jjgman21

Link not only is his premise laughable, his facts are highly debatable. his playing career certainly wasn't HOF worthy, but re: the bolded part above, I would say that winning back to back silver slugger awards and playing defense at least well enough to win a Gold Glove in one of those years, finishing 4th and 7th in MVP voting in those two years, makes a player great for more than an instant. mix in the fact that those two years were arguably the 3rd and 4th best of his career, and Neyer certainly comes off as an idiot with just about every word of that paragraph.

insert "saved" comment here.

good ol' baseball reference. http:// http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/ might have to table alot of the info yourself, but click on any year, gives you totals for the league, ie http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL_1908.shtml

That stat line cannot be right. He doesn't have an OBP above .300. haha. shows how bad they both are/were early in their career. that's OBP/SLG/OPS

Cedeno's stats in this his 23rd year on the planet and first full year in the majors at a time when he is in another slump and shortly after changing positions .273/.335/.608 21 errors this year's elected All-Star shortstop (not that he isn't overrated) in his 22nd year on the planet and 2.5 years of ML experience .300/.386/.686 18 errors. I don't like his walk rate, but give the kid a break. he could be a flop, he might be the next Omar Vizquel.

I agree in general with selling high, but the way you put the Willis trade into context got me to thinking. in the post Ed Lynch era, the name Willis is bantereed about, but you look at the other players mentioned here, and this team has brought good players in via lots of trades for minor league or marginal players. the net result has been something like Mueller/McGriff/Bellhorn/Clement/Simon/Lofton/Aram/Barrett/Lee/Nomar/Murton/Pierre(please spare the debate of his goodness for this point) for Willis/Nolasco/Damian Miller/Todd Worrell and a bunch of kids who flamed out or failed and a few marginal ML players I would like to see a better job of selling high and maintaining the 40 man roster, but the Cubs have given up very little when compared to what they have received via trade, even including the two worst trades of the bunch.

I agree he would be a good pickup for the Phillies, but I just can't see them making a deal to increase payroll right now-they forced the Yankees to take Lidle, who is also a FA at the end of the season and makes less than Pierre-so I doubt they are suddenly going to try to pick up some more payroll, even if it is only for a month and a half. but at the trade deadline they weren't third in the wildcard and only two and a half out. I said at the time of the trade I couldn't see the Phillie fans not being outraged that they appeared to be giving up only 5 or 6 games out. plus, they dumped ALOT of payroll between that and the Bell trade, and Pierre only has about a mill coming to him for the rest of the year. drop in the bucket to remain competetive and have a shot at the playoffs.

And the money to pay for Rusch in 2007. Let's keep the faith! Doesn't matter, all another team has to do is put in a claim on Rusch and Hendry doesn't even need to work out a trade, he can just let that team have Rusch, which includes his contract. Just getting rid of him is enough of a return on the trade if you aren't saddled with the contract. But I don't think a team would gamble like that. If I were the Mets or Sox and wanted Glendon I'd let him slide through and strike a deal then. I don't think he's that hot of a commodity to compete over. it works funny because teams will block other teams from getting a player. the Padres once made a huge gamble and took on a big contract by claiming Randy Myers long after he was useful for the sole purpose of stopping a different team from getting him. so in this instance, some other team, maybe even the Cardinals, might make a claim to prevent the Mets from getting a pitcher that has been known to dominate them so they don't have to face him in the playoffs. even with the return of Glavine, the Mets are still dangerously thin on pitching. an alleged rubber arm like Glendon can be very beneficial to them by making spot starts and saving pen innings through September.

the other day in Houston, Izturis should have gotten out of Murton's way in foul territory. Murton was clearly calling for the ball. the infielders have to give way. that was scary for a second too, especially Murton's reaction afterwards. I thought he hurt his wrist the way he grabbed his glove.

I find it amazing that Jason Smith, the PTBNL in the McGriff deal, inexplicably stuck around baseball and logged ML ABs in every year since the trade. guy shouldn't be in pro ball.

which numbers? numbers work in baseball because baseball is based on individual v. individual and a sample size that tends to exclude anomolies. that is not so in football.

re Big Ten dominance, the UM/OSU lock began to come to an end in the early/mid 80's. all the proof you need really http://www.tournamentofroses.com/history/gamescores.asp they're still the cream of the crop year after year, but between 1982 and the beginning of Rose Bowl selection by BCS (2001?), about 20 or so Rose Bowls, non UM/OSU teams were the representatives for 11 of those Rose Bowls. in fact, a legit argument can be made that Wisconsin was the dominant Big Ten team of the 90's, or at least more dominant that OSU, having won the conference and Rose Bowl three times.

