jjgman21

Nobody said that. he gave an example of Dusty not giving young players a chance and chose a vet instead by saying Dubois had a great April and Hollandworth a bad one, thus implying, if not explicitly stating, that Dubois was benched in favor of Hollandworth after said April. maybe not in so many words, but he did say that.

Haven't we had this conversation before? Whatever career the player in question has is of little relavence to what happens at a given point in time. I'll see if I can simplify it. Player A is a vet who sucks but has had a decent carreer but he will likely not get better Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now but still not real good, but has the potential of getting better. What do you do? If you are smart you play player B. This isn't a matter of competition of careers, it is a matter of who is the better player at the time and who will likely be a better player going forward. allow me to preface by saying that I think Dusty prefers vets over younger players. however, I think it is quite overblown. when time after time it turns out Dusty was right, ie. the younger player doesn't develop into anything, don't you think he may be on to something? I wanted to see Choi get the PT, but Karros and Simon did well. I wanted to see Bobby Hill be the starter, but Grudz had a great year. I wanted to see more of DuBois, but he's back down in AAA, and Hollandworth again is getting his PT. none of these guys amounted or will amount to much. so when does it get to the point where some of us are willing to admit our expectations might have been wrong, and Dusty was right that the young player would not be an asset to the team? if you are smart, you play the player that gives you the best chance to win, and nobody is able to point to an example of when Dusty was wrong in choosing a vet over a young player, with the exception of Perez over Cedeno last year. in other words, your assumption of "Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now" is just that, an assumption. if you want to decide who the better player was at a given time, you can stick with your opinion no matter how false it turned out to be, or you can look at how the players actually performed. What are you talking about? That was a hypothetical. Hollandsworth over Dubois and Grudz over Hill are but two examples. And again it does not matter that Hollandsworth or Grudz might have better careers than Dubios or Hill. What matters is that at the time of the decision, playing the vet over the rookie was made even though the numbers for the vet were putrid. what matters is whether Dusty chose to play the better player, and hindsite has proven over and over again that he made the right choice, which to me indicates that maybe Dusty has a little better foresight than people are willing to give him credit for. people really should get off the Dubois and Hollandworth thing. the plan all along was to use him in a platoon, and after April 2005, Dubois proved pretty much overwhelmingly that he couldn't hit major league lefties, much less righties. as for Grudz over Hill, go back in time and look at how Hill lost the starting job in ST. that's right, how Hill lost it. the plan was for him to be the everyday secondbaseman, but he played so terribly in ST the Cubs had little choice but to go with Grudz. then look how Grudz performed in the early part of that year and how Hill did down in Iowa. tell me you wouldn't have made the same decision.

Hollandsworth over Murton last year. Estes over Cruz. Harris over Hiatt and Leon (although Hiatt was older but still not a vet/experienced) Karros vs. Choi is a tough one, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I suppose Hollandworth did get about 10 starts within the first three weeks after the Cubs called up Murton. after that, the choice was Lawton who came to the Cubs with a .380 OBP season going. after Lawton left, Murton got the bulk of the PT. saying Dubois stopped getting PT after April would be...oh, what's the word I am looking for...I know, saying that would be wrong. maybe his .500 or so OPS in about 140 May and June plate appearances lead to him losing his platoon role. yes, Cruz did ride pine in favor of Estes. if you were checking, you would probably note that Cruz had an even worse ERA than Estes that year. edit: I will fully concede playing Lenny Harris was absurd.

Haven't we had this conversation before? Whatever career the player in question has is of little relavence to what happens at a given point in time. I'll see if I can simplify it. Player A is a vet who sucks but has had a decent carreer but he will likely not get better Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now but still not real good, but has the potential of getting better. What do you do? If you are smart you play player B. This isn't a matter of competition of careers, it is a matter of who is the better player at the time and who will likely be a better player going forward. allow me to preface by saying that I think Dusty prefers vets over younger players. however, I think it is quite overblown. when time after time it turns out Dusty was right, ie. the younger player doesn't develop into anything, don't you think he may be on to something? I wanted to see Choi get the PT, but Karros and Simon did well. I wanted to see Bobby Hill be the starter, but Grudz had a great year. I wanted to see more of DuBois, but he's back down in AAA, and Hollandworth again is getting his PT. none of these guys amounted or will amount to much. so when does it get to the point where some of us are willing to admit our expectations might have been wrong, and Dusty was right that the young player would not be an asset to the team? if you are smart, you play the player that gives you the best chance to win, and nobody is able to point to an example of when Dusty was wrong in choosing a vet over a young player, with the exception of Perez over Cedeno last year. in other words, your assumption of "Player B is a rookie who is better than than player A right now" is just that, an assumption. if you want to decide who the better player was at a given time, you can stick with your opinion no matter how false it turned out to be, or you can look at how the players actually performed.

