4/15 Cubs (Maholm) @ Cardinals (Westbrook) 1:15 CSN

[Irrelevant Dude]

holy crap, Moreland's PBP is BRUTAL

 

He gives off the incoherence of Ronnie without the charm.

Anyone know when he is signed through?

 

Hopefully he is just a placeholder for Wood or someone else to fill the spot long term.

[manbearcub]

holy crap, Moreland's PBP is BRUTAL

 

He gives off the incoherence of Ronnie without the charm.

Anyone know when he is signed through?

 

Hopefully he is just a placeholder for Wood or someone else to fill the spot long term.

was just a 2 year deal.

[javy knows my name]

holy crap, Moreland's PBP is BRUTAL

 

He gives off the incoherence of Ronnie without the charm.

 

Why was he doing PBP at all?

[El Duderino]

he's still better than mark grace

[UMFan83]

I was at the Royals game today in KC for business and on the scoreboard it said Carpenter hit a 2 run HR and I thought to myself that it figured Chris Carpenter comes off the DL to hit a HR against the Cubs.

[javy knows my name]

he's still better than mark grace

 

He doesn't do PBP either.

[Schwarber Fan]

Moreland did 2 innings of PBP when Pat took a break. Sirrott did color during it.

[mookie]

So Maholm is terrible? Shocker.

[javy knows my name]

Moreland did 2 innings of PBP when Pat took a break. Sirrott did color during it.

 

Yeah, that sounds really awful.

[haubrich91]

So Maholm is terrible? Shocker.

 

To be fair, he has faced two of the better offenses in the NL.

 

But yeah, he's crap.

[Mark Priors Calves]

Jud Sirott shoud be doing PBP. If I were him, I'd be pissed that that opportunity is there. That fill-in spot for Hughes is a great stepping stone position to a full PBP gig with another team. Besides, Moreland sucks at it. Starling Castro. Edited April 16, 2012 by Mark Prior's Calves

[Flames24Rulz]

Jud Sirott shoud be during PBP. If I were him, I'd be pissed that that opportunity is there. That fill-in spot for Hughes is a great stepping stone position to a full PBP gig with another team. Besides, Moreland sucks at it. Starling Castro.

 

Exactly. It doesn't make much sense to me that a guy with a PBP background is relegated to doing color for Keith [expletive] Moreland. Sirott probably stinks too, but the Cubs last couple of guys in his role have gone on to have really nice PBP jobs elsewhere in the majors.

[Backtobanks]

So Maholm is terrible? Shocker.

 

Maholm is this year's Jeff Blauser. His career record is good at Wrigley Field is good because he faced the Cubs all those years not because he is good.

[SouthSideRyan]

he's still better than mark grace

 

He doesn't do PBP either.

 

I think he meant as a person.

[SouthSideRyan]

So Maholm is terrible? Shocker.

 

Maholm is this year's Jeff Blauser. His career record is good at Wrigley Field is good because he faced the Cubs all those years not because he is good.

 

Nevermind that Maholm's been pretty terrible against the Cubs and that he's been league average over his career.

[Little Slide Rooter]

So Maholm is terrible? Shocker.

 

Maholm is this year's Jeff Blauser. His career record is good at Wrigley Field is good because he faced the Cubs all those years not because he is good.

 

By that logic, pretty much every hitter who faced the Cubs in Blausers era should have great numbers at Wrigley, and every pitcher who faced them in Maholms years with the Pirates should as well, and true or not, I'm too lazy to check the splits a good chunk of Maholms Pirates career was '07-'09 when the Cubs were good, or in the case of '08, great.

[Sammy Sofa]

So Maholm is terrible? Shocker.

 

Maholm is this year's Jeff Blauser. His career record is good at Wrigley Field is good because he faced the Cubs all those years not because he is good.

 

Nevermind that Maholm's been pretty terrible against the Cubs and that he's been league average over his career.

 

Shut up, he's too busy formulating a complicated 8-way trade for Andres Galarraga that involves time travel and cybernetics to pay attention to reality.

[Guest]

So Maholm is terrible? Shocker.

 

Maholm is this year's Jeff Blauser. His career record is good at Wrigley Field is good because he faced the Cubs all those years not because he is good.

 

Nevermind that Maholm's been pretty terrible against the Cubs and that he's been league average over his career.

 

What's really weird is that he chose to go the route of making fun of the Hendry teams despite the fact that they probably pounded Maholm. I'm sure in 07 and 08 they did, at least.

