CubinNY

I didn't know Joe Buck could fit in David Ecstein's butt. The brown nosing is ridicilous.

I have a question for anyone who knows. Do these players get paid extra to play in these leagues? If so, how much?

I wanted Dubois to get a chance. What I didn't want was an outfield of Dubois, Patterson and Burnitz. Likewise, I wanted Murton to get a chance, but I didn't want an OF of Murton, Pierre and Jones. You need some big time production out of your OF. Going with a guy like Dubois, or Murton, should allow you to afford big time production elsewhere in that OF. The problem wasn't giving a kid the chance. The problem was giving him the chance, but them constructing a team that needed that kid to produce big time, right away, in order to succeed. I see your point. But part of is that Dubois just wasn't very good. Murton is 3x the player of Dubois. I'm not all that confident Dubois' stats would have been any better with more production out of CF and RF. I didn't say they would have been. Had he gotten 500 PA, maybe. But even if they stayed bad, it would have affected the team less if they didn't do such a bad job with the other positions. I'm not going to debate whether or not Dubois would have been better. I think he should have gotten a better shot, but that's not the point. This is rehashing old topics but it points out the modus operandi of the Hendry era. Goony is exactly right. A team can afford to have a player like Dubois (cheap) if they have stengthend themselves in other areas. Hendry builds weak teams and Dusty exacerbated the situations with his daily lineup card. Even in 2003 and 2004.

Anyone but Sutcliffe. His favorite phrase is "I tell you what" which is usually followed by something that is obvious to an intelecutally challenged 5 year old. His sing-song delivery is pretty annoying too.

Dubois got a shot with the Cubs, and he was moved to Cleveland where he didn't do much either. He had an OK year with Cleveland's AAA team. I think Dubois and Restovich are long lost brothers. I'm not going to defend Dubois any longer. He had his shot. His minor league numbers indicated he should have done better. On the other hand, just because we had Dubois didn't mean we should have let Alou walk. Hendry knew he was moving Sosa no matter what and he shouldn't have been left with Burnitz as his only other option. I'll defend Dubois. His arch enemy is Todd F. Hollandsworth. Dubois never got a shot with either the Cubs or Cleveland. We're just lucky Dusty and Jim didn't have a viable aging vetran alternative to Murton. I never understand why the Cubs and Cleveland would rather play and pay a guy much more money to put up similar numbers. Both clubs are stupid. Same thing with Restovich. None of those two will probably make an all-star team, however for the money they make a team could have done a lot worse. Which brings me back to Todd Hollandsworth. RE Moises> I agree with Truffle.

One of the early themes from Lou is about resting his regulars. I don't know how far he'd be willing to take that, but there's at least some hope. Dusty was all for that too. He'd rest everyone but Slappy. I hope Hendry gives Lou a cracker jack bench if that's the case.

He's soft.

A preliminary guess tells me the majority of the media is anti-Ramirez. And most of them would be more than fine with Hendry letting him walk. And if he replaces Ramirez with ARod or Tejada, or loses Ramirez and gains Lee and Soriano, I'd bet the majority of fans would be fine with that trade off. I think you are correct in your assessment of the media being anti-Ramirez. And the feelings about Aramis from the members of the media that I have spoken to range from he's unlikable to he's very unlikable to he's just a bad guy (like Sammy). The story goes that Moises really kept Aramis in line (behavior-wise) in 2004 - after Moises departed, Aramis was "left to his own devices." Interpret that as you will - I was given no details. In talking to my sources, I just get the sense that Aramis is not liked in that clubhouse or by management - his lackadaisical attitude has irked a lot of folks on and off the field. There just doesn't seem to be a sense of urgency in keeping him despite his great numbers. So does Hendry sign Moises Alou to a 1 year $6m deal (matching last year's salary) to get 300-400 ABs and babysit Ramirez? The general public absolutely loved Alou. Hendry should never have let him go in the first place! :x Water under the bridge, I know. I don't know how Hendry feels about Moises these days. I know I wouldn't mind seeing Moises at $4M platooning with Jones. My rewrite of that statement would read, "Hendry should never have signed him in the first place." Sigh. I want to rewind time, trade Alou after 2003 and sign Vlad. I like that idea. I'll add Beltran in 2004/05

All of the above could be true but it still does not explain taking on another all-glove-no-bat middle infielder for anohter year and a half. I'd rather they not traded Maddux or gotten a couple of AA level roster fillers. What good would that do? At least Izturis has perceived value in the baseball world It would mean the Cubs won't be wasting 4 million dollars on a redundent player. A player who has little value to the Cubs. If they can trade him for somthing, that would be good. But my guess is he will be the starting SS for the Cubs in 2007.

All of the above could be true but it still does not explain taking on another all-glove-no-bat middle infielder for anohter year and a half. I'd rather they not traded Maddux or gotten a couple of AA level roster fillers.

