Murton & Cedeno have disappeared in May.

abuck1220 · May 24, 2006

it's hard to criticize the "play the kids" philosophy while the cubs are in the midst of getting it handed to them by a lineup of seven rookies and a handful of rookie pitchers.

by the way, murton and cedeno (2-6, hr, 2 rbis, bb, 2 runs) sure as hell outperformed walker, aram, pierre, jones (1-16) and dempster tonight.

What's florida's record?

against the $95 mil cubs? pretty darn good.

and despite the 80 mil difference in payroll, the cubs are only four games ahead of the marlins.

Warren Brusstar · May 24, 2006

Cedeno=tied for the team lead in hits in May

LOL.

He's .263/.268/.288.

That's Neifi-esque. Actually, it's worse. Last year, Neifi was .274/.298/.383 and for his career, he's .269/.299/.378.

It's one thing to argue that May is only twenty games, the sample size isn't very big, and that Cedeno has a strong enough minor league track record to be allowed to play through. It's another thing entirely to post an entirely misleading stat, implying that Ronnie's performance in May has somehow been acceptable. It hasn't. He's been utterly dreadful.

Chris · May 24, 2006

What's florida's record?

The Florida Mudcats, er, Marlins, are 5 wins behind the Cubs, with a payroll what, $75 million less than ours?

Transmogrified Tiger · May 24, 2006

Cedeno=tied for the team lead in hits in May

LOL.

He's .263/.268/.288.

That's Neifi-esque. Actually, it's worse. Last year, Neifi was .274/.298/.383 and for his career, he's .269/.299/.378.

It's one thing to argue that May is only twenty games, the sample size isn't very big, and that Cedeno has a strong enough minor league track record to be allowed to play through. It's another thing entirely to post an entirely misleading stat, implying that Ronnie's performance in May has somehow been acceptable. It hasn't. He's been utterly dreadful.

It implies that everyone has been near to on par with him, not that it's acceptable.

Chris · May 24, 2006

Cedeno=tied for the team lead in hits in May

It's another thing entirely to post an entirely misleading stat, implying that Ronnie's performance in May has somehow been acceptable.

Don't recall citing Cedeno as the MVP, just stating that it's hard to say a guy has disappeared over a stretch when he has as many hits as the team leader over the defined time period. Plenty of blame to go around, hardly fair to pin it on two guys just because they are "rookies".

CubfaninCA · May 24, 2006

Cedeno=tied for the team lead in hits in May

It's another thing entirely to post an entirely misleading stat, implying that Ronnie's performance in May has somehow been acceptable.

Don't recall citing Cedeno as the MVP, just stating that it's hard to say a guy has disappeared over a stretch when he has as many hits as the team leader over the defined time period. Plenty of blame to go around, hardly fair to pin it on two guys just because they are "rookies".

it was primarily pinned on 4 guys. that 0-7 of hill & guzman really hurts, especially considering hill was supposed to be quite good.

Laura · May 24, 2006

it was primarily pinned on 4 guys. that 0-7 of hill & guzman really hurts, especially considering hill was supposed to be quite good.

Who should have been starting instead of Hill and Guzman?

I've seen the stat that the Cubs have gone 1-15 in the "#5 starter position" ... but I honestly don't know how that #5 position was computed.

I think the 1 win was Rusch vs. the Pirates.

ETA: to change the verb tense re who should have been starting

Edited May 24, 2006 by Laura

CubfaninCA · May 24, 2006

it's hard to criticize the "play the kids" philosophy while the cubs are in the midst of getting it handed to them by a lineup of seven rookies and a handful of rookie pitchers.

by the way, murton and cedeno (2-6, hr, 2 rbis, bb, 2 runs) sure as hell outperformed walker, aram, pierre, jones (1-16) and dempster tonight.

What's florida's record?

against the $95 mil cubs? pretty darn good.

and despite the 80 mil difference in payroll, the cubs are only four games ahead of the marlins.

you know what i meant and you're making no sense.

