CubinNY

The reincarnation of Rick Ankiel is probalby complete. He has 30 HR in AAA this year. I wouldn't be surprized if the Cardinals call him up for an extended look once they go back to sucking. He is 28 and his numbers aren't that spectacular though: .263/313/.558 (you do the ops)

I'm not sure I'd consider 28 to be "lots," especially when some of the other players who have hit home runs at that rate are thought of as having a little help from performance-enhancing drugs. It's not like there have been a few hundred people in the history of the game that have averaged a home run per 16 at-bats. Costas is not correct. He actually averaged 1 HR every 17.6 AB. However that does not take into account the fact that he started playing MLB at age 21. From age 27 (1992) to 33 (1998) (his prime years) he average 1 HR every 13.2 AB. That is not very common and puts him in the elite category of hitters. It's what has happend after age 33 that is so suspicious. However, look at Aarons later years, and no one is acusing him of steriods. BTW, his lifetime batting average is still only 298. Bonds is probably a steriod user, but how many of the pitchers he faced were on the stuff. It's not an excuse and I don't condone steriod use. I think the entire era should have a seprate set of records, kind of like the "Dead Ball era" before Ruth changed the game.

[expletive] Suttcliff sucks.

My wife and I will be there.

It saddens me to know there are baseball fans out there like this. Ugggggggggggh. That has to be some sort of inside joke or something. Even a Cubs fan who pays almost no attention should know that Izturis was terrible.

A good ole' fashioned ass whipping. Maybe it will put them in a surley mood for Cincinnatti. I sure hope so.

Theriot might be a better trade value than Cedeno. He's got the Ecstein factor in triplicate. And I think Cedeno will be a better player long term.

a) The dude sitting next to you at the bar bragging about his new Ford Mustang 5.0 and iPhone b) Inventions used to make life easier for mankind c) Real and hypothetical behaviors demonstrated by an athlete

So esentially they will have two "color" guys doing the game? Well I guess they already have that with DJ and Harelson. The worst broadcast team in baseball, and that is saying something.

One of the things I've noticed is that he seems to be laying off pitches he use to swing at. I think he actually walked twice the other day (1st game in Stl.). The other thing is his BABIP is currently at .286 for the season but I don't know what it is for July. It is probably much higher, whether it is sustainable is anybody's guess.

His name just showed up on the I-Cubs roster, so I think we have a winner. I assume he'll be replacing Nelson at 3rd? Simokaitis is listed on Iowa's roster as well. Replacing Rojas at SS? Nice. It's not like the I-Cubs need anymore help offensively lol. I'm assuming Craig will take over at 1B and let Kroeger go back to the OF. Moore is back to play 3B. How would you like to pitch to 1B Craig .931 2B Patterson .855 3B Moore .890 OF Pie 1.017 OF Murton .979 OF Kroeger .938 C Soto 1.017 And Craig's numbers are from the SL where OPS averages about .050 less than PCL And Cedeno's .900+ OPS at SS just got promoted. Staggering. Is the pitching way down in PCL or is this normal?

That makes the most sense to me, but Tex will be looking at a seven or eight figure salary, I don't see how the cash strapped Braves will be paying for him. I guess if they let Andruw walk they could exchange his money for Tex. Solid move by the Braves if true. I predicted that they would win the NL East with NY as the WC. We shall see.

JJ career numbers: .278/.327/.454. (HR)22 Where he stands today .251/.314/.347 (HR) 2 There is about 1/3 of a season left. If he makes it to his career averages I will be ecstatic. Even if he does make it, it still does not justify playing him everyday when he was terrible. However, I agree with whomever said that it really was the only move the Cubs had to make after sending Pie down. Listen I am happy as a claim in muck that JJ is starting to hit and the Cubs are looking like a good team. I'm just not going to get too excited about 3 weeks of sustained success after three months of poor play.

I agree...if by "right" you mean "lucky." JJ hit .176/.250/.275 during June. Pie was sent down (despite having better June #s: .218/.296/.333), so Lou had no other options and played JJ. It's not like JJ hasn't had a hot month or two in the past. If he can have an .800+ OPS as our everyday CF for the next 2 months - that'd be great. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath. Understood. However, Lou was called an idiot on these boards for that move, and there was clearly a chance Jones could at least give us something, which he has. I hope it continues, but you're right, Jones could easily fall back into a mega slump again. Find where someone called Lou and idiot. The thing is that we can't go back and change history. JJ may have cost the Cubs more wins than he's contributed to but we'll never know for sure. I just don't get "it worked out fine so it must be good" logic. That's not the logic. The logic is, Lou knows what he's doing, Jones has hit well in the past, it's not ridiculous to think he could hit well again. Since you want me to go digging through old posts, here's one: It wasn't a terrible gamble, and it wasn't one Lou shouldn't have made. And the movie certainly didn't end like you thought it would. The proof is in the fact that Jones began to hit again at his career levels, which was not at all unreasonable to project. What are you going to do if JJ reverts back? He's had three weeks of success and three months of sustained bad paly. I still don't get the logic. My point stands.

You think this is bad? Man, check out the Rich Hill thread...this isn't even in the same universe. And as for Hill, I think a lot of the perception about his year being more negative than Lilly's is a lot of us assumed or hoped he would be much better than Lilly. Lilly has also gotten to his numbers by either staying consistent or getting better whereas it can be argued Rich has gotten to where he is by kind of slipping over his last 5-7 starts (I'm not sure how many exactly, though the last one ended very well). And before the Hill devotees gnash at my throat, I'M NOT TRYING TO BASH HILL. "Awesome Hill" is a joy to watch and I'm hoping he can start climbing towards that level again. That said, I'll be perfectly happy with "Good Hill," too. You tottaly and utterly missed the point.

Lilly is having the best sustained success that he's ever had and has gotten great run support. He's pitched about as well as Rich Hill (thanks Jon for the data) who some have called inconsistent or worse. I don't think I was for or against the Lilly signing, but all the gloating in this thread is ridicilous.

I agree...if by "right" you mean "lucky." JJ hit .176/.250/.275 during June. Pie was sent down (despite having better June #s: .218/.296/.333), so Lou had no other options and played JJ. It's not like JJ hasn't had a hot month or two in the past. If he can have an .800+ OPS as our everyday CF for the next 2 months - that'd be great. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath. Understood. However, Lou was called an idiot on these boards for that move, and there was clearly a chance Jones could at least give us something, which he has. I hope it continues, but you're right, Jones could easily fall back into a mega slump again. Find where someone called Lou and idiot. The thing is that we can't go back and change history. JJ may have cost the Cubs more wins than he's contributed to but we'll never know for sure. I just don't get "it worked out fine so it must be good" logic.

that's a double-digit difference over the course of a season -- I'd call that a major jump considering he probably should have been on the decline When Bonds was 36 that was the year he hit 73 since then its been, (37)46, (38)45, (39)45, (40)5, and (41)26 HR/year. Hank Aaron went (36)38, (37)47, (38)34, (39)40, (40)20, (41)12 Ruth went (36)31, (37)13, (38)21, (39)17 So I wouldn't call that a major jump in production. And its definately not a major jump in production compared to Aaron. Bonds probably used steriods. Bonds also has the benefit of modern conditioning and diet. However, Bonds is a freak of nature Just like Babe Ruth and Aaron. People forget what kind of production they had. Through his 2000 season (age 35), Bonds had 4 seasons of 40+ home runs out of 15 total seasons. Starting with his 2001 season, Bonds has 4 more seasons of 40+ home runs out of 5 seasons (I'm not counting his 05 season since he only played 14 games). That's a pretty big jump in production. No its not. it is a natural range in production. Since he was 28 Bonds has had between 33 and 45 HRs/year excludiing the year he hit 73 up until the age of 40. Deciding that 40 HRs is the magic number in terms of productivity is completely arbitrary and nonsensical. I'm done looking up numbers for people, look up Hank Aaron and see how much his production fluctuated. But really, all this is beside the point. People have determiend that Bonds is a bad guy for taking steriods and shouldn't be where he is. That's a crap argument in my opinon. He's a bad guy because he is a jerk. He took steriods more than likely, but so did a lot of other players of his era. He's one of the premire hitters in all of baseball history regardless of whether he took steriods.

I think someone isn't very smart and doesn't bother to look up things for themself.

that's a double-digit difference over the course of a season -- I'd call that a major jump considering he probably should have been on the decline When Bonds was 36 that was the year he hit 73 since then its been, (37)46, (38)45, (39)45, (40)5, and (41)26 HR/year. Hank Aaron went (36)38, (37)47, (38)34, (39)40, (40)20, (41)12 Ruth went (36)31, (37)13, (38)21, (39)17 So I wouldn't call that a major jump in production. And its definately not a major jump in production compared to Aaron. Bonds probably used steriods. Bonds also has the benefit of modern conditioning and diet. However, Bonds is a freak of nature Just like Babe Ruth and Aaron. People forget what kind of production they had.

They just signed Mark "who's he" Burhle to show they care, I don't see them trading Paulie "better than Grace" Konerko.

I couldn't agree more. Kendall has a past, and the hope was to catch lighting in the bottle. Maybe coming back the central will wake up his bat. I don't see the big deal, its not like Bowen or Hill are any good anyway. I still hold out hope he'll adjust to NL pitching soon and help the club. I totally agree with both of you. When you look at the crap that is available and what the GMs are asking for it, getting Kendall was a decent move. 90% of the players mentioned are players in the "hope to catch lightning in a bottle for 2 months" category. By why do it when you have Soto tearing up AAA? Why trade Barrett in the first place? If you are going to get crap why accept crap? I'm not really against getting Kendall because of who the Cubs had playing after trading Barrett, however, Kendall has a past alright and its a long one.

Those numbers don't clearly show to you that Bonds has a major jump in production post-36 that neither Aaron or Ruth had? No they show that Bonds DID NOT have a major jump in production that people claim he had based on silly biases. Bonds is one of the greatest hitters of a baseball in the history of the game. Steriods or not.

Allright clones In the next segment I'm going to be talking to DeRo from C-town, The Cubs starting........well.............starting all over the place. Ha! Have a take and don't suck. Be right back.

plus Pie. I'd do it. And as Outshined One aserted about two weeks ago, sign Andrew to play CF in the offseasn. I think the Braves might want Hill though. ...I did? *Shrugs* Must be the fine Dutch...um...air getting to my head. O:) Maybe it wasn't you, but it wasn't me either. I do like the idea.