

CubinNY · December 20, 2005

Wildcard standings as of 8/5/04

Cubs 60-48
SD 58-50
SF 58-52
Phil 56-52
Hou 54-54
Fla 53-54

insane. INSANE I TELL YOU!! all one needed was a decent short term memory.

Furthermore, look at the post above for all the reasons to think they had a shot at the time. between July 25 - August 1, the Cubs had two ninth inning wins, they added Nomar, Williamson, and Lawton, Hill looked incredible in his start, Aram won player of the week for the previous week.

even so, your insane comment is only an opinion, thus adding no more weight to the alleged necessity of stiffling all contrary opinions.

The Cubs were 54-55 on 8/5/05

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

BigbadB · December 20, 2005

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Innocent mistake, but the listed standings for wild card are for 2004, not 2005. :D

CubinNY · December 20, 2005

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Innocent mistake, but the listed standings for wild card are for 2004, not 2005. :D

He is completely off base, IMO. The Cubs were going nowhere last year when they expiremented with Woody in the pen.

The dude just loves to argue.

BigbadB · December 20, 2005

It's his right to argue. As long as it doesn't become personal.

jjgman21 · December 20, 2005

It's his right to argue. As long as it doesn't become personal.

and when it does, the mods are sure to chastise me publicly on the board, unlike others.

that's the thing about the long time respecteds. they don't like to argue.

THE POINT was that nobody thought the Astros were going anywhere in 2004 either. year after year there are teams far less talented than the 2005 Chicago Cubs that come out of nowhere.

BUT I GUESS I CAN'T MAKE THAT POINT BECAUSE I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO ARGUE WITH THE LONG TIME RESPECTEDS.

my entire point in this thread is that dialogue shouldn't be restricted because the consensus disagrees. what's your guys reaction? more attempts to restrict dialogue.

pathetic.

USSoccer · December 20, 2005

It's his right to argue. As long as it doesn't become personal.

and when it does, the mods are sure to chastise me publicly on the board, unlike others.

that's the thing about the long time respecteds. they don't like to argue.

THE POINT was that nobody thought the Astros were going anywhere in 2004 either. year after year there are teams far less talented than the 2005 Chicago Cubs that come out of nowhere.

BUT I GUESS I CAN'T MAKE THAT POINT BECAUSE I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO ARGUE WITH THE LONG TIME RESPECTEDS.

my entire point in this thread is that dialogue shouldn't be restricted because the consensus disagrees. what's your guys reaction? more attempts to restrict dialogue.

pathetic.

I won't pretend to speak for anyone but myself, but my point was that one could argue the point, but you'd be arguing something with pretty much no defense. A setup man was not going to make the Cubs into a contender, and they knew his arm needed at the least, rest and rehab, and probably suspected a 'scope was needed.

CubinNY · December 20, 2005

It's his right to argue. As long as it doesn't become personal.

and when it does, the mods are sure to chastise me publicly on the board, unlike others.

that's the thing about the long time respecteds. they don't like to argue.

THE POINT was that nobody thought the Astros were going anywhere in 2004 either. year after year there are teams far less talented than the 2005 Chicago Cubs that come out of nowhere.

BUT I GUESS I CAN'T MAKE THAT POINT BECAUSE I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO ARGUE WITH THE LONG TIME RESPECTEDS.

my entire point in this thread is that dialogue shouldn't be restricted because the consensus disagrees. what's your guys reaction? more attempts to restrict dialogue.

pathetic.

The 2004 Astros and the 2005 Cubs are only comparable in the sense that they play in the same division.

Woody pitching 1 inning every third game was not going to get that team anywhere.

In August of 2004 Beltran was just comming on line and the Astros were getting healthy at the right time. However, they still wouldn't have made it if the Cubs wouldn't have choked against the Mets and Reds.

You can make a point all you want and you can argue with anyone but you shouldn't expect people to agree with you. It is an absurd arguement.

Edited December 20, 2005 by CubinNY

BigbadB · December 20, 2005

It's his right to argue. As long as it doesn't become personal.

and when it does, the mods are sure to chastise me publicly on the board, unlike others.

that's the thing about the long time respecteds. they don't like to argue.

THE POINT was that nobody thought the Astros were going anywhere in 2004 either. year after year there are teams far less talented than the 2005 Chicago Cubs that come out of nowhere.

BUT I GUESS I CAN'T MAKE THAT POINT BECAUSE I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO ARGUE WITH THE LONG TIME RESPECTEDS.

my entire point in this thread is that dialogue shouldn't be restricted because the consensus disagrees. what's your guys reaction? more attempts to restrict dialogue.

pathetic.

Maybe I worded my response to NYCubfan improperly. My response to him was supposed to mean that you have every right to argue and that arguing is okay as long as it doesn't become personal. It was directed at NYCubfan, because I felt he was the one getting personal.

Regarding your point about 2004, I missed where you were trying to provide a theory that the Cubs could follow Houston's lead and do what they did the previous year. Right after you posted the 2004 standings, you mentioned Lawton, Nomar and Williamson. 2 of those guys were not on the 2004 team.

Transmogrified Tiger · December 20, 2005

It's his right to argue. As long as it doesn't become personal.

and when it does, the mods are sure to chastise me publicly on the board, unlike others.

that's the thing about the long time respecteds. they don't like to argue.

THE POINT was that nobody thought the Astros were going anywhere in 2004 either. year after year there are teams far less talented than the 2005 Chicago Cubs that come out of nowhere.

BUT I GUESS I CAN'T MAKE THAT POINT BECAUSE I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO ARGUE WITH THE LONG TIME RESPECTEDS.

my entire point in this thread is that dialogue shouldn't be restricted because the consensus disagrees. what's your guys reaction? more attempts to restrict dialogue.

pathetic.

Yeah, it was pretty much only the "long time respecteds" that thought putting Wood in the pen was stupid. They did their best to stifle the numerous points to the contrary, or something.

Jon · December 20, 2005

Woody pitching 1 inning every third game was not going to get that team anywhere.

I particularly enjoyed it when they decided to go against their original plan and had him pitch multiple innings and pitch on back-to-back days.

Wood injury update (Rotoworld)

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs