CubinNY

Depends on which time of year. I said discussions.

I like to use this analogy in this case. If a lion is chasing me and you, I don't have to be fast, I just have to be faster than you. The same thing goes with the vet v. the rookie. How the player performed after he left the Cubs or in the next year is completly irrelavent. If "the Horn" put up better numbers he should have played. Going with known production, if it is bad, is no virtue.

It looks like Coo Coo Crisp is available. Jason Michaels is available. I don't want to start another debate but if the Cubs could have upgraded in LF or RF they could have used Patterson for one more year. Cliff Floyd probably could have been had. Giles was out there. IMO There are any number of creative deals that could have been made. It is not so much that Pierre is bad, b/c he is not. He is medicore. But all his worth is tied up in his speed. If he gets hit in the quad with a ball. Forget about any stolen bases for a month and his lackluster defense will be exposed. His bad routs are often made up for by his speed. I don't think Pierre's offensive game will play well in Wrigley. He is deviod of any power whatsoever and the long grass won't help his swinging bunts much (contrary to popular opinon). The stadium in Florida was made for his game. Lightning fast infield and what not. The Cubs also gave up two pretty good pitching prospects and Mitre, who I think was never given a proper chance. But the future will tell that tale. I don't think the Cubs should have targeted a "lead off" man. B/c lead off is not a position on the field. I think they should have gone after the best players at whatever postion they were targeting, taking money vs. performance into the equation. As has been pointed out, speed is useless when it is setting on the bench. Needless to say though, I will be rooting hard for Pierre every time he steps to the plate.

I don't think your post was off topic as the thread has careened of course from what it was. If one looks at the Cubs the last two years they have ranked near the top in HRs and near the bottom in OBP. I think looking at aggragate numbers like OPS is skewing reality a little. In other words, the OPS has been good b/c the Cubs have been clubbing the ball out of the park at a phenominal rate. What has this translated into interms of runs scored? In 2004 the Cubs ranked 7th in the NL and 2005 9th. At the end of the day that half of what matters. The other piece is runs allowed. Again we see that the Cubs have struck batters out at a phenominal rate. But let's look where they rank at team WHIP: 9th and 11th. Why is that? walks. The Cubs are near the bottom of the NL in how many walks they give. What has this translated to in terms of runs allowed? The Cubs were middle of the pack in the NL 2004 and 2005. Taken together the Cubs Pythagrean Record shows that they were about five games worse in 2004 then they should have been and one game worse in 2005, meaning with a little better "luck" (and less Hawkins) they should have made the playoffs in 04 but where rightly medicore in 2005. I've seen very little this off-seasn to make me optimistic that they can improve either side of the equation enough to make a meaningful difference to change a medicore team. I don't think Pierre's 4 runs will make that much of an improvement. He will likely be an improvement over Patteson's 2005 season, but that isn't saying a whole hell of a lot. In addition, one of the biggest problems on defense is still wearing a Cub uniform and his name is Mike Barrett. I love his offense and the Cubs will need it more than ever this year, but if Hendry was looking to make a major upgrade in that department he should have changed catchers. I am not advocating that in anyway. What I'm saying is, I don't know what Hendry and the Cubs are thinking, but whatever it is I don't like it.

so if the move is unimportant, why did you make this comment? the move was getting overhyped by some... Thomas turns 38 in May and has missed a considerable amount of time the past 2 years. The guy could be going the way of other great power hitters/steroid users like Sosa & Bonds. His body's probably shot, but if he gets on Giambi's HGH who knows maybe he'll play half a year.... What's up with the steriod talk? Are you privy to information no one else is or are you just spouting off?

It's looking more and more likel Molina is the last kid standing after a game of musical chairs. The Mets. Omar is creating an all Latin team. Personally I have no problem with it, but you guys should here the stuff the anglo Mets fans are saying on the sports talk shows. The Benson trade put a lot of these guys over the edge. And when a NYer goes over the edge it isn't pretty.

It sure would be exciting if either Fox or Reed could bust out. Catchers who can hit are hard to come by.

I only have this breakdown for the CUBS, so I can't really compare it to other teams for you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total CUBS 58 79 75 101 63 121 72 72 52 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 703 Opponents 91 88 61 71 115 65 74 85 53 0 7 4 0 0 0 0 714 That first inning was a killer many a game last year.

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.