jjgman21

Isn't debatable??? They aren't healthy. Wood isn't healthy. Neither is Prior. ARam is pretty much guaranteed to miss a handful of games this year, and the rest of the supporting cast is mediocre. The Astros had Berkman, Ensberg, 3 starting pitchers with ERAs under 3.00, and the best closer in the league. The Cubs don't have anthing close to that, except for ARam in place of Ensberg. Even Jason Lane is better than any of the Cubs' 3 starting outfielders. Zambrano, Prior and Wood can't hold a candle to what Clemens, Oswalt and Pettitte did last season. While I like Dempster, he's not in the same league as Brad Lidge. Wait til next year. Although I guess that if the Cubs manage a .500 record with Lee, Prior and Wood missing a significant amount of time, people can feel good about it, rather than disappointed. when not ignoring my caveats and living in fantasies, ie. Jason Lane is better than Matt Murton or that Brad Lidge was a better closer than Dempster last year, it isn't even debatable. I will give you that the Cubs big 3 of Prior, Z, Wood, if healthy and producing like they are capable of probably would not equal what Pettittie, Clemens and Oswalt did last year, but they wouldn't be excessively worse (all are perfectly capable of being below or near 3.00 ERAs) and Maddux and whoever fills the majority of the 5th starter role would blow away anything the Astros got out of the 4th and 5th starter last year. the Astros bullpen was very good last year. however if healthy and producing like they are capable of the Cubs bullpen is far better and much deeper. let's look at the lineups if healthy and producing like they are capable of Pierre > Tavarez Walker >/= Biggio Lee > Berkman Aram >/= Ensberg Murton > Lane Jones >> Burke Barrett >>> Ausmus Cedeno >> Everett ah, but the Cubs bench sucks. well take a gander at what the Astros bench did last year. their bench was pathetic. organizational depth? the Astros proved they don't have help like Marshall, Guz, Hill, Pie, Aardsma/Wuertz/Novoa capable of stepping in and helping the team win games. if healthy and producing like they are capable of, it's not even debatable.

oh the irony that it's the Cubs fault that Wilson probably isn't available.

Very true. People need to back up from the ledge. Nice gesture, but it's over. Astros '05 You think this Cub team is as good as the '05 Astros? Wow. if healthy and producing like they are capable of, I don't think it's even debatable that the 2006 Cubs 25 man and 40 man roster is far superior to the 2005 Astros.

this is not football. there is nowhere near the parity, and the schedule is not made years in advance. the schedule makers know exactly who they are matching up against who. good teams become bad and bad become good incrementally in baseball, with few exceptions (this years Marlins being one, and a fine example of what it takes to go from good to bad). you can pretend that it's hard to predict whether the WhiteSox, Twins and Braves will be good and the Rockies and Royals will be bad, but that's being pretty damn naive. while it may appear minute to you, this division very well could be decided by a game or two. the Cubs could go 9-6 against the Cards, play exactly equal to the Cards with every common opponent in baseball, and still lose the division. those 10 or so games where the Cubs have considerably harder competition very well could be the difference in this 162 game season. thus, in my opinion, a legitimate issue to piss and moan about.

bad things happen to those who stand at home plate and admire their homeruns.

sorry if this was covered earlier in the year, but I need to vent. usually I like to pour over the schedule when it first comes out. haven't had time this year until now, and once again, the Cubs schedule is, at least on paper going into the season, considerably more difficult than the Cardinals. let's look at how many more games each team has against the various opponents Cubs Division - Brewers +3 League - Braves +1, Phils +1, Pads +1 Interleague - WhiteSox +3, Twins +3 Cards Division - Astros +1 League - Nats +1, Rockies +3, Dodgers +1 Interleague - Royals +6 so once again, while the Cubs are going against some of the best teams in baseball and division winners, the Cards are facing the dregs of baseball. furthermore, once again the Cubs are again probably the only team in the National League that has to go on a road trip that covers the east, west and central time zones AND again are forced to go on a nine game west coast road trip without the benefit of an off day before, after, or during that road trip. how many years in a row does this kind of crap have to happen before people start to question whether it really is just a coincidence?

