CubinNY

You can't include either. Willis spent a year + in Florida's system before making it. You can't give the Cubs credit for developing and motivating him into the majors. So can the Cubs now take credit for developing and motivating Murton into the majors? He was in the Cubs system for a year before he came up to the majors, too. You can't have it both ways. Willis had his breakthrough season in the Cubs organization and then maintain that growth with the Marlins. Who gets to claim that they developed him? I don't see how anyone could defend a position that it was clearly one team or another. Same with Murton. Murton was clearly recognized as a good hitter before he came to the Cubs and was in the Boston organization much longer, but his breakthrough season came with the Cubs. Is it clear and obvious that his improvement had absolutely nothing to do with any of the Cubs instructors or coaches? No, just as it is not provable that they did cause his breakout performance. It seems pretty clear to me that some people will choose to think the Cubs were foolish for needlessly protecting Cedeno the year they did and others will think that given his upside, they were smart not to risk losing him even though it was a small risk to take. I don't think there is enough evidence to prove one is clearly the more accurate interpretation. Its a matter of perspective. Clearly, Cubs management has made some poor decisions. And they have made some excellent ones. There is plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument over whether Cubs management has improved this organization over the last 11 years or whether they have failed at their jobs. No one is stupid for holding either opinion. It is all a matter of perspective. As I believe this question of Cedeno is, as well. I hope Ronny makes Hendry look like Shurhholtz. But I think the evidence is pretty clear that he is not. Why the heck are people so afraid to admit the Cubs management might do some things wrong? As one of my professors use to say, "the proof of the process is in the product." Since MacPhail and Hendry took over the Cubs a decade ago they have had three medicore seasons and one decent season and still haven't cracked 90 wins with an escalating payroll every year.

For which team is pitching not the key? Hell, if the first four pirates pitchers pitch as well as everyone expects, we'll win the division. It may be a lot of 1-0 games, but we can still win them. If Kip pitches like 2003. If Ollie pitches like 2004. If Zach pitches like he did in his short 2005. If Maholom pitches like he did in his short 2005. Then, we'll win the division. Whatever. Who put the bee in your bonnett?

Maybe this dude is in denial like I am. I hope the guy they got for JVB ends up performing well

A dozen

Unforunately, that's what we've said for the past two years. I agree and they still have three pretty decent starters. If they add Huff or another RBI guy to go along with Berkman they will be tough. To me, the key for the Cubs is obvious, pitching. Lee will likely regress a little, Aramis hopefully will produce, but the Cubs have to find someone to step up in the five slot and table set in the two slot. Pierre will be fine at the top of the order. Hopefully Walker comes out hot in ST and then produces at career norms, that would go a long way to solidifying the lineup. I am optimistic about Murton and Cedeno but I don't think we should count on either of them to be diffence makers. All and all, I am hopeful but not optimistic.

True, but striking out is better than hitting into a double play. I wish Neifie would have struck out a little more last year. I think that is part of goony's point. A weak roller to the 2nd baseman withh a runnner on first is much worse than a K.

YESYESYES process, not results. That's all well and good...and I agree with that mantra. However, that being said...isn't that a mantra that supports looking at the reasoning behind why Sisco was left off of the 40 man roster and not calling it a bad move simply because of his subsequent success with the Royals? I mean, people can't use that saying when it supports their "side" of the matter and then ignore it when it supports the other, can they? I mean, isn't that what is commonly referred to as "having your cake and eating it too?" No. having your cake and eating it too would be when someone asks "honest" questions so they can bait people into pointless arguments. I am happy the Cubs have Ronny and hope he does well. If not, Neifi would be starting and nobody wants that. bad move leaving Sisco unprotected. Bad move putting Cedeno on the 40 man. I think that is pretty consistent. I am not all that clear on how it works, but I do know putting guys on the 40 man who shouldn't be starts clocks that shouldn't be started, forces other guys off or forces trades to be made that maybe shouldn't be made.

YESYESYES process, not results. process and results!

I thought they were going to try and lock-up Pierre long term. This doesn't mean they can't. They've done this lots of times _ avoid arbitration and then sign a guy to a multiyear deal in spring training. Let's hope this is not that case this time. I want to see what he does b/f the Cubs offer him a muliti year deal.

What didn't they see in Sisco that other did? The fact that Cedeno was protected does not validate anything. Even a blind dog finds a bone every once in a while. The recent past suggests that Hendry has done a terrible job of managing the 40 man roster. It's not just Sisco but many others as well. I wish the search was available b/ce we've discussed this ad nauseum. Is it really that difficult to give credit where credit is due? As for Sisco, at the rate he was going with for the Cubs, he wasn't progressing. He had bad work habits and was overweight. While the talent was there, his attitude was not. I can certainly see why they didn't think that he would be able to stick on a major league roster last year. Being exposed to the draft might have been the best thing for him. All indications show that he used that experience to put a chip on his shoulder and gain some focus. We'll see how he does the next few years...to see if he does or does not revert back to his old form. It is not hard to give credit. I dont't see why Hendry should be given credit for sticking a guy on the 40 man who had the numbers Cedeno did. a) no one would have drafted him b) he wasn't going to stick on a ML roster. You can hide a pitcher you cannot hide a SS. If that is the case I want credit for driving 80 mph in a 45 zone and not getting a ticket. In other words, just because the outcome worked out alright does not make what was done a good idea.