Just curious, who was talking about Walker not being a team guy? I know he received more than his fair share of criticism of his defense and people doubted whether he could actually play first base, but I don't remember any talk of him not being a team guy. I'm not saying your wrong, but I would like to be enlightened on this subject. The whole reason the Cubs were considering trading him to begin with, apart from his perceived lack of defense, was the fact that he is pretty outspoken. Also, many on this board were lighting into him, and somewhat justifiably, after his radio interview in ST where he said that he'd already been named starting 2B even though it hadn't officially happened yet and Dusty refuted his assertion. my guess is he had already been named the starting 2b, but Dusty wanted him to keep it on the down low. we recently saw Dusty get p'd that Barrett told the truth about his finger. my guess is the same thing happened in ST. more on Walker, I hope the Cubs resign him. even if EPatt - or some other secondbaseman - is ready, Walker is an excellent candidate to fill a Mabry type bench role, or to continue starting until a new secondbaseman is ready.

not sure if this was about the ball Jenkins hit, but my brother and I had a discussion about playing balls hit at the curve of the well when that play happened. I personally have never seen anyone master playing balls around the well. my brother said Billy Williams did, which was before my time. so my retort to my brother was "give Murton 10-12 years playing left in Wrigley, and maybe he will master it too." in other words, I don't blame Murton on that ball whatsoever. nor do I blame Z. I know I was frustrated because three guys in a row hit pretty damn good pitches really hard, and there's nothing you can do about that. hopefully that's where Z's frustration was coming from too, not Murton.

Maybe your recovery from surgery to repair your labrum went a little better. you amaze me. you spout your strict parent morality based rhetoric in rants, but when it comes to Kerry Wood, and basically only Kerry Wood, you're suddenly the empathetic nurturing parent. do you care more about the Cubs winning or the future of Kerry Wood? it occurred to me that I was confused and mistook you for someone else. my apologies.

well that's a nice spin, but it doesn't change the fact that they haven't increased his pitch count in a month. you can say the knee thing cost him 11 days, but you'd be wrong. Surgery March 7, played catch the next day, long toss March 10, pitching off the mound on March 12. and if you wanted to make that point, fine. please attempt to refrain from couching it in your sarcastic, condescending "let me get this straight" language and putting words into my mouth. and again, if you think he'll go from 40 pitches to 90-100 in a bullpen session and two minor league rehab starts, that's way out of character for you in terms of optimism. guess I'm just yet another self annointed martyr. you're just as responsible for it.

How did I put words into your mouth? The Cubs knew Wood needed shoulder surgery last year, yet they kept using him. And now you think they are babying him. He seems to be on the pace that has been talked about most of the spring. Yet you think they are babying him. I don't get it. They overused the guy all the time in the past. They threw him well past reasonable thresholds. They threw him after they realized he needed surgery. And now they are on the pace that everybody has talked about and suddenly it's babying? Your claim doesn't make any sense to me. you are putting words into my mouth because the discussion has never been about what happened last summer or other times in the past, only this spring. suddenly you want to interject as if I am defending the past treatment of Kerry Wood, and implying through your "let me get this straight" language that I was. it may not make any sense to you, but it's pretty clear. he has been throwing the same number of pitches for a month. all the ranting you did about holding Prior back in March not being how things are 'normally' handled, but now you can't see how giving a rehabbing pitcher the same workload for a month straight is not babying him. I think this has more to do with your need to argue with me about every little point than anything you actually believe to be true.

That's unnecessary. If you disagree with him, fine, tell him why you do. Don't resort to personal attacks please. goose/gander. I never understand why noone comes to other people's resque when he syas worse to them.

Ok, assume this IS the thought process. Would you like to have kerry wood for 3 starts and then have him in the DL because his arm strength wasn't high enough, or would you like to have him for 20 starts and then send him packing? Must not have been paying that much attention before you returned. 19 k's?? ooops