But jigman (honest question), is Rothschild calling the game from the dugout if it's Maddux, Z or Rusch? couldn't tell you with Rusch. with Maddux, it appears Michael is calling the game this year, but I recall the calls in Maddux games often came from the dugout last year. Z worked mostly with Blanco last year, but Barrett called the game the other night. I do know that last year and the year before, nearly every pitch a bullpen pitcher threw when Barrett was catching came from the dugout. edit: well the pitch didn't literally come from the dugout...you know what I mean

developing my post further, those two to Repko were by far his best placed curves. he was a little shaky locating the fastball too, though.

how Repko laid off those two curveballs with two strikes was a freak of nature. furthermore, either of those two curveballs could have been called strikes. further furthermore, some of the criticism has to go to Rothschild, who refuses to let young pitchers throw any pitch that is not on the outside corner in the late innings of a close game. if you didn't see linedrives to the opposite field coming from Mueller and Alomar, you were blind. you can only throw so many consecutive fastballs on the outside corner to ML hitters before they are going to drive that pitch over the infielders heads the other way. see Mitre's brilliant start that was soiled by Farnsworth in Atlanta in early 2004. Also of note, every pitch by Marshall was called from the dugout. I know this may be a tangent, but please stop blaming Michael Barrett for his game calling (not that anyone did last night) when half the time he isn't calling the game. as for Aardsma, definite slack.

does any thread not become a Neifi debate anymore? can we at least leave the thread updating the injury to our best player void of Neifi debate?

Huh? pretty simple - OPS+ 97 (team 1) - 78 98 (team 1) - 70 98 (team 2) - 128 99 (team 2) - 140 00 (team 2) - 118 01 (team 3) - 76 02 (team 3) - 83 03 (team 3) - 34 changed teams, instantly became a better player. changed teams again, and instantly sucked again. almost as if any lessons he learned while with team 2 were completely lost. could be, but when it happens with player after player, it seems to me that something else is going on besides what that organization teaches the player. it's amazing what happens when you play for a team where Joe Morgan's "acceptable strikes" are never called strikes.

what happened to Tatis? simple. same thing that happens to player after player. he's with one team and deals with a certain strikezone. he goes to another team which at present shall remain nameless and the strikezone becomes the size of a pea. he is traded from that unnamed team to a different team, and suddenly the strikezone is back to normal, and the player is back to sucking.

sometimes you have to take the game out of abstraction and look at what was going on in the game. big gigantic right handed hitter, Lowe burying sinker after sinker at the ankles and in the dirt, Navarro having trouble picking and even more trouble on the transfer, and the infield unable to hold Pierre close. if he goes, there is very little chance that he is thrown out. I agree with the original poster (although I do not agree that he should always have the green light). I don't know if it was a hit and run with Walker up or not, but Pierre should have been at second two or three pitches before that.

I'm loving this scoreless innings streak. Anybody know the longest scoreless innings streak for a reliever?? If I had to guess I would say Gagne from a couple years ago or the Eckersley 1990 year where he had a 0.61 ERA and only allowed 9 runs all year. Not sure though, those are just guesses. Les Lancaster had a really nice scoreless inning streak in 1989. I think it was 30.2 IP. grrrr. no fair jumping my random Cub knowledge.

Hmm. You haven't studied how Odalis does in even years, I see. :wink: He very well could be worth every penny of his 9m if he pitches this year like he has in all of his previous "even" years. Odalis has only had 1 bad outing out of 3 so far. In his last 12+ innings, he's given up 2 runs. .071 WHIP in his last outing. *cough cough* Reggie Sanders *cough cough*

You are correct. He has hit some balls hard, just right at people. Wow, I just defended Jones. :shock: that would be in the half of his ABs he didn't strike out in? Jones has struck out 4 times this season against pitchers other than the reigning NL Cy Young award winner. even including Carpenter's working of Jones, he has struck out 1 in 4 plate appearances thus far. in addition to hitting balls hard right at people, he hasn't received any cheap hits either. bad luck hitting on both ends.

the gun was definitely slow. I don't recall seeing any pitch the entire game above 90 or 91. Howry threw a couple bb's, one of which Kent was late on and smacked to rightfield. that pitch was clocked at 89. Jeff Kent is generally not late on 89 mph fastballs. however, I agree that Z reigned it in a little last night.

