CubinNY

Rick Suttcliff is such a jagoff.

yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's hilarious.

What a day. I submitted two manuscripts for peer review and the Cubs are on the doorstep Time for a beer.

Kiss of Death. If they're intagible how does this guy know he has them? Work ethic is considered an intangible quality, it's very easy to see. So is the ability to stay mentally tough as a hitter, which is simply how you respond to when pitchers start attacking your weakness and how you're able to adjust. Would you rather not see him have those intangibles? Those are pretty tangible things.

I am getting pumped.

Kiss of Death. If they're intagible how does this guy know he has them?

If I was good looking I'd be sleeping with a model.

Is there any talk of Randolph losing his job?

I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that except for blind homerism. The 2007 Cubs are as mediocre as the 2006 Cardinals. I also believe they are a worse put together team. Why? Because they are? Last year the Cardinals won 83 games. The best the Cubs can do is win 87. There is not a whole lot of difference there. In 2006 the Cardinals fifth in RS/game in the NL and 8th in pitching. In 2007 the Cubs are 8th in RS/game and 2nd in pitching. There's not a whole lot of difference there. Now, on being put together worse. The Cubs spent a lot of money this offseason and at best they will have 4 more wins to show for it. You still haven't explained why the 2006 Cardinals were a better put together team then this year Cubs? Well they had a CFer for one. They had a SS who got on base. They had the best player in baseball at first. They had a catcher who shut down the running game and hit. Aramis and Rolen are about even. But most importantly, THEY SPENT $88 M DOLLARS TO DO SO. ABOUT $40 M LESS THAN THE CUBS THIS YEAR. Or to put it another way the Cards spent 1 M/win. The Cubs have spend 1.45 M/win The Cardinals payroll was 88.89 million last year. The Cubs payroll is 99.67 million this year. That's hardly a difference of 40 million. The quote I found was 120 million, well 118 million. http://www.cubsnet.com/node/790 That quote is wrong. Hell, the W.Sox payroll is more then the Cubs this year. Whatever, it's a lot more. I don't know where to find accurate information but that was the most up-to-date I could find 8/25/07.

I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that except for blind homerism. The 2007 Cubs are as mediocre as the 2006 Cardinals. I also believe they are a worse put together team. Why? Because they are? Last year the Cardinals won 83 games. The best the Cubs can do is win 87. There is not a whole lot of difference there. In 2006 the Cardinals fifth in RS/game in the NL and 8th in pitching. In 2007 the Cubs are 8th in RS/game and 2nd in pitching. There's not a whole lot of difference there. Now, on being put together worse. The Cubs spent a lot of money this offseason and at best they will have 4 more wins to show for it. You still haven't explained why the 2006 Cardinals were a better put together team then this year Cubs? Well they had a CFer for one. They had a SS who got on base. They had the best player in baseball at first. They had a catcher who shut down the running game and hit. Aramis and Rolen are about even. But most importantly, THEY SPENT $88 M DOLLARS TO DO SO. ABOUT $40 M LESS THAN THE CUBS THIS YEAR. Or to put it another way the Cards spent 1 M/win. The Cubs have spend 1.45 M/win The Cardinals payroll was 88.89 million last year. The Cubs payroll is 99.67 million this year. That's hardly a difference of 40 million. The quote I found was 120 million, well 118 million. http://www.cubsnet.com/node/790

This is typical Trachsel. I don't know if you guys were able to hear the Score play back an interview that he did with Mike North when he left from the Cubs, he was delusional then by saying his defense let him down and that's why his ERA was so bad. He calls out his defense and 2 minutes later he says he's a team player, the guy was full of it then, and is full of it now. He's a piece of crap. Before he was let go by the Cubs he went on the radio to complain that the Cubs wouldn't give him an extention that he thought he deserved (by losing close to 20 games). The guy is a complete tool.

I hope this is a joke It is.

He's a veteran, he's alloud to be a dick.

