CubinNY

It's not spin, it's reality. Winning a few games in the 2nd half will change nothing. In the short-term it's nice to see a win. In the long-term, a "respectable" 2006 is about the worst case scenario. I'm more interested in the long-term success of this team, which will require massive changes in strategy. A respectable finish will only reinforce their misguided belief that they are headed in the right direction. This arguement is a fine line. Do you just want to the Cubs to pack it in and lose and lose bad from here on out? Doesn't that reinforce our losing mentallity for the past 99 years? Why waste the year away when at least you can use this year (2nd half) as a positive learning expirence for the youth of this ballclub. That would be fine, if they were using this portion of the year to evaluate the youthfull talent they have. This winning thing has coincided with somewhat of a youth movement, but I don't know if the brain trust is noticing this. I wouldn't be a bit surprized if Angel Pagen is the starting in LF next year, when in almost every measureable way he is inferior to Murton.

The problem is that it will be viewed as a trememdous accomplishment, by the media, by Dusty, by Hendry and management. They will all pat themselves on the back and try the same failed crap next season, mistakenly thinking that 3 months of success will carry into 6 months of success next season. That reinforces that mediocrity is still an acceptable goal for the team. Exactly. They will talk about injuries and being "snake bitten".

The thing about Mutron that I like is his bat speed. IMO, he'll always hit for a decent to high average, and with his plate discipline he will be a valuable player. The main problem, IMO is the outdated idea that a corner outfielder must hit a high number of HRs. His swing is not likely to do that. He's a line drive hitter who will hit lots of doubles but not a lot of HRs. With a guy like Murton in LF a team will have to look for power somewhere else. For that reason, I think he'll have a long career with a lot of teams. I don't think many Baseball Men who played The Game will have the foresight to build a team without a power hitter in a traditional power hitting position. I don't think that idea is outdated at all. You need to get power in your lineup, and LF is at the bottom of the defensive spectrum, making it easier to stash a big bat there. Obviously it's not an absolute, but if you have a player that struggles to get to an .800 OPS like Murton, it puts a lot of stress on positions that it's much more difficult to get offense from. I understand where you are coming from, but if you have a guy like Murton, you have to think a little differently. He's not in Tony Gwyn's class but Gwynn was a corner outfielder. George Brett wasn't a HR hitter, neither was Don Mattingly, for the most part. Obviously, I'm not suggesting that Murton will have a career like those three but two of the three guys played on WS teams. Edit: I just saw the Andrew Jones talk in transactions. Trade for Jones and work out a deal with Aramis. Then you have three legitimate power hitters: CF, 3rd, 1st. Throw a boat load of cash at Soriano and put him at 2nd and you'd have four. Murton Soriano Lee A.Jones Aramis Barrett JJ Izturas That would be a pretty decent every day line up. Nice line-up, but that is adding at least an extra 40 million (Jones, Soriano and Lee) to payroll without addressing pitching. I'm all for it, but I don't see the Tribune opening up the checkbook that much. D. Lee not C. Lee. I want no part of that bloated overpaid player.

The thing about Mutron that I like is his bat speed. IMO, he'll always hit for a decent to high average, and with his plate discipline he will be a valuable player. The main problem, IMO is the outdated idea that a corner outfielder must hit a high number of HRs. His swing is not likely to do that. He's a line drive hitter who will hit lots of doubles but not a lot of HRs. With a guy like Murton in LF a team will have to look for power somewhere else. For that reason, I think he'll have a long career with a lot of teams. I don't think many Baseball Men who played The Game will have the foresight to build a team without a power hitter in a traditional power hitting position. I don't think that idea is outdated at all. You need to get power in your lineup, and LF is at the bottom of the defensive spectrum, making it easier to stash a big bat there. Obviously it's not an absolute, but if you have a player that struggles to get to an .800 OPS like Murton, it puts a lot of stress on positions that it's much more difficult to get offense from. I understand where you are coming from, but if you have a guy like Murton, you have to think a little differently. He's not in Tony Gwyn's class but Gwynn was a corner outfielder. George Brett wasn't a HR hitter, neither was Don Mattingly, for the most part. Obviously, I'm not suggesting that Murton will have a career like those three but two of the three guys played on WS teams. Edit: I just saw the Andrew Jones talk in transactions. Trade for Jones and work out a deal with Aramis. Then you have three legitimate power hitters: CF, 3rd, 1st. Throw a boat load of cash at Soriano and put him at 2nd and you'd have four. Murton Soriano Lee A.Jones Aramis Barrett JJ Izturas That would be a pretty decent every day line up.