you make it seem like the Cubs are handling Peruvian infants. we are talking about millionaires here. the health and future as a human being will not be impacted, only the health and future as a baseball player. as most of you know, I am usually a bit of a Cubs apologist, but with where he is at right now, throwing 45 pitch sessions over and over and over again, I just don't see him making it back for another month, assuming they will progress at the same rate they have been. I'm done with it. I love Kerry Wood. I moved back from Oregon to follow Cubs baseball after seeing his 19 K game. but the future plans should not be Kerry Wood, so the Cubs should get out of him what they can right fricken now. Let me get this straight. The Cubs knew Kerry Wood needed shoulder surgery. They knew this, and their response was to move him from the rotation to the bullpen, and bring him out for multiple outings, right up until a couple days before the surgery. They knew he needed surgery, kept throwing him out there despite knowing he needed shoulder surgery, and you think they are babying him? hey, putting words in my mouth. not unexpected as that is your MO. what I am saying is not letting him throw more than 45 pitches for a month straight is babying him. on March 31, he was expected to throw 50-55 pitches to hitters. he threw 25. on April 15, two weeks later, he threw 51 pitches. two weeks after that he threw 39 pitches. if people think he's going to go from 40-50 pitches to 90- 100 in one bullpen session and two minor leagure rehab starts, approximately 15 days, when he hasn't bumped up his pitch count in over a month, you're awefully optimistic, which is a complete 180 for many of you arguing that he will.

you make it seem like the Cubs are handling Peruvian infants. we are talking about millionaires here. the health and future as a human being will not be impacted, only the health and future as a baseball player. as most of you know, I am usually a bit of a Cubs apologist, but with where he is at right now, throwing 45 pitch sessions over and over and over again, I just don't see him making it back for another month, assuming they will progress at the same rate they have been. I'm done with it. I love Kerry Wood. I moved back from Oregon to follow Cubs baseball after seeing his 19 K game. but the future plans should not be Kerry Wood, so the Cubs should get out of him what they can right fricken now.

you really expect him to go from 60 pitches (if it's even 60, I think he's been at about 45 the past three weeks) to 90 pitches in two rehab starts after the way he's been handled up to this point?

I think just the opposite. Prior is in the future plans. thus, you take care that he will be around for the next couple/few years. Wood is only in the future plans if the Cubs pick up an enormous option year at tremendous risk. if Prior burns out by being rushed, the team loses 3 years of a potentially outstanding starter at a arbitration rates. if Wood burns out by being rushed, the team makes the right decision and declines the option. You know they can decline the option and still re-sign him right? The Cubs have invested a lot in Wood over the years, and may still think they can reap benefits from him. I think you're a little too sure of what you think will happen. of course I am aware of that. you ready to risk another season relying on him to help get the Cubs to the playoffs? even if he's fabulous when he comes back, I'm not ready to take that risk, for the same reasons I told everyone who wanted to sign AJB that they are insane. Neither you or I are the Cubs. Neither of us have any input. Your criticism of the Cubs handling of Wood is based of an assumption you're making about how the Cubs will handle Wood's contract situation. My point is that if Wood is re-signed, which is a possibility, no matter how vehement you are in your opposition to it, then rushing Wood back is not in the best interest of the Cubs. my criticism of the Cubs handling of Wood is based on my strong opinion that doing anything but letting Wood go at the end of this year is a stupid thing to do and therefore he should be let go, not how I think they will handle it.

I think just the opposite. Prior is in the future plans. thus, you take care that he will be around for the next couple/few years. Wood is only in the future plans if the Cubs pick up an enormous option year at tremendous risk. if Prior burns out by being rushed, the team loses 3 years of a potentially outstanding starter at a arbitration rates. if Wood burns out by being rushed, the team makes the right decision and declines the option. You know they can decline the option and still re-sign him right? The Cubs have invested a lot in Wood over the years, and may still think they can reap benefits from him. I think you're a little too sure of what you think will happen. of course I am aware of that. you ready to risk another season relying on him to help get the Cubs to the playoffs? even if he's fabulous when he comes back, I'm not ready to take that risk, for the same reasons I told everyone who wanted to sign AJB that they are insane.

Sorry for the triple post but He throws tuesday May 2nd. if all goes well, he's up for rehab start #1 May 6th. If all goes well he's up for rehab start #2 May 11th. If all goes well he's back for the tail end of the SD series at home or the Washington Series at home.May 14th, or May 16th. this is right in line with what's been said and = a couple weeks. The two rehab starts = 10 days plus the 4 days rest from the last rehab start = a couple weeks. I don't see this as being any less optimistic, but someone correct me if I'm wrong. actually, it's not in line with what has been said. what has been said was beginning of May, mid-May if the knee surgery costs him some time, but it didn't according to the reports, so what was expected was the beginning of May. he's at 60 pitches right now. with the way he's been treated to this point, do you see the Cubs letting him throw 100 pitches by May 14-16? I don't. he'll do at least 4 rehab starts to 'build up his arm strength'.

Maybe your recovery from surgery to repair your labrum went a little better. you amaze me. you spout your strict parent morality based rhetoric in rants, but when it comes to Kerry Wood, and basically only Kerry Wood, you're suddenly the empathetic nurturing parent. do you care more about the Cubs winning or the future of Kerry Wood?