It's hard to criticize Florida?? LOL.

florida & their kids are awful. the organization is a disgrace. Florida should be moved to a better market.

CubfaninCA · May 24, 2006

it was primarily pinned on 4 guys. that 0-7 of hill & guzman really hurts, especially considering hill was supposed to be quite good.

Who should have been starting instead of Hill and Guzman?

I've seen the stat that the Cubs have gone 1-15 in the "#5 starter position" ... but I honestly don't know how that #5 position was computed.

I think the 1 win was Rusch vs. the Pirates.

ETA: to change the verb tense re who should have been starting

They should have traded some of the kids for a starter or signed someone. This would have been real unpopular tho, and the Cubs would have been criticized for wasting money or never giving the kids a chance.

I'm basically taking the often heard "give the kids a chance" theory to task. The Cubs can't do the things Oakland and Atlanta can cause they don't draft well.

Chris · May 24, 2006

it was primarily pinned on 4 guys. that 0-7 of hill & guzman really hurts, especially considering hill was supposed to be quite good.

Any loss hurts. Not sure about the games Guzman started, but the Cubs were shutout in 3 of the 4 games that Hill started. The Cubs put 1 on the board in the other start. Even if Hill is on, hard to win games when you're not scoring any runs. Criticize Hill for giving up runs, but be consistent and criticize the offense for not scoring. Not fair at all to pin 4 losses on the pitcher in 4 games that the Cubs put up 1 run.

Andy · May 24, 2006

it was primarily pinned on 4 guys. that 0-7 of hill & guzman really hurts, especially considering hill was supposed to be quite good.

Who should have been starting instead of Hill and Guzman?

I've seen the stat that the Cubs have gone 1-15 in the "#5 starter position" ... but I honestly don't know how that #5 position was computed.

I think the 1 win was Rusch vs. the Pirates.

ETA: to change the verb tense re who should have been starting

They should have traded some of the kids for a starter or signed someone. This would have been real unpopular tho, and the Cubs would have been criticized for wasting money or never giving the kids a chance.

I'm basically taking the often heard "give the kids a chance" theory to task. The Cubs can't do the things Oakland and Atlanta can cause they don't draft well.

Your last point is one that will get little to no argument.

Chris · May 24, 2006

Let's check the Guzman files:

April 26: Guzman gives up 3 ER in a game that the Cubs put 5 on the board. Williamson and Eyre give up 4 ER. That one is not on Guzman.

May 2: Cubs shutout

May 7: Guzman gives up 5 in 4.1, he can take the blame for that one.

May 12: Guzman is wild with 87 pitches in 5 innings. Rusch didn't help things though with his 5 ER in 1.2 In any case, we can pin this one on Guzman.

stitchface · May 24, 2006

florida & their kids are awful. the organization is a disgrace

that's what it says on their world series trophies probably - you kids are a disgrace.

CubfaninCA · May 24, 2006

it was primarily pinned on 4 guys. that 0-7 of hill & guzman really hurts, especially considering hill was supposed to be quite good.

Who should have been starting instead of Hill and Guzman?

I've seen the stat that the Cubs have gone 1-15 in the "#5 starter position" ... but I honestly don't know how that #5 position was computed.

I think the 1 win was Rusch vs. the Pirates.

ETA: to change the verb tense re who should have been starting

They should have traded some of the kids for a starter or signed someone. This would have been real unpopular tho, and the Cubs would have been criticized for wasting money or never giving the kids a chance.

I'm basically taking the often heard "give the kids a chance" theory to task. The Cubs can't do the things Oakland and Atlanta can cause they don't draft well.
Your last point is one that will get little to no argument.

This was debated often last year when Baker kept going to the vets instead of the kids, and was one of the things I was hoping to elicit some discussion on.