I didn't see the play, but if the centerfielder can get to the ball and calls off the other defenders, the secondbaseman has to get out of the way, no matter how adamantly he is calling for it. it's not a question of who is more talented. it's a matter of protocol to prevent just such occurrences.

I remember Dawson and Dunston being well received by the fans, as well. not exactly accurate. Dunston was pretty much hated by Cub fans until 1989 when he stopped sucking so bad.

one thing that people lose site of is that Palmiero was a terrible outfielder and the Cubs already had a decent young first baseman who wasn't bonin' the face of the organization's wife. furthermore, the Cubs also had a guy mashing in the minor leagues who was ready to take over in the OF, Dwight Smith. I also think bashing the Cubs for trading Jamie Moyer is absurd. I for one would not have wanted to suffer through his 89-92 waiting for his 1993

Mr. Floppy Breasts and Mr. Speed That Don't Matter back from DL, Marmol to DL. c'mon Glendon. throw 10 innings of scoreless ball between now and 8/31 and be on your way to a despearate contender. Mets, I'm looking at you.

Hendry had to justify the Hendry trade so he puffed Izturis for a couple days. I haven't heard many (any?) statements from the front office about Izturis after the first couple days he was acquired. its not repeated. he's not calling press conferences and making appearances to state how grand Izturis is. I think you take his statements and spin them to bash him no matter what he says. what Hendry did is no different than what Dombrowski did. as mentioned above, when he gets a sub-par player, he has to spin it for PR purposes. hence statements like 'we like players who can catch the ball' or 'we value a lefty starter going every fifth day' or 'we like players who hit their way on.' I would like him to not get players he has to spin into likeability, but I don't think he purposefully seeks out these players like you are saying he does. you know, it's funny because I came around to attributing the Cubs transactions while Hendry was only asst GM to Hendry because of your rants regarding the Sosa extension and Willis trade. make up your mind on the timing of Hendry taking over personnel descisions so we have a mutual basis for discussion please. fixed. I don't think there is enough evidence to persuade anyone convincingly either way, especially in light of the Perez trade. the burden of proof simply hasn't been met, especially when the primary evidence is statements by Jim Hendry, all of which should be taken with a grain of salt. look back to his statements about the acquisition of Damian Miller and Michael Barrett. they get Miller and he talked about how he likes good signal callers and defensive catchers. they get Barrett and he talked about the offensive upside. there's no consistency, other than spinning the player to be a great acquisition. I personally think he doesn't have the wrong philosophy, his problem is he doesn't have any philosophy other than lots of power pitching. that's what the evidence suggests more than anything else. ...but he acquires Lee, Aram, Nomar, Barrett etc. only by fluke or luck, not because that was what he was looking for. yeah yeah yeah. heard it all before. I'm pretty comfortable in my ability to spot when criticism goes from justified to hyperbolic.

in terms of journeymen, innings eatter, bottom of the rotation types, I like Padilla. when looking for this type of player, I think the Cubs should look for a near guaranty of filling that role as expected with 180+ innings of 90 or above ERA+, while also having the possibility of surprising and having a solid #2/3 type year.

there's definitely a catch-22 for Cub fans here. support trash and get criticized for supporting trash, protest against trash and get criticized for bashing your own team.

I think there are alot of racists out there who have no problem attributing suckitude to race when a player or manager is sucking. the sucking just brings the racism out of them. if the Cubs were competetive, Jones was performing worse and Baker performing the same, few would mention the race of the rightfielder or manager. the Cubs suck, so that bigotry comes flowing out. its much like the Mel Gibson situation. he wouldn't say anything anti-Semetic without the booze. racist Cub fans wouldn't use slurs without the lose.