I think just the opposite. Prior is in the future plans. thus, you take care that he will be around for the next couple/few years. Wood is only in the future plans if the Cubs pick up an enormous option year at tremendous risk. if Prior burns out by being rushed, the team loses 3 years of a potentially outstanding starter at a arbitration rates. if Wood burns out by being rushed, the team makes the right decision and declines the option.

re the bolded part above....no you don't. with Prior sure, but not with Wood. his contract expires at the end of the year. get him out there ASAP, get out of him what you can, decline the option. I'm all for painting the impression that the organization considers the best interest of the player, but not here. get him on the mound yesterday. if he blows out his arm again, that's his/his next team's problem. Unless they plan on keeping him. Then that's not a real smart plan. I don't advocate doing anything malicious, but I don't think hurrying him along at this point would be malicious. they say they are just building up arm strength at this point, but throwing 40 pitch pen session after 40 pitch pen session, then having 4-5 60 pitch sessions, next it will be 3-4 rehab starts instead of 1-2. at this point it doesn't appear to be building up arm strength, it appears the Cubs are babying a guy who shouldn't be in their future plans anyway. if his arm isn't going to hold up by increasing his pitch count 10-15 pitches each time out, it's not going to hold up. but I'm sure he and his future team will keep how well the Cubs cared for him in mind....oh, that's right, they won't give a damn. there is nothing to be gained by this organization keeping the future of Kerry Wood in mind, unless, like you say, they plan on keeping him...but planning on keeping him is not a real smart plan.

I really think the original poster hit the nail on the head. the system is full of 'stuff' pitchers, seemingly all of whom try to nibble once they get to the bigs. throw the ball over the middle of the plate with the nasty natural movement most of them have (not Aardsma really, but the point remains the same).

re the bolded part above....no you don't. with Prior sure, but not with Wood. his contract expires at the end of the year. get him out there ASAP, get out of him what you can, decline the option. I'm all for painting the impression that the organization considers the best interest of the player, but not here. get him on the mound yesterday. if he blows out his arm again, that's his/his next team's problem.

like I said earlier, same thing with Bradley last year. Hey Jerr, the point of finding diamonds in the rough is that you get them in the later rounds. how about some second round talent with those second round picks.

I recently posted in the baseball discussion thread about the schedules and how much more difficult the Cubs is than the Cards. Twins/Sox instead of 6 against the Royals. extra games vs. difficult NL teams instead of extra games vs. Colorado and the Nats. late last season I posted how it seems the Cardinals always seem to miss the best pitching of various teams and have lot's of games vs. the bottom of rotations. of course it was scoffed at, and I never bothered to look to see if that were the case. let's take a look at what's been happening early on and see who the Cards are facing in the various series, fully conceding that the early numbers are reflective of the fact that they faced the Cardinals: Pilly - first series of the year. only makes sense that they see the Phils top 3. Cubs - granted, they've had to face the red hot Maddux twice. they also managed to have 6 games against the Cubs early on before either Wood or Prior were even expected back, much less actually back. Z owns them, and they only have to face him once. other than that, they get Rusch, Williams, and Marshall's ML debut. Milwaukee - they miss the Brewers best pitcher, Capuano. Cincy - the Reds worst starter by far this year is Dave Williams. Cards faced him, Cubs had two series agains the Reds, and never got to face him. instead the Cubs get the en fuego Aroyo twice (granted the Cards did too, and shelled him) Pitt - bad pitching all around, but the two best have been Duke and Snell. the worst have been Santos and Perez. two series against the Bucs, 1 game against the best two, four against the worst two. DC - miss Patterson, get another kid making his ML debut, the up-until-yesterday terrible Livan and the 10.80 ERA Zach Day. then you got their typical: Ponson, 3-0, 3.13 Looper, 1.54 Luna, .869 Spiezio, .962 JRod, .953 mix in about 30 seeing-eye and texas-league hits by Eckstein, a few corner calls here and there, a few bad calls going their way at just the right time on bang-bang plays, and what do you get? don't get me wrong, the have had some good teams, but they are the luckiest team in baseball year after year after year. sometimes, between the players they field and the gold nugget buried in the nether regions, it's not 'will they ever lose a game' it's 'how do they ever lose a game.'

late comer to the thread, and I don't know alot about the football draft, but isn't this the second year in a row the Bears used a high draft pick to get somebody that was not on anybody's board? and if I'm not mistaken, don't they have a probowl CB, have another CB who had a couple bad games last year, but overall is a quality player, and just signed another top notch CB (potential legal troubles noted). why on earth draft a CB with your two top picks? and I'm right there with you on the TE situation Hawkcub. wtf?