Yes, you are missing something here. Teams in the playoff hunt must give up something to get something. The Cubs could have held out for a prospect or just kept Maddux. Why give Maddux away to a team who is obviously trying to lowball the team into parting with him for someone like Izturis, who didn't even have a spot on the end of the Dodgers bench anymore. The only way a Maddux/Izturis deal has any legs is if Hendry was using this deal to set up future deals with the Dodgers. The Dodgers overpaid for Lugo and underpaid for Maddux when I compare the two trades. IMO, Maddux was traded becuase of Hendry respect/manlove for him. However, the said manlove has nothing to do with taking back an all-glove-no bat throwback from the Ozzy Smith mold of SS. And having his contract around for 1.5 years. Of all the bone-headed moves Hendry has made (40 man roster stuff included) this has to be the cherry on top of the turd Sundae.

That was ball four but still a great piece of hitting. I know it is Pujols, but if I am the manager and he lines out on that pitch I give him a piece of my mind. Man he is good though. I would give him the Bonds treatment this entire series.

Holy smokes! Is this guy any good? $1 million is a bargin if he can play. The Cubs could pick him up as a bench guy.

This was the closest Neifi thread I could find. I was at the gym this morning listening to my iPod and watching ESPN SportsCenter while I was working out. Who was in the middle of the huddle firing up the troops? Neifi. Some guys are just born lucky. I started laughing so hard I nearly killed myself on the eliptical machine.

I don't think they wan't Pie as they have no room for him when he does eventually come up. A Prior, Eyre, Izturis, and Marshall for A-Rod. I wouldn't mind taking a bad contract like Pavano along with it to help the deal. Damon is getting old, Bernie is old, Shefield will be gone and Matsui only has a few years left. I think they'd want Pie in a big way. They might even want Patterson to ship off Cano for more pitching. They need middle relief and starters of course. I would trade Hill/Marshall, Howry and Pie for A-Rod. I don't think they'll want Prior. They probalby want Big Z but they'd have to throw in Tabathia before I would consider it, and I wouldn't give anything else.

What has Ohio St done that deserve to be ranked higher than Michigan except to start the season ranked higher? They've given up an average of 8.5 points per game while scoring an average of 34 points per game. No game has even been close this year.

That's what I would think. However, this guy implied that no one in the organization seemed to feel that way. From what he said, it sounded like the Cubs see it as a choice between ARod and Aramis. Of course, I have no idea how connected he really is, vs. how much of the conversation was just opinion presented as fact. It wouldn't surprize me one bit. They could have had Nomar this year in RF this year.

Thanks for passing that along. I hope Aramis is getting good council from his agent. He has to know that the Cubs getting A-Rod is the longest of long shots and will mean nothing regarding his status. I really hope the Cubs don't lose Aramis.

My theory is that they played just before the steriod era. Trammell and Ripken were the best of their generation at their and both deserve to be in the HOF. However, since the steriod era people people forget how productive Trammell was. It's a shame.

Problem is, minor league players don't get to join the MLBPA until they come up to the majors. The MLBPA was probably fine with it because it'd mean teams would allocate more resources to signing free agents. That is a good point. However, at the same time I don't know how the agreement could pass any sort of legal challenge since (if what you say is accurate) the said players have no representation. But let's just drop this. I just made a comment about the state of labor in this country. I don't want to take this thread any further down the wrong direction. My lamenting has nothing to with the new contract.

I know. It's just a pro-labor rant. There are so few of us left. I have to point out that it is labor that wanted a rookie cap. After agreeing to a cap in the NBA and NFL, the current union members wanted most of the pie. What union pays it new members as high as established members regardless of performance? It's about player greed, not management (not that they mind) or anti-trust (pay levels agreed to by both partes are part of any collective bargaining). I doubt any of what you write is true. Just because they agreed to the terms doesn't mean it is what they wanted (on both sides of the table). High contracts favor established players just as much as new players. The higher the starting bar is set the better it is for everyone. Any type of cap is bad for the union and good for management. It gives them cost certianty and places an artificial limit on slary. Regardless, I'm not talking about unions.

You could put West Virgina in there too. My guess is they will be playing for the national championship after Michigan loses to OSU and ND beats USC. I'm sure all the ND fans will be crying about it too even though Michigan destroyed them. Regardless, no one touches OSU this year. USC is going to lose to Cal and maybe ND. If OSU loses it will be to Michigan. I certainly wouldnt put that in the win column for OSU yet. I agree that West Virginia is going to end up in the title game. I also think it is going to be well deserved even with all the SEC crying foul. How can anyone say WVU in the title game is well deserved? Look at their schedule. According to CBSsportline it is 100 of 119 DI Teams. They played no one this year. The Big East is terrible this year.

Big Ben Rothlesberger just got KO'd . He is done for the day.

I know. It's just a pro-labor rant. There are so few of us left.

You could put West Virgina in there too. My guess is they will be playing for the national championship after Michigan loses to OSU and ND beats USC. I'm sure all the ND fans will be crying about it too even though Michigan destroyed them. Regardless, no one touches OSU this year.