CubinNY

But thanks for trying. UBlink, you are making the assumption that the PECOTA values are accurate, in other words that is your objective anchor. That is not necessarily the case. In addition, the Reds and Pirates could still suck and have bad chemistry. If Dunn keeps playing in the OF like he did on Monday I could see a lot of Bad mojo in that clubhouse. On a different note. To me there is a difference between familarity and "chemistry". for example I have known a lot of girls for a long time and they have become good friends. We hang out share likes and dislikes but have never hooked up. That is familiarity. A SS and a 2nd baseman who have played together for a long time don't need to be friends off the field to be a good double play combo. I don't think Lou Whitiker and Alan Trammell swaped Thanksgivings at each others houses but they were one hell of keystone combination for a long time. That is familiarity. Now when I was single I might see a girl I don't know at a bar buy her a drink or five and hook up. That is chemistry. I really have no idea how this sort of thing would help a baseball player to be better. I am not suggesting a lot of homoerotic man love needs to go on in the clubhouse so get your head out of the pee trough. What I am suggesting is, I don't know how exchanging telephonne calls, going on offseason hunting trips, and buying birthday presents for kids could ever affect what goes on on a baseball diamond.

But why would a big league manager twice, not just once, preface a player in the lineup by saying "young"? I'm not trying to read into it, I'm just looking for an explanation I guess. I've never heard a manager do that before and I think it's kind of odd. Because they are young? I get the impression that Dusty is kind of fired up to have two young guys in the line-up. I don't know if this is true, but that is the impression I get. Everyone knows I am a harsh critic of Dusty, but I really think he likes M&C, and wants them to do well.

Big Z is a clubhouse cancer b/c he won't talk to reporters after a bad game (boo hoo Paul Sullivan). That is bad mojo, bad mojo. I predict the Cubs lose their remaining games and go 1-161.

I really agree with you on this. It is entertaining and that's what the broadcast is supposed to be to the majority of listeners. `In depth discussions of stats is very boring to the majority of the general public. The radio broadcasts are aimed at the general public and Santo's living and dying the game is appealling to many. I don't need an indepth discussion of stats. I need an announcer that can concentrate and talk about the game, without blowing smoke up undeserving butts and trailing off onto tangents that have nothing to do with the game. Keep Ron for occasional diversions, but they need to do a better job talking about the baseball games. He's the color man. Who would you like to see? Both broadcast teams are terrible. Santo is McDonough's boy and could care less what the Cub fans think. Santo has such an inferiority complex about himself, that it just drips during every game. How many times per game are we going to hear about his 'medical problems'? It was at least 5 times yesterday and I was only able to listen for part of the game. Brenly is no better. In reading the lineup at the bottom of the 1st, he had Jerry Hairston at second-not Walker. Not only had Walker batted in the top of the 1st, he was on the screen taking a practice throw. This is not acceptable in any way for the Cubs. Please, you guys should try and listen to the other team's radio guys. You thank Santo is bad, well try and listen to Hyrbosski Santo does just what he is supposed to do, provide color comentary. I think Pat and Ron are the best. They provide entertainment and make the game interesting.

Without 2nd guessing Dusty's every move, what would people do? We'd probably end off bitter old cub fans who try their best to antagonize young whipper-snappers who like numbers.

IMO the only question is: Does Baker want to be back? If he does, Hendry will give him an extension. Jim and Dusty are two peas in a pod.

I wouldn't put to much stock into what went on on the field yesterday. It was opening day and the Cubs, for the most part, were in control. IMO Dusty was trying to get most of the position players a chance to say they played on opening day. Everybody want to play on opening day.

I try to ignore Ron Santo.He is the worst analyst that I can recall.He contributes nothing of substance. Blashemer! Santo was unusally good today. He was on top of the analysis of the game, peppering things with his usual Cub blue blood. If you listen to Santo for cogent analysis you are listening to the wrong guy. However, IMO his is great. He is us in the booth and I love him.

Are you joking? Thirty-seven pitches for a middle releiver is like 100 pitchers for a starter. They have a completely different approach to pitching. However, the Cubs have an off day tomorrow so the point is moot.

If said entity has very little measureable effect, how important is it? Edit: Stupid Typos, I curse my fingers.

We (see the rants thread) :stone: are going to bust up corn row brades Wedensday.

2005 opening day 2006 opening day Wholy deja vu, batman. Let us all hope the rest of the season doesn't follow suit.

ability to get on base> fast speed> average speed> slow speed

Holly would have had it. I think not.

MattVP

Santo on Zambrano "The man is a horse"

Red!

Santo is dispondent already. Ron wears his heart on his mic.

Deja vu of 2005 opening day?

Not me. I just sit here and think about the Cubs.

Production and nothing else should be what gets a guy promoted. But in the world of baseball that is rarely the case.

I pretty much read them all too. At the risk of souding like a kiss up, I think the Herald is the best. As far as the "beat" writers go, I really have a hard time with Sullivan, but I like Kiley and Bruce. Like a lot of guys at the bigger papers, I think Sullivan spends more time trying to demostrate to his readers how smart and witty he is and less about the game on the field. I also think he is a little too slanted toward spouting the company line.

like I said in my initial post, I don't know what the bench situation for Cleveland is, nor their organizational situation in terms of outfielders, but I have to wonder, were you saying that before Marquis Grissom retired? what if Holla was back in Cubs camp this year and the choice was between Restovich and Hollandsworth? I know there are differences in leagues and starter v. backup and needs of the team. but looking at the roster a little closer, you guys are also failing to take into account the Indians first base situation. Ben Broussard's complete inability to hit lefties and Eduardo Perez as the righthanded option (who by the way can only play one position). it really seems to me that Cleveland's GM, who I think is outstanding, has filled two roster spots with crappy veterans, when giving DuBois 350-400 ABs at first and outfield seems to be a viable option. I suppose Hollandworth CAN play center. it's not like he has done so in a number of years though. Casey Blake had one nice year but doesn't appear to be anything special (I don't know about the prospects at all), and the Indians have plenty of lefty sticks (Hafner, Sizemore, Martinez, Broussard). sorry, but the more I look at this it seems people will give Shapiro the benefit of the doubt for making the same decisions they would crucify the Cubs for making. But as you stated you don't know what the situation is in Cleveland. Neither do I. So I won't criticize the move.

What does that mean? They can play many positions? Not one of those guys is a deep threat or has much of a bat at all. What are they going to do with 1 out and a man on third in a tie game in the eight inning? I don't know that it would change the outcome of many games, but I would like to see at least a few guys on the bench who have the possibility to take a guy deep. That is why I wanted Sing or Restovich in one of those slots. Our bench is strong defensively and has speed. And can't hit. The Cubs are supposed to have an improved bullpen. If that is ture (and I'm not saying it is), then it seems much more prudent to find at least one guy with deep threat capabilities. As it stand now they have exactly 0 guys who fit that description. I don't think this is worth arguing over, so I leave it at that.

Outside of Cano, all the Yanks have is uber-expensive players and riff raff. You are forgetting about the big Wanger!