CubinNY

I don't think you know that. Be that as it may, if it were true then the Cubs shouldn't have signed him. I don't think anyone but Hendry would have given him that contract. Frankly, I'd rather just Keep Burnitz around for one year. You don't think St. Louis for one would take Jacque Jones over Encarnacion? Please. If we would have offered 1 year for $3-4 million he would have laughed at that offer and other teams would have grossly outbid that. Then they can have him. But wasn't Juan signed before jacque?

Larry Deriker Davy Johnson Bobby Valentine Jim Riggleman But really we don't have to have the answers, we're fans. Hendry, MacPhail, and Dusty have to have the answers, that their job.

I don't think you know that. Be that as it may, if it were true then the Cubs shouldn't have signed him. I don't think anyone but Hendry would have given him that contract. Frankly, I'd rather just Keep Burnitz around for one year.

So far, the only guy that has stepped up and said he is not getting the job done is Juan Pierre. You gotta give him credit for at least not making any excuses. I don't think there is a person who posts here that was more against getting Pierre then me. I hate that he is performing below career norms, but I have to admit I kind of like the Slapmister. He really hasn't made any excuses at all and has said all the correct things. He's grown on me (no pun intended). I wish he were a better player though.

You gotta work with the information you have man. Quotes and the product in front of us is what we've got. Do you see any evidence that contradicts the "no accountability" theory? Anything? Maybe there is things going on behind closed doors. But we can't base opinions on maybes. Don't you think we've had enough "maybes" as Cubs fans? In your opinion, what would constitute no accountability? Should they bench Jacque Jones for a week next time he makes a base-running error? Should the Cubs have benched bench Pierre, Ramirez and Zambrano for slow starts? The Baker situation will take care of itself. If they manage to rebound this year and make a run, he'll be back. If not, he won't. That simple. To me, that's accountability. Firing Baker tomorrow does absolutely nothing. If you make a change, do it for the right reasons, not just for the sake of making a change. The right reasons? How about a terrible start to 2006, a fade in 2004, and less then medicore finsh in 2005? And that is just for starters. I really don't understand your position at all. Just read the daily press clippings.

Since 2003 the Cubs have had Multiple mental errors per week (baserunning mistakes, throwing to the wrong base, not knowing how many outs, etc., etc.) Multiple clubhouse issues (has nothing to do with winning) including sending tapes to the media, breaking a radio, calling the TV booth, cornering the broadcasters in an elevator, and berating a beat writer to name a few. They've lost more then they've won and each year has gotten worse. It is now twenty-o-six. It's time to pay the fiddler, somebody needs to go, but instead we will hear about injuries, bad breaks, and atem balls. This team is poorly constructed and very poorly managed, yet all we get are excuses. Derwood, who constructed this team? Hendry. Who puts the players on the field? Dusty. I have no problem if they want to DFA some of the more lousy players, or trade off under-producing vets, or trade young up and comers if it will make this team better. But above all they need regime change. The Cubs are bordering on a humanitarian disaster. I expect Kofi Annon to propose relief efforts. I want Bush and Rice to proclaim the need for regime change based on the absecence of weapons of mass destruction.

No they need an old man to bench their assess when the get doubled off of second two times in three weeks.

Zero relevance. He claimed to have some information about what it's like in the bigs. I asked him how he knew. How can anyone know what the unwritten rules of playing in the bigs other than someone who has been there? After all, the rule goes unrecorded so it is only passed down through custom and word of mouth. I'd apprecaite any inside gossip. Unbelievable. So we can't assume or infer based on anything we know or have observed in our own lives...because we haven't played in the bigs? How many times to do I have to explicitly explain what I think happened and why I think it happened? What do I have to possibly gain by making it up out of the clear blue? I've never encountered a business or organization or clique or social group period that appreciates it when a new guy that is terrible at his job/always screwes up/etc. goes out of their way to attack or call out someone in that same social group who is already established and generally does very well when that person really didn't do anything wrong except kinda be a jerk. It's just one of those things...why is MLB going to be exclusive from those kinds of mentalities? If anything, it's going to be 10 times worse there because of how competitive it is. Oh, so you don't know. Do you think Ozzy wouldn't have said anything had Lee said what Hill did? Neither do I. The fact that Hill was a rookie has little bearing on what Ozzy said. Hill was the friggen pitcher of record and he had a bad game and was upset. People say and do dumb things all of the time in the heat of competition. The fact that Hill was a rookie who hasn't been pitching well may have chaged what Ozzy said, but he would have said something. The guy can't keep his cake hole shut.

Zero relevance. He claimed to have some information about what it's like in the bigs. I asked him how he knew. How can anyone know what the unwritten rules of playing in the bigs other than someone who has been there? After all, the rule goes unrecorded so it is only passed down through custom and word of mouth. I'd apprecaite any inside gossip.

Yes, I am pretty sure you are just making this up.

In the above you pretty much say that Hill has no right to say anyting. And I'm still wiating to hear about your stint in the bigs.

Nobody said that. In fact, several people went out of their way numerous times to be clear they WEREN'T saying that. Nobody said anything of the sort. You've totally distorted the entire point people like myself were arguing. It's not that cut and dry, and nobody's even come close to saying it like that. You're trying to boil this down to a simple right & wrong, black & white issue, and it's not. In the most basic terms possible, if you're going to start some crap (which Hill did since nobody else on the team was slining anything), in the world of the MLB, you need to have to be able to back that talk up with some skills on the field. It's childish, it's asinine, it's ridiculous...AND IT'S JUST HOW IT IS. That's that world. That's how the unofficial hierarchy works. You have to prove yourself before you can take shots in the press. In the context of the insane world of MLB, Hill was in the wrong. I couldn't possibly agree more. What do you know about the world of MLB except for what you see on TV or from the stands?

