CubinNY

We're trying to. But we keep getting shouted down by the "Four runs in 4.1 innings is a good start!" crowd. That's good for his future with the Cubs, irrelevant to his present with the Cubs. Couldn't care less about this part though. Lots of players work hard, I care about whether they are good or not. Is this the buddy-up with the kids' family thread, or the discuss him as a pitcher for the Chicago Cubs thread? If it's the first one, can I be directed to the second? Please, spare me with your objectional distance. They way I see it is that you are tyring, and tyring very hard I might add to be a dick. and you are succeeding extremely well at it. I'd say you've achieved your goal. The kid gets his first win and his parents come here to celebrate. People congratulate them. Yet somehow you make this out to be some sort of love festival where criticism won't be tolerated.

I think people are overreacting to his 2 starts. They haven't been as good as some of the things I've read on here. Not to say he's been bad, but I think a more tempered reaction would be in order. Maybe he makes a few more starts, his arm gets accustomed to the workload and he stays consistent. I'd be ecstatic and the first to admit my skepticism was incorrect. Anyone who pays attention around here knows I'm not overly stubborn. There is also a chance he gets knocked around and some of the line drives he's given up fall in. I think wariness is prudent. Irrational Exuberance might be a good catchphrase here. Who is being irrationaly exuberant? Here's my take: His parents are excited he gets his first win and people congratualte them and him. Why not let it be what it is? He's 22 years old and has worked extremely hard to get to where he is. He'll likely have more downs than ups if he stays in the rotation this year. But this way definately a time for celebration, especially for people with an emotional investment. Why come down on them and those who congratualted them? (Seperate issue: I'd take him over Marquis any day.)

Lack of institutional control. Don't tell me compliance, or Pink Floyd or Pom Pom didn't know. Don't tell me you have any reason to be so certain in your own absolutist claims that compliance, Floyd, or Carroll MUST HAVE known other than your own bias. And I'm not even saying they didn't know...but "because I say so" hardly constitutes grounds for certainty. But that game is so easy to play. Dan Guerrero and Radio MUST HAVE KNOWN that Eric Scott was a common burglar. DON'T YOU TELL ME THEY DIDN'T! See how easy that is? I don't really care, but when Mayo shows up to campus driving a Lexus alarm bells should be going off all over Troy. The kid comes from a single parent home where his mom makes @ $23,000/year. IMO, the entire problem is related to the stupid one year rule. Lot's of bright kids get jobs right out of highschool and choose not to go to college. The problem is the NCAA and their hold politics. However, that doesn't excuse any program from feigning ignorance.

Well, no player stood out at the Smokies-Biscuits games. Both offenses look pathetic. I will say that the team doesn't look good now that Listach isn't coaching them. It's hard to explain, but with the talent on this team they should be a lot better. I don't know the coach's name but I wasn't impressed with their performance. The Biscuts pitcher was working the high 80s and had a real mediocre curveball and they couldn't hit him. Some notes: Colvin showed good bat control (going the other way on a hit and run) and a great arm in right field. He almost threw a guy out at home from deep right field. He's still skinny as a rail. Sam Fuld (I thought he was in Iowa) played a good CF and drove a ball that would have been out at Wrigley. Mantulia didn't have an error, it was the SS, Simotakis (sp?). Mantulia playes a great 2nd but he's hitting .200. Holliman and Shaver looked pretty good. Holliman was working in the high 80s and had a couple of nice off speed pitches. The umpire was squeezing the pitchers a little but there were a lot of 3-2 counts all night. Riverwalk park is a beautiful minor league facility.

Well, we're off to the game. I post some notes on prospects, if I see any. Both of these teams stink.

](*,) :banghead: I agree, kind of. I kind of give Lou a pass here (except for the May 6th game). It's real heard to "only" use a pitcher when you are leading or tied.

Fred not to nit pick but by the box score the game should be tied. BTW, Your doing a great job on the pbp. I have to follow the game here.

