CubinNY

Murray is a real life Crash Davis. He is the guy who is supposed to show the young "Meat" how to act on and offf the field. Every ML team carries a guy like this in the minors.

In the context in which Baker said, "walks clog bases" it was most definately not a throw away line. Unless you have an axe to grind. When he said it Baker was talking about what makes a good baseball player. He also said something to the extent of "you don't walk across home plate you run" or some other such nonsense. It is abundently clear that you read other peoples post and disregard the crux of the argument so that it fits whatever you think the person is trying to say. No problem, I don't take it personally. I just don't by what your cookin. Evaluate Neifie anyway you want, he is a crappy player and shouldn't start at any position. I'm not here to tell you how to act or think. But I do feel free to call sheaningens when I think I see them.

I wonder what the Cubs could have recieved for Corey? Maybe Boston wasn't interested?

Well, nothing major was really done.. Say what you want about where the guy writes for, but the real reason people are hurt by it is because its true. A lineup of Pierre, Walker, Lee, ARam, Jones, Murton, Barrett and Perez/Cedeno exactly wasn't what I had in mind when the offseason began. That is the lineup of a 4th place team, not a contender. Who's going to hit for Jones against lefties? Why did we end up with Jones in the first place? Whos going to be there in case Murton isn't a MLB calibur starter? Even if Ronnie beats out Perez, is that even really an upgrade? And if Walker gets traded or injured, then are they just left with a Perez, Cedeno combo? The pitching staff really isn't that much better. There's Zambrano, Prior and...well, not much else worth mentioning at this point, at least, not as a positive point. Wood is obviously someone I am not counting on. Maddux, though I love the guy, is on his last legs, Williams is hardly going to scare anyone. The pen has Dempster as our closer..it will be interesting to see if he can duplicate his success. Then we have Howry and Eyre, who could be great, or could be busts. The rest are pretty much the same ragtag group from last tear. Was the DRay comment harsh? Yea, it was. But it's just not as far off as people here are taking it. [sarcasm]Hey, you haven't been here long enough to be a group thinking pessimsist[/sarcasm] I agree with every word you wrote.

That is fantastic

The question is, will Joe Morgan mention Bonds more than he'll mention the great Joe Morgan? If you took a drink every time Joe Morgan referred to his career or the Big Red Machine, how long would it take to get drunk?[/i] Maybe we'll have a Joe Morgan drinking game thread? If he is televising a game on a Friday or Saturday I will be there, shot glass and beer in hand.

black jack

Fixed.

Western Michigan University. That way I will have graduated from two Big 10 Universities. Go Broncos!

I'm more excited about Miller. Weaver was just someone to keep us in games but if healthy, Miller maybe dominating. With the Cubs off of his short list, his demands will certainly have to go down. One of the other teams will probably get him relatively cheap for one year. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of "If healthy" be attached to every player on this team, especially pitching. Its like we are the Red Cross of the MLB. 90+ years and we are hoping 2 guys will be healthy enough to pitch, and counting on a 40 year old broken down maddux. I hate being a pessimist this early, but for the money, the pitching scares me. It leaves the injury excuse to be used again yet one more time. Exactly

That is awesome!

22 days

That should be the most one sided competition in ST, but something tells me in won't be.

Does anyone know if Miller still has the stuff (i.e., velocity on fastball and snap on breaking pitches) since the injury? I will wait and see what happens, but IMO stockpiling injured pitchers isn't really a formula for success in the short term and is quite a gamble in the long term.

No. That sounds like a reasonable assumption based on known information. What I bolded is a self-fulfilling prohecy. It is Dusty logic. Its not really. Its the role he's been for years with the Phils. Could n't they be right and/or know something we don't? My point isn't that Michaels is not an attractive optiion; he is. Its that it just does not make sense that he hasn't been used more often or traded to a team that recognizes his potential. If we "know" it, why hasn;t someone else picked up on it? Lot's of things in life don't make sense. Why did the Cubs sign a back-up SS to a 2.5 million dollar contract?

When has he been healthy?

No. That sounds like a reasonable assumption based on known information. What I bolded is a self-fulfilling prohecy. It is Dusty logic.

Miller 2006 = Fox 2005 I predict Miller's arm falls off sometime around Sept. 17th.

per Rotoworld quick sombody call the owner and get Dunn before he hires someone smart.

No one ever said the Phillies were a smart organization.

ZR and put outs have a lot to do with innings played. As far as I can surmize he is a mediocre outfileder and like the rest of his worth, everyting is tied up in his speed. If anything happens that slows him down he goes from an average player to a below average player in a heart beat.