The thing about Mutron that I like is his bat speed. IMO, he'll always hit for a decent to high average, and with his plate discipline he will be a valuable player. The main problem, IMO is the outdated idea that a corner outfielder must hit a high number of HRs. His swing is not likely to do that. He's a line drive hitter who will hit lots of doubles but not a lot of HRs. With a guy like Murton in LF a team will have to look for power somewhere else. For that reason, I think he'll have a long career with a lot of teams. I don't think many Baseball Men who played The Game will have the foresight to build a team without a power hitter in a traditional power hitting position.

There you go; I think you answered your own question. It's the same stat he brought up when they signed Jeromy Burnitz. As you say, the stat is entirely random and varies from year to year with each player. All I can do is keep beating the OBP drum and maybe talking with some of their inside people about this silly notion. I did hear the interview today on the way to the park. In my opinion, Bruce, the SLG drum is just as important. Hendry also touched on this today(you probably heard), saying that they used to have a team that led the league in HR, but that didn't get them anywhere in terms of winning a championship. Well, that's true, but that offense('03-'04) sure did score a lot more runs than this one does. He was in rare form today. It's absolutely shocking that a GM could be so clueless as to what attributes lead to a good offensive team. Why did Hendry change his gameplan on how to build a team. The 2003 team was built around power on offense and ptching. They were 5 outs from the WS. The 2004 team had the same idea, but was even more talented than 2003. They won 1 more game than 03, and should have made the playoffs. Then in 2005 he let a lot of power go in Sosa/Alou and he didn't replace it. Now in 2006 there is almost no power and it is all speed and defense. What the hell happened? It can't all be the White Sox, because this trend has been moving this way for 2 years now. Not to mention the fact the Sox led the Al in HR's last year. Hendry had the Cubs going in the right direction in 03-04, why did he change course? That's just it, there is no coherent plan. Things happen to the Cubs. The Cubs don't make things happen. Look at the Yankees, Red Sox, A's, Braves, or any successful organization in baseball. They get guys to fit their plan or philosphy. They may have different philosphies on how to get to the top but they stick with one. The thing they all have in common is that they build around guys who get on base. Then they get two or perhaps three sluggers and then fill in the rest of the line up with the BPA. Hendry and the Cubs don't seem to understand that.

Dollars to donuts that Cedeno is traded in the off-season for a "proven" 2nd baseman. So, not only will Hendry have traded away a less expensive player, he will trade away the better player. Folks, get ready for a Little Ceaser, Neifi (or if you prefer Neifi Jr., Neifi)double play tandem at least 60 games next year. Between these two and the pitcher's spot, that will make three almost automatic outs in the line-up. It will strike fear in the hearts of the NL.

How's Memphis? We're not there yet. I am in Radke VA at a Holliday Inn. So far the south is fricken hot. ps> sorry for the delay. Go Rich Hill!!!

Go Rich Hill!!!!!!!! I love the modern age. Internet in the hotel!! Go modern age!!!!!

According to XM 175 as of now Tejada WILL NOT agree to play 3rd. That could change with extra money though.

A washed up Garry Sheffield??? for 3 for 45???

Nice post Fred. Well done. Winning and stability are directly proportional. With the Wrigley family it was often a matter of money. Since the tribune took over that hasn't been the case. I don't know the amount of money the Cubs put into scouting, player development, and instructiors so I can't say they aren't getting the bang for the buck, but they've really failed in this area. To me that is the biggest problem. As much as I think Dusty needs to go, I'm not sure how much impact a manager has at improving the talent given to him. Dusty was clearly the wrong type of manager for a young team with a lot of talent. That's not to say that he wouldn't do a good job with a veteran team.

and driving in 4 runs.

That's not a bad idea at all. I wonder about G. Maddux though. Has he expressed any interest in coaching? He seems like a guy who would try to hone his golf game to the point where he could join the Senior PGA.