What didn't they see in Sisco that other did? The fact that Cedeno was protected does not validate anything. Even a blind dog finds a bone every once in a while. The recent past suggests that Hendry has done a terrible job of managing the 40 man roster. It's not just Sisco but many others as well. I wish the search was available b/ce we've discussed this ad nauseum.

13 days left until pitchers and catchers report. =P~

Don't even think it 'cuse.

I tend to agree. As long as there is a healthy profit going forward, then a Tribune purchaser may chose to retain the asset. The likelihood of a national media outlet retaining the Cubs is further increased by the fact that the Cubs have a rare national following that raises there value to a national media outlet. I don't know much but I think the Cubs are not that profitable from a coprorate perspective. I think I read something to the extent that they saw a profit of 4 million dollars in 2003. That is not big money. Most of the owners own teams not to make money but as a vanity project. I think the era of corporate baseball will end soon. They just don't make enough money.

Blasphemer!!!!!!!!!!!!! sorry :wink: I know. Ron is absolutely terrible. He is so bad, well, he is so bad, he is good. I love listening on the computer but I have to monitor the game thread here to know eaxactly what is going on. I love listening to Pat and Ron becuase the greatness of one is completely mitagated by the badness of the other. They are the yin and yang of radio baseball. To me listening to the two of them is high entertainment. Especially when the Cubs are playing poorly. Nobody whines better than Ronny. However, I can see where people would disagree.

Blasphemer!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are they really that proud, or is that a media creation? Or, are they proud of the record, but realize that having that record means players won't fear going to arbitration and risk having to settle for the lower offer if they lose? I think they are more interested in the cash than the record of no arbitration, nobody gives out prizes for never going to arbitration. I've heard, on more than a few occasions, both Hendry and MacPhail mentioning this tidbit as something they're seemingly proud of. I don't really see the big deal, unless protecting your players from criticizism is that important. I've heard them talk of it as something they are seemingly proud of, I just think it might be a stretch to say they are so so proud of it. People are making it seem like it's their biggest goal, or among their biggest goals. My guess is that they'd be willing to go to arbitration if they thought the player's asking price was way to high and that the midpoint was out of whack with what they thought of as top dollar. I agree. And who better to go to arb. with than a guy who is easily replaceable. It's always the mid level talent that is made the example of.

I know you wrote Carlos would disagree, I was merely replying after seeing a few posts that questioned Hoops for writing what he wrote. It appeared to me that many thought he was nuts for thinking some GM's would think what he wrote they might think, and I happen to agree with his theory. That was me. I still think the notion is ridiculous. I'll eat my hat if the deal as proposed goes through

Perception is probably reality on this one B to B! Regardless of what the numbers and sabermetrics may actually show, there is surely a perception among GMs around the league that from July through October Jose Contreras was the best pitcher in baseball. With all due respect Hoops, The GMs around the league are, for the most part, not stupid. July -Oct. is hardly the way to measure a pitcher. Especially one with Contreras's track record. And then Jermanie Dye? He has been washed up for for a while.

If this deal comes to fruition I will write a check for $50 to the GOP

Absofreakinglutly What is Williams doing, giving other GMs a date rape drug and then taking pictures?

I don't like this WBC but I have to admit I am fired up for baseball. I will watch

These gas guzzlers are coming out just in time for the highest gas prices ever. Detroit should've done this 10 years ago.

I can say Maddux's control is still there because the walk total is the same and he still gets a healthy number of strikeouts his way. By the way, the HR total is too high (as I already stated), but I don't attribute it all to loss of control - umps have taken back some of the generous zone he had in the 90's and the division has been/is full of sluggers and small/hitters ball parks. And ERA is the least of the critical pitching stats that matter. There isn't statistical evidence to support the claim that Williams is better unless you predict Williams growth and Maddux decline. Maddux has been steady at his declined value from career norms for three years now. It suddenly won't just fall apart. So Williams will have to get significantly better, particularly with regards to k/walk ratio. I hope you're right, but I wouldn't put money on it. You win, I don't know where to begin.

I think that sources prediction was a bit unrealistic, expecting improvement out of a pitcher Maddux's age. But he's going to have a better year if only because he'll be given a spot all year long, while Williams will have to unfairly battle with Rusch for time. The key for Maddux is to keep that HR total down. The control is still there, but that HR total doubled from career norms in the 2003-2005 timespan. [edit - I mean doubled per year, not doubled the career total] BTW - Didn't the Bill James endorsed pitching prediction give Maddux a similar 2006 line? I wouldn't get too excited about any PECOTA predictions on pitching. They are not accurate, historically. They have very little predictive validity, a correlation of about .4 which is very weak. I don't know how you can say Maddux still has the control when he gave up taters like he did last year. He gave up the home run because he was missing his spots but his pitch stayed in the hitting zone and got thwacked, especially up in the zone. If Williams is given consistent starts I expect he will have a better ERA then Maddux.