The Cubs farm system just can't be depended on. I think Guzman will turn out to be good, but I'm losing faith in Murton & Cedeno. Hill might be good on a small market team...

Chris · May 24, 2006

florida & their kids are awful. the organization is a disgrace

that's what it says on their world series trophies probably - you kids are a disgrace.

ha ha

Andy · May 24, 2006

it was primarily pinned on 4 guys. that 0-7 of hill & guzman really hurts, especially considering hill was supposed to be quite good.

Who should have been starting instead of Hill and Guzman?

I've seen the stat that the Cubs have gone 1-15 in the "#5 starter position" ... but I honestly don't know how that #5 position was computed.

I think the 1 win was Rusch vs. the Pirates.

ETA: to change the verb tense re who should have been starting

They should have traded some of the kids for a starter or signed someone. This would have been real unpopular tho, and the Cubs would have been criticized for wasting money or never giving the kids a chance.

I'm basically taking the often heard "give the kids a chance" theory to task. The Cubs can't do the things Oakland and Atlanta can cause they don't draft well.
Your last point is one that will get little to no argument.

This was debated often last year when Baker kept going to the vets instead of the kids, and was one of the things I was hoping to elicit some discussion on.

The Cubs farm system just can't be depended on. I think Guzman will turn out to be good, but I'm losing faith in Murton & Cedeno. Hill might be good on a small market team...

I am a little worried about Guz. Hill is not going to do anything with only one decent pitch. Murt will be fine when Hendry fires all the staff (and at some point he'll HAVE to). Cedeno...well, he's helped a lot by the fact he plays SS. He could still turn out to be pretty solid at least for his position.

Laura · May 24, 2006

They should have traded some of the kids for a starter or signed someone. This would have been real unpopular tho, and the Cubs would have been criticized for wasting money or never giving the kids a chance.

I'm basically taking the often heard "give the kids a chance" theory to task. The Cubs can't do the things Oakland and Atlanta can cause they don't draft well.

You dismiss is out of hand saying it would have been unpopular here ... hindsight works both ways. It's pretty easy to say they should have found someone better to pitch for them ...

I agree that the drafting has overall been disappointing (especially given that a number of the upper prospects/rooks used to be signed out of Latin America, and from what I've hear, the Cubs haven't been spending the resources there that they used to). I would like to see a more balanced approach to drafting ... pretend you have a budget next time, Jim.

But I also think that there's a BOOM-BUST expectation level among Cubs fans when it comes to prospects, and that's completely unrealistic. If someone isn't a White Knight riding out of AA to save the franchise ... they SUCK.

Part of the point of having a decent farm system is to provide the "good-enough" backups so you can pay for the high-dollar glamour studs.

CubfaninCA · May 24, 2006

Let's check the Guzman files:

April 26: Guzman gives up 3 ER in a game that the Cubs put 5 on the board. Williamson and Eyre give up 4 ER. That one is not on Guzman.

May 2: Cubs shutout

May 7: Guzman gives up 5 in 4.1, he can take the blame for that one.

May 12: Guzman is wild with 87 pitches in 5 innings. Rusch didn't help things though with his 5 ER in 1.2 In any case, we can pin this one on Guzman.

His April appearance was his best right?? Kinda went downhill from there.

stitchface · May 24, 2006

it was primarily pinned on 4 guys. that 0-7 of hill & guzman really hurts, especially considering hill was supposed to be quite good.

Who should have been starting instead of Hill and Guzman?

I've seen the stat that the Cubs have gone 1-15 in the "#5 starter position" ... but I honestly don't know how that #5 position was computed.

I think the 1 win was Rusch vs. the Pirates.

ETA: to change the verb tense re who should have been starting

They should have traded some of the kids for a starter or signed someone. This would have been real unpopular tho, and the Cubs would have been criticized for wasting money or never giving the kids a chance.

I'm basically taking the often heard "give the kids a chance" theory to task. The Cubs can't do the things Oakland and Atlanta can cause they don't draft well.
Your last point is one that will get little to no argument.