I think he sort of authorized a trade-the only thing that concerns me is that Maddux said if Hendry can find the right players. Basically, I'm wondering if Maddux is willing to be traded for any prospect or if the Cubs need to get something good in return. There are intangibles to keeping Maddux-the idea that he can continue to mentor the pitching staff is one. Two is player loyalty-I think a situation like this could have a minor influence the next time a free agent decides to sign with us, especially if that FA is a veteran. Third is the issue of the casual fan. The casual fan still is upset that Maddux was given away in the first place, and will be very upset if they learn that he was traded away for basically nothing-they don't see how he is now, they see Maddux the HOF still. I think all these intangibles give some benefit to keeping him. Now, if I can get a decent to good prospect, I trade him away. If nobody is willing to give very much, then I take the intangibles and keep him here. If you take the intangibles how do you know what you've have beside a washed up pitcher taking a roster spot? Well, I wouldn't completely classify him as washed up-he is putting up average major league pitcher stats this year. And what do you mean about how do you know what you have? I know that Maddux has been helping the young pitchers, and as Olney said last night (I think he was quoting an NL GM at the time) that Hendry was in a tough spot because it is trading away a legend-which ties into my 2nd and 3rd intangible. Just because I can't measure them doesn't mean they don't exist, and all the other evidence points them to at least making a minor impact. What other evidence? and if there are other evidence does that not make the intangible tangible? Marshall and Marmoll haven't shown that much progress. All the romantic "Maddux is more than the sum of his parts" has an odor. Maddux was good, he no longer is. The Cubs are way out of contention. It's time to get rid of old players who are not good. The Cubs have to look toward the future or they will find themselves in the exact same spot they are in right now. And nobody wants that intangible.

I think he sort of authorized a trade-the only thing that concerns me is that Maddux said if Hendry can find the right players. Basically, I'm wondering if Maddux is willing to be traded for any prospect or if the Cubs need to get something good in return. There are intangibles to keeping Maddux-the idea that he can continue to mentor the pitching staff is one. Two is player loyalty-I think a situation like this could have a minor influence the next time a free agent decides to sign with us, especially if that FA is a veteran. Third is the issue of the casual fan. The casual fan still is upset that Maddux was given away in the first place, and will be very upset if they learn that he was traded away for basically nothing-they don't see how he is now, they see Maddux the HOF still. I think all these intangibles give some benefit to keeping him. Now, if I can get a decent to good prospect, I trade him away. If nobody is willing to give very much, then I take the intangibles and keep him here. If you take the intangibles how do you know what you've have beside a washed up pitcher taking a roster spot?

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/cubs.asp?id=212002 Too bad he likely played his last game of professional baseball last week.

Minaya is not that foolish. I think theyll give us Xavier Nady Let's throw Maddux, Cedeno, and someone else at them for Reyes. That someone else would have to be Zambrano.

Miledge could already be in Cubbie blue if the Cubs would have drafted him instead of Harvey. :x

I would guess that it curtails any concerns a GM might have that Maddux has lost it. Someone like Omar Minaya is probably taking a hard look at the situation. It seems his only option would be to give up Lastings Milledge to get Zito or look to Maddux and give up a lesser prospect or two depending on the deal. Victor Diaz for Maddux

Todd Walker would be a good match for NY as Cano is down with a hamstring injury. I don't know what the Cubs could get for him though. Maddux would get eaten alive in the AL.

the answer: hendry is convinced that the cubs' problems this year were a direct result of injuries and injuries alone. he is prepared to bring back 7 of 8 positional starters next season (and more than likely prepared to allow dusty to start neifi at second a minimum of 100 times). although i could see him overpaying for soriano, who, when allowed to swing as he likes with clines returning as the batting coach, will have a large dip in OPS. expect no major changes, i'm afraid. hendry is married to this team: if it fails, he will perceive his philosophy as one of failure. he's not ready to do that yet. I so agree. Damn injures have killed the Cubs, not.

Ozzie Smith definitely belongs in the Hall of Fame. No doubt he reinvented the position... Not on your life. If Ozzy played today, he wouldn't even start for most teams.

Interesting indeed! Well as other poster said we needed give Hill the lead so he can relax. Well the cubs did and the next inning Hill gave it back. So much for that theory... What a mornic post. But one of many unfortunately. I so wish NSBB was around when Maddux or Grace were breaking in the bigs. Not everyone is Lirano.

Get tough Rich.