Wow! I almost forgot that this isn't a message board for discussing baseball. Silly me. I forgot that if I don't have the insight to know what motivates Reggie Sanders when it comes to when, where and for how long to sign, then I should probably say nothing. Oh wait, this is a message board. Silly you. For the record, I didn't want Jacque Jones, Reggie Sanders, Juan Encarnacion or Jose Cruz. And if I want to criticize Hendry for his failures in landing the player that would help this team the most, I'll just go ahead and do that. If you wish to defend him as if he has never made a bad move in his life, it's your right. But, please don't tell me or anyone else how we should or shouldn't make posts. You are right. I have no idea whether Reggie Sanders would have signed a 1 year deal. But, if it came down to 2 years with a bottom feeding, going nowhere team or playing on a team that has a chance to go somewhere, I don't think it's completely unreasonable to think he'd take a 1 year deal. If you do, so be it. And I absolutely DO NOT frame every transaction in the light most unfavorable to Hendry. I think you have me confused with someone else. So, feel free to quit exaggerating about what I do or don't do. I will say that I have been 100% against a signing of Jacque Jones from the very first day it was mentioned. If it was a 1 year deal, I wouldn't have made such a big deal of it. It's not a 1 year deal. It's 3 years. I hope Jacque Jones hits .500 and hits 80 HR's this year. But, there is no way I'm just going to sit back and pretend like I have been in favor of his signing just because he's signed. If he proves me wrong for the next 3 years, I'll eat crow and be happy to do so. But, I've been a Cub fan since 1971 and I want to see a World Series championship before I die. I'm sure Hendry wants this Cub team to win just as much as I do. Unfortunately, I'm not sure he's the guy who will get them there. Each year they overspend in cash and years for guys like Neifi Perez, Glendon Rusch and Jacque Jones is just that many more years he handcuffs the team from adding players who can make this team a perennial division champion. criticizing a move is one thing. discussing baseball on a baseball message board is one thing. making assumptions and viewing things in hindsite them implying those lead to known facts as your foundation to criticize and discuss baseball I suppose are one way to do so. you can go on a rant all you want, but that's exactly what you did, and continue to do. you can discuss things rationally, taking every known fact into account, or you can speculate and come to conclusions based on known facts, or you can just make things up and frame the facts to fit your argument. I encourage you, me, and everyone not to do the later as it may actually lead to meaningful discussions regarding baseball and baseball transactions if we avoid doing so. you can claim I'm mistaking you for improperly framing your arguments, or you can recall our previous discussion regarding the facts you conveniently ignore when discussing Pierre v. Wilkerson over the winter. as for the bolded part above, see the bolded part in my statement. brilliant!

you guys are making it seem like Dusty went to Alf for a talent evaluation. that article says nothing of the sort. in all likelihood, Baker was probably looking for some insight into Z and Cruz's mental toughness, confidence, personality, etc. if that's the case, turning to the only other hispanic pitcher on the staff, and therefore a guy who was probably a bit of a mentor to both (for good or bad), was not a bad idea. is anyone going to argue with Alf's choice?

THE EDMONDS STEROIDS THREAD WAS A JOKE Not a single person in that thread "more or less accused" Edmonds of using steroids. in a round about way, I just did in this thread.

should we speculate about steroids when a chronically injured player changes to a team with a manager who oversaw the development of several of the most notorious steroid users/suspects, and suddenly that player isn't injured anymore and/or seems to recover amazingly quick from nagging type injuries and his OPS+ jumps about 30 points, then just as suddenly has a 40 point drop off in OPS+ the year MLB starts testing for and penalizing steroid use, and appears to fall completely apart early on in the second year of steroid testing/penalties? almost all of the steroid suspicions are based on anecdotal evidence. as strong as a case as any can be made against Edmonds.

that would have been an excellent stop gap, but the Cubs never has the chance to even negotiate with him.

except the past two deals he has signed. you have no insight into the what motivates Reggie Sanders when it comes to when, where, and for how long to sign. it's real easy to criticize a move or a non-move when assuming facts that you don't know to be true. this just in....signing an injury prone player is a good move. gives the youngsters a chance to play on a Dusty Baker managed ball club, don't you know. c'mon. rushing Pie to the big leagues is not a wise move, and the mere suggestion is 20/20 hindsite. if Pie was struggling in Iowa, as I believe he did in winter ball, this great advantage to signing a 38 year old injury prone player would never have crossed your mind. exactly who is your replacement if Pie showed he wasn't ready? who's your replacement if the first two weeks in Iowa for Pie are an aberration? I don't like the Jones signing, but stop framing every transaction in the light most unfavorable to Hendry, and in particular, stop assuming you know all the factors involved in every transaction and non-transaction.

Because if we don't go after Jones, then he signs with KC, which eliminates that offer? could be. good point. doesn't mean people can just assume that Sanders would jump to signing a one year deal with the Cubs, or that Sanders was all that much better of an option.

how on earth does a manager have another stick on the bench after 31 innings of baseball?