This was debated often last year when Baker kept going to the vets instead of the kids, and was one of the things I was hoping to elicit some discussion on.

The Cubs farm system just can't be depended on. I think Guzman will turn out to be good, but I'm losing faith in Murton & Cedeno. Hill might be good on a small market team...

the A's and Braves don't send players down after a couple weeks of struggles. they don't badmouth them in the media. they coach and teach them. signing and playing washed up veterans instead of giving young players a chance serves no purpose. nor does giving up on them after a few weeks in which they struggle.

CubfaninCA · May 24, 2006

florida & their kids are awful. the organization is a disgrace

that's what it says on their world series trophies probably - you kids are a disgrace.

this is a discussion about 2006.

stitchface · May 24, 2006

florida & their kids are awful. the organization is a disgrace

that's what it says on their world series trophies probably - you kids are a disgrace.

this is a discussion about 2006.

the organization you call a disgrace has won 2 of the last 8 world series. I'm sure you would have called the 1998 team a disgrace as well. unlike the cubs, the marlins have a plan and they stick to it. this year's team is not good, but they have a future. the cubs future is more mediocrity

Chris · May 24, 2006

His April appearance was his best right?? Kinda went downhill from there.

So is this about the wins and losses or criticism on Guzman? You pin 4 losses on Rich in games that the offense puts up 1 run. Guzman pitches well enough for a win and the bullpen blows the lead in his first start. In Angel's second start, 0 runs by the offense. Angel can get pinned for 2 losses, but not fair to give Hill/Guzman blame for 0 wins in their starts.

Chris · May 24, 2006

Any loss hurts. Not sure about the games Guzman started, but the Cubs were shutout in 3 of the 4 games that Hill started. The Cubs put 1 on the board in the other start. Even if Hill is on, hard to win games when you're not scoring any runs. Criticize Hill for giving up runs, but be consistent and criticize the offense for not scoring. Not fair at all to pin 4 losses on the pitcher in 4 games that the Cubs put up 1 run.

CubfaninCA · May 24, 2006

They should have traded some of the kids for a starter or signed someone. This would have been real unpopular tho, and the Cubs would have been criticized for wasting money or never giving the kids a chance.

I'm basically taking the often heard "give the kids a chance" theory to task. The Cubs can't do the things Oakland and Atlanta can cause they don't draft well.

You dismiss is out of hand saying it would have been unpopular here ... hindsight works both ways. It's pretty easy to say they should have found someone better to pitch for them ...

I was pretty concerned about the pitching coming into the season and supported the Rusch signing cause the Cubs needed something. He's been awful tho. :(

I wish they would have pulled off a deal for someone like Derek Lowe, who was supposedly on the block.

As for unpopular here, the majority tends to lean towards more hitting. If Murton & Hill were dealt for some pitching, I think the majority would have been ticked. jmo

Edited May 24, 2006 by CubfaninCA

stitchface · May 24, 2006

They should have traded some of the kids for a starter or signed someone. This would have been real unpopular tho, and the Cubs would have been criticized for wasting money or never giving the kids a chance.

I'm basically taking the often heard "give the kids a chance" theory to task. The Cubs can't do the things Oakland and Atlanta can cause they don't draft well.

You dismiss is out of hand saying it would have been unpopular here ... hindsight works both ways. It's pretty easy to say they should have found someone better to pitch for them ...

quote]

I was pretty concerned about the pitching coming into the season and supported the Rusch signing cause the Cubs needed something. He's been awful tho. :(

I wish they would have pulled off a deal for someone like Derek Lowe, who was supposedly on the block.

As for unpopular here, the majority tends to lean towards more hitting. If Murton & Hill were dealt for some pitching, I think the majority would have been ticked. jmo

depends who would be playing LF and who the pitcher they got in return was.

Murton & Cedeno have disappeared in May.

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