Those of you defending Hill for his comments can give it a rest now. He knows he screwed up, and that only hastened his departure to AAA. Give it a rest? You are entirely missing the point. Who cares if what he said was right or wrong? Of course they were wrong. What people were complaining about is that he's a rookie who is not playing well so he has NO RIGHT to say anything. Some went so far as to say there is some unwritten code where rookies can't say anything to anyone about anythng. Unless, that is if they are playing well. It's garbage and makes no sense whatsoever.

Says you. I wasn't aware until now that if one is a rookie they're not allowed to say or do anything to defend a teammate. How long has this "established" practice been going on? Is there some sort of level system? If you are a second year player do you get to do it once? How about if you are rookie but make the all-star team; is it ok then? Please, tell me the rules so I can make an informed judgment.

So not only are you a master mathmatician but also a liscened psychologist too.

Its like that other places too.Some people feel if you haven't been " on the job" long enough you do not have a right to an opinion. But for some strange reason it was ok for both Prior and Zambrano to stand up to Bonds? I mean afterall he is an established player and they weren't at the time. Oh that's right, nobody likes Bonds so it was ok. Well, for one, Zambrano and Prior never sucked as hideously as Hill has for as long as he as at the ML level. Prior especially looked like a superstar almost out of the gate. Carlos eased into it, but comparing them to Hill is absurd. Hill is new and he's awful. In a game like this, you're going to get eaten alive if you run your mouth, and he did. He has nothing fall back on in a battle like that, so the smart thing to do is shut up. It's not like Ozzie went after him...Hill slammed his player and Ozzie got pissed at the scrub doing it, and Hill thusly got PWNED. So if Hill were playing well it wouldn't be a problem? It is to laugh.

Its like that other places too.Some people feel if you haven't been " on the job" long enough you do not have a right to an opinion. But for some strange reason it was ok for both Prior and Zambrano to stand up to Bonds? I mean afterall he is an established player and they weren't at the time. Oh that's right, nobody likes Bonds so it was ok. Any time someone stands up to a cheater it's a good thing. No. What is happening in this thread is hypocricy at its finest. If Hill were 4-0 with a respectable ERA I suspect some of the opinions in this thread would change. I don't like what Barrett did, but I think Hill was trying to defend a teammate. Since when is that a bad thing? Oh, yeah when the player is playing well. Go figure.

Its like that other places too.Some people feel if you haven't been " on the job" long enough you do not have a right to an opinion. But for some strange reason it was ok for both Prior and Zambrano to stand up to Bonds? I mean afterall he is an established player and they weren't at the time. Oh that's right, nobody likes Bonds so it was ok.

Not a totally embarassing weekend. JJ is growing on me a little.

Erm, the most basic rules of probability? No, what I'm actually saying is that you don't understand basic probability. There are no facts that show that he won't. I've never even said that I don't think Prior will go on the DL next year. But what I have said about a million times now is that there are no facts that show that Prior will go the DL next year, and that therefore you regarding it as guaranteed is ridiculous. Do you really not know what a fact is? Because just about the only fact that would guarantee that Prior would go on the DL next year is "Mark Prior underwent Tommy John surgery on May 22nd 2006" or something along those lines. Now unless you've got devastating information you want to share with us, your statement that Prior is guaranteed to go on the DL at some point next year is just nothing but entirely, completely, utterly, absolutely wrong. You can't be serious. When something keeps happening, it's a trend. Until the trend ends, it's most likely to continue. I never friggin' guaranteed anything. Stop letting your bias toward Prior because you like him as a pitcher or he signed an autograph or had a great 03 get in the way of your view of reality. Until he goes a whole year without going on the DL, we should expect him to. It's not absolute, but until something different happens, it's very likely to happen. Why don't you quit while you're behind. Each post you make only makes things look worse for you.

I would take Mariotti over hawk anyday, and way to go barrett!!!!!!!!! I have always been pretty indifferent about Mariotti. All I know about him is what I see on ATH, but now just knowing that Harrelson hates him, well, that makes Mariotti one of my new favorite people. I dislike Harrellson more than anybody else in baseball. He's such an idiot. agreed Marriotti is all about self-promotion. He is in the Mke Lupica class of sports writers, much more concerned with the witty pun then actually making a point. He columns are pedantic and thoughtless. Hawk doesn't like Marriotti becuase they are exactly alike. When he looks at Jay he sees himself and he doens't like himself.

What exactly did Mariotti write about today? By the way, I find it funny that Hawk bashes him on the air. This is the only case I agree with that idiot. In a round about way he said AJ got punched because of his reputation for being a punk.

Who doesn't love JJ?

The worse thing about Hill is his age. Mizzou, go look up Randy Johnson or Kurt Shilling's numbers in their first few seasons. Most pitchers go through a learning process when they get to the bigs. Forty innings is nothing. It is also extremely difficult to pitch when you know with one or two bad outings you are gone. Look at the Cubs track record. It's no wonder why they haven't produced many major leaguers from the minors. They do almost everything in their power to sabotage their success.

Boy, oh boy. Bad tactics (hit and run) then bad swings at bad pitches. That's just... bad.