Just because he doesn't pitch more than 30 pitches right now doesn't mean he can't. I realize he's had problems with that in the past, but he really seems healthy now. And Hendry has shown a lot of loyalty to a lot worse players...I think he'll be back, at the very least as a reliever. I'm pretty sure he can't. Hopefully Hendry won't be around to make those decisions. What worries me about Wood is that he doesn't throw enough strikes on a consistent basis to be an effective reliever. He also hasn't shown that he can pitch at all 3 out of 5 days if need be. And he's likely to cost a lot for a reliever.

No one said it did. But I say they are not putt together well. And they aren't. What I'm refuting is the idea that the 2007 Cubs are "significantly" better than the 2006 Cardinals. They aren't.

Do you think that Dempster, Howry, Marmol and Eyre are better relief pitchers than Wood right now, or do they keep the spots that they have just because Lou doesn't want to get guys out of the "comfort zones" that relievers get into? I admit that I may not be able to be unbiased when it comes to Kerry, but I think he's pitched better lately than all of those pitchers with the possible exception of Marmol...although Marmol has had his moments lately too. If Kerry is feeling good enough to be stretched out into a starter again, what's the problem with putting him as a 4th or 5th starter behind Z, Lilly and Hill? (And probably Marquis since we're likely stuck with him.) I don't think he could be worse than the 5th pitcher options we tried this year. Where would Prior slot in? :wink: bullpen in the role Wood vacates to become a starter. Vance, I love the sentiment but don't think there is any chance that Wood will ever start a baseball game again. Hell, he was almost retired until the "miricle". He hasn't changed his mechanics and can pitch more than 30 pitches. He is physically unable to start. I think it is time to part company.

WGN?

I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that except for blind homerism. The 2007 Cubs are as mediocre as the 2006 Cardinals. I also believe they are a worse put together team. Why? Because they are? Last year the Cardinals won 83 games. The best the Cubs can do is win 87. There is not a whole lot of difference there. In 2006 the Cardinals fifth in RS/game in the NL and 8th in pitching. In 2007 the Cubs are 8th in RS/game and 2nd in pitching. There's not a whole lot of difference there. Now, on being put together worse. The Cubs spent a lot of money this offseason and at best they will have 4 more wins to show for it. You still haven't explained why the 2006 Cardinals were a better put together team then this year Cubs? Well they had a CFer for one. They had a SS who got on base. They had the best player in baseball at first. They had a catcher who shut down the running game and hit. Aramis and Rolen are about even. But most importantly, THEY SPENT $88 M DOLLARS TO DO SO. ABOUT $40 M LESS THAN THE CUBS THIS YEAR. Or to put it another way the Cards spent 1 M/win. The Cubs have spend 1.45 M/win

Mindless rants from the game thread? Where do you come up with this stuff. I excuse Len somewhat b/c he is the pbp man, but Bob gives almost no analysis of the game. They are talking about making chords ont the guitar, or his son, or the latest concert, or anything else besides giving insight to the game. Bob use to be a catcher, you'd think he'd have more to say about the pitching than "the batter can see the catcher's shadow so he better not set up too early".

I don't remember the Cubs winning 83 games last year. At best they'll have a 21 game improvement. Big fricken deal. That is entirely beside the point of this conversation. We are comparing the 2006 Cards to the 2007 Cubs. Anyway, I have no idea why people have this mentality. The Cubs stunk last year. This year they're mediocre at best and have a top payroll. That is not something to crow about. Seriously, where does this stuff come from?

I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that except for blind homerism. The 2007 Cubs are as mediocre as the 2006 Cardinals. I also believe they are a worse put together team. Why? Because they are? Last year the Cardinals won 83 games. The best the Cubs can do is win 87. There is not a whole lot of difference there. In 2006 the Cardinals fifth in RS/game in the NL and 8th in pitching. In 2007 the Cubs are 8th in RS/game and 2nd in pitching. There's not a whole lot of difference there. Now, on being put together worse. The Cubs spent a lot of money this offseason and at best they will have 4 more wins to show for it.

I don't know how you could possibly justify saying that except for blind homerism. The 2007 Cubs are as mediocre as the 2006 Cardinals. I also believe they are a worse put together team.

It's the roids.

Brought back the horny wagon for good luck?