I wasn't sure where to put this but Robinson Chirinos has returned to Arizona to become a catcher according to the Montgomery AL Newspaper. Apparently he hit a triple in a game. They also said he's been in the minors for 8 years. That seems like a long to to be only an AA player.

He might have me on ignore. That's for me to know: Davis_RH starter McGee_LH starter Houser_LH starter Jaso, Townsend, and Morlan have been struggling, Rhyne Hughes is a bit of a sleeper at 1B. Thanks, if in fact you are reading this. The ballpark is really nice and they support the Biscuits well. Too bad I'm going to miss the Shark pitch though.

I think it is mostly just talk. As soon as Edmonds hits a HR (and watches it) Cub fans will embrace him (get your head out of the gutter).

Not really, not really. You're taking about that. Gonny is talking about keeping a guy before he reaches free agency through the first couple of years of FA. Signing a guy to a "home town" discount with a no-trade clause is not the same as buying out a couple of years of arbitration/free agency.

That's pretty faulty logic. Actually it is really faulty. A GM and a manager's job is to put their team in the best position to win. If one doesn't look at the underlying reasons why they are winning, and more importantly refuses to question the basic assumptions of a strategy, winning will not long last. As fans it doesn't matter what we think, but when the numbers even out, what Hendry and Lou have done will matter. Hendry and Lou has been extremely lucky that this division is populated with some of the worst decision makers in baseball. You state it's faulty logic then build your own strawman argument to support the point. The role players are not the "underlying reasons" this team is winning. I don't believe they are even in the top 5 reasons and I never stated anything in my post to make it seem like that was case. So it does you no good to use that as your one supporting point to why my logic is faulty. This team wins because the 3-6 spots in the lineup are good; sustained and dependable good. It wins because the ace is a reliable stud. It wins because the bullpen has a show-stopping lead holder in Marmol. It wins because of depth: a 30-40 HR guy like Soriano isn't even considered in the top two hitters on the team. It wins because middle starters are good enough to put out quality outtings most of the time. Role players come and go on every team. When they are hot, they earn playing time. When they are not, managers usually let a battle ensue, often including a young guy that has potential in that battle. If the young guy gets a chance and performs, he plays more. If you're going to claim my role player logic is faulty, you need a much better argument. And make sure the point you're debunking is one I actually made, and not one you created for me. Strawman :stickman: You need to look it up lol. Wikipedia has a nice entry. The context of my original post was role players and whether or not their playing time is meaningful for a winning team. You attacked that claim, then gave no supporting evidence, stating only that winning doesn't last if built on poor strategy and a throw away comment about luck. I can only assume, remaining in the context of my claim (because you gave no other context), that you attributed the current winning to a faulty strategy of overusing the current role players and not allowing the kids a chance to play, and that you believe that strategy will not hold up, and lead to less winning. You gave me no other way to interpret your post relative to mine, and since you were specifically attacking my statement, I have to assume your points are in my context. So I addressed your attack using the only tidbit you left out there. I used your terminology and remained on point to it. Not even close to a straw man. lol :stickman: No "Dude". The only context of your "claim" is this: "Don't question winning".

Signing him through arbitration would be the worst option of all. You've got him controlled through arbitration already. The only thing you'd gain is cost certainty. As I've illustrated, that's a game in which you can win a little, or lose a lot. Buying a few free agent years is the most reasonable motivation for these early extensions, and that shouldn't be a major concern for a team like the Cubs, who have a track record of keeping their guys anyway. This regime has never had a good position player so there's no way they could have a track record of keeping their guys anyway. Does it really matter if they're home-grown or not? Ramirez, Lee, Wood (when he looked poised to enter his prime after 03), etc... Apples and Oranges.

Signing him through arbitration would be the worst option of all. You've got him controlled through arbitration already. The only thing you'd gain is cost certainty. As I've illustrated, that's a game in which you can win a little, or lose a lot. Buying a few free agent years is the most reasonable motivation for these early extensions, and that shouldn't be a major concern for a team like the Cubs, who have a track record of keeping their guys anyway. This regime has never had a good position player so there's no way they could have a track record of keeping their guys anyway. They kept Santo, Banks, and Williams. Or sorry, you meant after the reserve clause was amended. Yea, I don't know anyone besides Grace who they've kept around.