[Guest]

He's talking about Maholm being 6-2 at Wrigley. Of course that came with a 5.49 ERA and some flukish good fortune(including one outing where he gave up 8 runs and somehow snuck away with a ND), but when you have the opportunity to make a Jeff Blauser reference some things just have to be cast aside.

[Backtobanks]

He's talking about Maholm being 6-2 at Wrigley. Of course that came with a 5.49 ERA and some flukish good fortune(including one outing where he gave up 8 runs and somehow snuck away with a ND), but when you have the opportunity to make a Jeff Blauser reference some things just have to be cast aside.

 

 

So Maholm is terrible? Shocker.

 

Maholm is this year's Jeff Blauser. His career record is good at Wrigley Field is good because he faced the Cubs all those years not because he is good.

 

By that logic, pretty much every hitter who faced the Cubs in Blausers era should have great numbers at Wrigley, and every pitcher who faced them in Maholms years with the Pirates should as well, and true or not, I'm too lazy to check the splits a good chunk of Maholms Pirates career was '07-'09 when the Cubs were good, or in the case of '08, great.

 

My point was that just because some mediocre player has decent numbers against you, it doesn't mean that you ought to acquire that player. I guess that is a little too deep for some posters.

[Little Slide Rooter]

He's talking about Maholm being 6-2 at Wrigley. Of course that came with a 5.49 ERA and some flukish good fortune(including one outing where he gave up 8 runs and somehow snuck away with a ND), but when you have the opportunity to make a Jeff Blauser reference some things just have to be cast aside.

 

 

So Maholm is terrible? Shocker.

 

Maholm is this year's Jeff Blauser. His career record is good at Wrigley Field is good because he faced the Cubs all those years not because he is good.

 

By that logic, pretty much every hitter who faced the Cubs in Blausers era should have great numbers at Wrigley, and every pitcher who faced them in Maholms years with the Pirates should as well, and true or not, I'm too lazy to check the splits a good chunk of Maholms Pirates career was '07-'09 when the Cubs were good, or in the case of '08, great.

 

My point was that just because some mediocre player has decent numbers against you, it doesn't mean that you ought to acquire that player. I guess that is a little too deep for some posters.

 

That's not why the signed him. It was because of his upside. He was off to a great start last year, and it appeared he was in his way to meeting his potential before he got injured. I believe he got a 1/5 deal, which doesn't sound super low risk, but with the amount of available money they had at the time it was a risk worth taking for 1 year. Shark, Maholm, and Volstad were all highly touted not too long ago, and can still potentially make up one hell of a back end of the rotation. I mean who's he really blocking? Rodrigo Lopez? All of the Iowa starters have been mediocre to awful.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Little Slide Rooter

[Sammy Sofa]

My point was that just because some mediocre player has decent numbers against you, it doesn't mean that you ought to acquire that player. I guess that is a little too deep for some posters.

 

You're kidding with this, right? You honestly think the FO signed him because of his 6-2 record against the Cubs? That might be the stupidest thing you've posted here if you weren't joking.

[jersey cubs fan]

My point was that just because some mediocre player has decent numbers against you, it doesn't mean that you ought to acquire that player. I guess that is a little too deep for some posters.

 

Why the hell do you think they acquired him because he had decent numbers against the Cubs?

 

This is lunacy.

[SouthSideRyan]

He's talking about Maholm being 6-2 at Wrigley. Of course that came with a 5.49 ERA and some flukish good fortune(including one outing where he gave up 8 runs and somehow snuck away with a ND), but when you have the opportunity to make a Jeff Blauser reference some things just have to be cast aside.

 

 

So Maholm is terrible? Shocker.

 

Maholm is this year's Jeff Blauser. His career record is good at Wrigley Field is good because he faced the Cubs all those years not because he is good.

 

By that logic, pretty much every hitter who faced the Cubs in Blausers era should have great numbers at Wrigley, and every pitcher who faced them in Maholms years with the Pirates should as well, and true or not, I'm too lazy to check the splits a good chunk of Maholms Pirates career was '07-'09 when the Cubs were good, or in the case of '08, great.

 

My point was that just because some mediocre player has decent numbers against you, it doesn't mean that you ought to acquire that player. I guess that is a little too deep for some posters.

 

But...he doesn't have decent numbers against us.

[SouthSideRyan]

And even if Theo/Jed were the types to be A.) impressed by W-L record and B.) swayed by how a player performs against them, THEY WEREN'T EMPLOYED BY THE CUBS