Not at all. At least not from my perspective. He's a nice hitter, for a 2B, but his defense has always been a problem. It's more of an explanation for why so few teams seem interested in him... I also dispute that the Cubs have screwed him. I remember hearing the guy from Baseball Solutions.com on the radio rattle off the numbers about 2B . Walker was the worst 2B in the MLs at turning the double play in 2003. He platooned in 2004 and was injured for part of 2005 so I don't think he's improved in that area. I think teams are taking those things into consideration. Certainly, if he were a hot item he would have been traded already. Defense is not a static ability. Like hitting people have good year's and bad years. Walker had a very bad year defensively in '03, and was better in '04 and '05. Still below average, but not the travesty that people are making his defense to be. In fact, very similar to Juan Pierre in CF. It might not be static but he is still a below average defender. One could argue that Pierre's defense will improve now that he's playing half of his games in a cozy ballpark. However, I don't think there is a senario where Walker's defense can be improved dramatically. Walker's defense is not that bad. Besides with the Cubs staff, defense is even less of a premium (high K and high BB). The Cubs didn't loose last year because they couldn't play defense at 2nd. This idea that no team wants Walker b/c he can't play defense is shaky to me. First, how many teams are in the market for a 2nd baseman? Second, given Walker's value in terms of contract and production, one would have to think Hendry is asking for a fair trade. Maybe teams don't see the upside of trading a valuable piece of the future for a one year rental. If Hendry didn't want Walker then he shouldn't have picked up the option. A lot of balls have gotten through the infield that shouldn't and the Cubs constantly fail to turn DPs. Walker (nicknamed "the statute" in Boston for his lack of mobility) is a big part of this and it is one of those things that really ticks off pitchers. For instance, Mark Prior is better than league average in every category except for the percentage of ground balls that become base hits. In other words, a ground ball off Prior has a greater chance of developing into a single than a ground ball off of the average pitcher. Is it because ground balls get hit with more authority off Prior or is it because his defense fails him on the mound? As for Hendry. the GM's job is to do what is best for the team and that isn't always going to be what's best for the player. If I'm Hendry, I pick up Walker's option even if I don't plan to start him and even if I think the team might be better by trading him. Clearly, Hendry isn't planning on giving him away and Walker could become a valueable bargaining chip if someone's second baseman goes down during the year. Besides, it's not too late for Walker to prove his value to the club. The more competition, the better the position. Is it best for the team to keep a guy on the 40 man roster with no intention of keeping him? Which in turn means you have to relsease or trade a prospect like Jermain Van Buren for popcorn and cracker jacks. Maybe 2 extra hits per week get through Walker as compared to the average 2nd baseman, big flipping deal. The Cubs don't turn double plays becuase other teams put the ball in play less with the Cubs pitchers on the mound. I have no idea why the Cubs are trying to get rid of the guy who most likely gives them the best chance to win at his position. I am open to suggestions but I have yet to hear a good one So far this is what I'm hearing: 1. He talks to much 2. He can't play defense Ok, who do they have that is better than Walker? Who can the acquire that is better than Walker. If they get Lugo, ok trade away. If they don't why oh why actively shop a guy who gives you the best chance at winning at his position? Isn't that the job of the GM? To give his team a chance to win. How does trading Walker increase those odds?

What are you talking about, according to Dusty Neifi saved the Cubs last year. You can pencil him in at SS or 2nd and in the 2 hole for about 100 games in 2006.

Not at all. At least not from my perspective. He's a nice hitter, for a 2B, but his defense has always been a problem. It's more of an explanation for why so few teams seem interested in him... I also dispute that the Cubs have screwed him. I remember hearing the guy from Baseball Solutions.com on the radio rattle off the numbers about 2B . Walker was the worst 2B in the MLs at turning the double play in 2003. He platooned in 2004 and was injured for part of 2005 so I don't think he's improved in that area. I think teams are taking those things into consideration. Certainly, if he were a hot item he would have been traded already. Defense is not a static ability. Like hitting people have good year's and bad years. Walker had a very bad year defensively in '03, and was better in '04 and '05. Still below average, but not the travesty that people are making his defense to be. In fact, very similar to Juan Pierre in CF. It might not be static but he is still a below average defender. One could argue that Pierre's defense will improve now that he's playing half of his games in a cozy ballpark. However, I don't think there is a senario where Walker's defense can be improved dramatically. Walker's defense is not that bad. Besides with the Cubs staff, defense is even less of a premium (high K and high BB). The Cubs didn't loose last year because they couldn't play defense at 2nd. This idea that no team wants Walker b/c he can't play defense is shaky to me. First, how many teams are in the market for a 2nd baseman? Second, given Walker's value in terms of contract and production, one would have to think Hendry is asking for a fair trade. Maybe teams don't see the upside of trading a valuable piece of the future for a one year rental. If Hendry didn't want Walker then he shouldn't have picked up the option.

What is this, bad-mouth-soon-to-be-ex-cubs-so-maybe-people-will-think trading-them-for-peanuts-is-a-good-thing?