The difference is there is repeated evidence that he likes Izturis. The comparison to a GM that traded for and complimented Neifi is that the team was desperate to deal for middle infield help. The Cubs weren't desperate to make a deal when they got Izturis, they weren't desperate for middle infield help either. But more importantly, Hendry has talked ad nauseam about his desire for ball catchers and he has shown repeatedly how much he likes really bad hitters. It's not just a matter of him saying he likes the guy, it's that the player so closely resembles the typical player that Hendry likes. preface - Jim Hendry's moves over the past year have infuriated me. I do not support him continuing as GM of the Cubs. the below statements are strictly meant to refute the notion that Hendry's statements regarding Izturis should be taken as truth into his mindset and the misnomer that Izturis is the type of player Hendry has sought and/or will seek. two or three days of interviews regarding the trade of Greg Maddux does not equal repeated evidence, talk ad nauseam, etc. you think Dombrowski's statements are absurd regarding trading for Neifi, imagine how much he would be talking up Neifi if he just traded a HOFer and Tigers' fan favorite. I hate the trade for Izturis, but have no idea how you don't see Hendry's words and actions as not containing a huge amount of puffing. as a couple other posters talked about earlier, three days ago you could substitute Neifi's name into your statement above. Hendry's player acquisition history with the Cubs has been so here and there, I don't know how anyone can say any player resembles the 'typical player that Hendry likes.' Hendry's first player acquisition after becoming asst. GM was Mark Bellhorn. his second was Agone at a time when the Cubs were desperate for a shortstop...any shortstop. his third was Moises and he jettisoned a Jones-esque player in Michael Tucker the same day. he's largely responsible for the acquisition of McGriff right before he became GM. Damian Miller, Karros/Grudz, Ramirez, Lofton, Barrett, Lee, Walker, Nomar. what is 'typical' about any of these guys? a little PR chatter to justify a trade, and suddenly Neifi Perez and Cesar Izturis are the "typical" guy that Hendry values? I didn't like his failure to get a better bat last offseason, but Izturis is the first player that you call the "typical player that Hendry likes" that he has ever even hinted will be a starter going into the season or after he is acquired, and the circumstances of his acquistion are vastly different that all the other players. he does seem to like aggressive hitters, but that doesn't mean he likes players who can't hit for any power or can't get on base. after 04-05, he was too desperate for a 'typical leadoff hitter,' perhaps realizing the failure of his manager to make out a lineup card. he seems to like a versatile infielder and a speed guy off the bench. injuries have caused many of these players to be on the field more than necessary, and you are using a statement he previously used, which was also nothing other than stupid PR spin, to decontextualize everything. afterall, if he liked guys who can catch the ball, his biggest target last offseason would not have been Rafael Furcal. he's not going to say "we really would've liked better in the outfield than Jones, but had a difficult time swinging a deal we thought was beneficial to the organization as a whole, and we took on a three year deal even though similar players are getting 2 year deals because we need a lefty, we're between a rock and a hard place and have the payroll to absorb his contract down the road." you have no problem not taking Hendry's word when he talks about Cub injuries, but you refuse to take anything he says regarding player acquisition with even the tiniest grain of salt.

I don't see this as a Cubs excuse. I see this as a writer's excuse and him going out to find the information to back his case.

hey, the latest excuse by proxy from the sports media....it's the fans' fault. the Cubs problem can be broken down into three seperate catagories: the GM didn't get the players the Cubs needed the manager didn't manage the players he had well enough the players didn't perform as well as they should have I'm really getting sick of the national sports media seemingly doing everything they can to direct blame away from Baker. sure, three years in a row he has not had his 'horses,' but he also managed his team to 10-15 fewer wins than the roster he still had should have been able to produce for three years in a row, all while failing at his alleged strengths, attracting talent and keeping a clubhouse in order through a 162 game season.

I don't think Hendry views Izturis as untouchable. I think he'd go in the right deal. I didn't say he was untouchable. Just that Hendry really believes he's found his SS for 2007 and won't even attempt to deal him. Now if someone makes an offer he can't refuse (Choi for Lee comes to mind) then yeah, he'd probably deal him. Make no mistake it about though, Hendry really likes Izturis. two pages ago there was a discussion about how GM's don't speak the truth about the players they acquire. the only thing we have to go on to determine Hendry's opinion of any player is what he says. taking both of these as givens, it is impossible to come to the bolded conclusion with the degree of certainty in which you state it.

maybe he figured things out and became a player, but dude looks to me to be another in the long line of players who perform way over his head for the Cardinals. his current OPS is .309 above his minor league career OPS, .235 above what he did at AAA last year, and .255 above what he did at AAA this year before being called up.