He might have me on ignore.

It's not just this year. He's been mediocre to bad for awhile.

Not as much as I hate Notre Dame, and I don't even really care about college sports. That's how crazy irrational hatred can be. It's crazy and I know it.

That's pretty faulty logic. Actually it is really faulty. A GM and a manager's job is to put their team in the best position to win. If one doesn't look at the underlying reasons why they are winning, and more importantly refuses to question the basic assumptions of a strategy, winning will not long last. As fans it doesn't matter what we think, but when the numbers even out, what Hendry and Lou have done will matter. Hendry and Lou has been extremely lucky that this division is populated with some of the worst decision makers in baseball. You state it's faulty logic then build your own strawman argument to support the point. The role players are not the "underlying reasons" this team is winning. I don't believe they are even in the top 5 reasons and I never stated anything in my post to make it seem like that was case. So it does you no good to use that as your one supporting point to why my logic is faulty. This team wins because the 3-6 spots in the lineup are good; sustained and dependable good. It wins because the ace is a reliable stud. It wins because the bullpen has a show-stopping lead holder in Marmol. It wins because of depth: a 30-40 HR guy like Soriano isn't even considered in the top two hitters on the team. It wins because middle starters are good enough to put out quality outtings most of the time. Role players come and go on every team. When they are hot, they earn playing time. When they are not, managers usually let a battle ensue, often including a young guy that has potential in that battle. If the young guy gets a chance and performs, he plays more. If you're going to claim my role player logic is faulty, you need a much better argument. And make sure the point you're debunking is one I actually made, and not one you created for me. Strawman :stickman:

Are you serious? Of course it makes a difference when a player dominates on your arch rival rather than some random baseball team. Most stupid posts don't deserve a reply but the above is so beyond stupid it demands one. You wouldn't want Fat Albert Pujols?

That ended up being a lot of puns without intention. I hate this move not because of personal feelings towards Edmonds. Heck, if the Cubs somehow traded for Rick Ankiel to play CF, I'd be thrilled. I hate this move because what the Cubs can reasonably expect from Edmonds this year is worse than what the Cubs can reasonably expect with Pie. Why the Cubs don't see anything in Pie is beyond insane. I agree. However, the hate of Edmonds was overshadowing what a stupid move this is. That's all I was trying to point out. The fact that the washed up vet is Edmonds is coincidental, but it makes it much worse.

He a proven veteran who just knows how to win. Jim is a gamer, he's just a... ball player. Those are all the cliches I could come up with.

He has? For the last month, he's been playing as his career numbers indicate...decent against lefties, horrible against righties. YES. That is pretty much the definition of a role player. His role: hit against LHP.

If he were bad at hitting a baseball he'd be Manny being Manny doing something else! He'd be Manny being Manny at Tito's Carwash in the Bronx.

OK, I'm not much for coming down on the board as the board isn't really a person. However, here's the deal: I freaking hated Jim Edmonds, mostly because he was a show-off, but he was good. Now he probably isn't good, but he'll be playing for the Cubs. Boy does that suck (no pun intended). If he sucks (no pun intended) lets all pile on JIM HENDRY (no pun intended) not Jim Edmonds. Edmonds didn't hold a gun to Hendry's head (or more likely a dozen crispy creams to his mouth. See, I'm piling on already). Edmonds is a mostly innocent party to this travishamockery. So, let's all get behind Edmonds (no pun intended) and give him a break. I hope he admires a dozen HRs and really sticks it to the Cardinals (no pun intended). There, I said it.

The wife, cocker spaniels, and I are headed to beautiful Prattville AL to spend the weekend with the in-laws. We're going to catch the Smokies and the Biscuits in not-so-beautiful Montgomery. Who do I watch on the Biscuits?