Illini Iceman

Like who - Restovich, Theriot, Sing? Or maybe Pie so the people here can complain for a decade about how he was rushed.

Yeah! Bring up some kids! Murton, Marshall, Guzman, Hill, Ryu and Marmol have been awesome!! We need more guys like that to come up and less guys like Walker, Jones, ARam and Prior and then we will be great next year! The Cubs have given plenty of kids chances this year. So far the only one that looks like he is ready to do anything is Cedeno, and I can guarantee if Neifi had those same numbers people would be saying how awful they are. Get some kids that are ready to be productive at the major league level then I will be all for bring them up.

I think the move will be to DFA Womack. He has gotten very little playing time lately and when he has played his results have regressed quite a bit from the hot start he had. Also, he is a LH second baseman and with Lee back they already have Walker for that role since they won't need him to play 1B any more. He could also play some OF but he brings almost exactly the same things to the table as Bynum so again he would be redundant. Murton has started each of the last three games and I would think that if they were planning to send him down they would have started putting other guys out there as a signal that he was on the way out. Personally, I still have higher hopes for Murton than for Cedeno, despite the fact that Cedeno seems to have adjusted more quickly to the big league competition. Murton has a very good eye and does a nice job of hitting to the opposite field when he is pitched away. I think he can make some adjustments and be a Mark Grace type of hitter. As long as the Cubs can get power out of some other positions (1B, 3B, RF, C, maybe even CF with Pie) he would be a nice #3 or #6 hitter even if he only is good for about 15-20 HR's per year.

Ozzie pulled a pitcher from a game and demoted him because he would not bean an opposing player then lied about it to reporters because he was afraid he would get suspended and be held accountable for his actions. Then, a few days later, he make a homosexual slur at Mariotti then makes up a bogus excuse about the meaning of the word to avoid getting in trouble and being held accountable for his actions. If in Ozzie's world "[expletive]" means coward, then I guess the word applies to him as well.

What difference does it make if he's doing well right now. Jones has done well over short periods quite often in his career. The point is he's not good overall. If I had any confidence that he'd maintain this level of production for three years, I'd be all for holding onto him and his contract. The problem is that he is past his prime, and his career path makes it very unlikely that he will maintain these numbers. He is not going to be a core player on any solid Cubs team. I am not thrilled by Jones, so it would not bother me to see him traded if they got something back of value. My objection is more to the concept of giving him away for nothing as a salary dump.

The Cubs are not a small market team and shouldn't need to do a "salary dump" of $5M per year contract. Instead of giving away a guy that is doing pretty well they should hold on to him for the season and try to upgrade other positions over the winter. If there was a run producing LF with power in the Cubs lineup Jones would be a nice complimentary player in the 7 hole. The problem is not Jones or the amount they are paying him, it is the production in the rest of the lineup. With Maddux and most likely Wood and Pierre off the books next year the Cubs should have enough in the budget to go after a quality starting pitcher and LF'er. Whether Hendry can pull it off or not is another question, but Jones not being here will not make it any easier, it would just give Hendry one more hole to fill.

I love this thread almost as much as last year's Sisco one. It is pretty depressing to know that we let two HOF players go in two years. I mean, I know there is no Sisco thread getting bumped this year but that must just mean that people are over it, not that he has an ERA of 7.98 or anything like that.

San Francisco?

One more reason to get rid of the 7th inning stretch singers. This is just like Ozzie's little act a couple years ago. It is all about self promotion. Maybe it will start an escalation of who can use the most vile language without the Cubs permission during their rendition. Bring on Andrew Dice Clay, another shining example of how swearing makes you hilarious to a certain fan base, and I am sure he will really show it to "the man". Ugh... Relax-it was one word. I'm sure kids have heard a lot worse from their friends, neighbors, and relatives. I am not personally offended, and I am sure that no kids will be scarred for life, but that does not make it acceptable or appropriate. When you accept an invitation as a guest to someone's home or place of business the least you can do is show some respect to your host. Cursing after giving your word that you would not is not only disrespectful but it shows a lack of character. It definitely is not behavior worth celebrating.

One more reason to get rid of the 7th inning stretch singers. This is just like Ozzie's little act a couple years ago. It is all about self promotion. Maybe it will start an escalation of who can use the most vile language without the Cubs permission during their rendition. Bring on Andrew Dice Clay, another shining example of how swearing makes you hilarious to a certain fan base, and I am sure he will really show it to "the man".

Another dinger off Glendon Marshall.

Are you Truffle's sister or something?

I have heard that somewhere before.

1 more inning to go, it would be a terrible shame to steal ribbies from Hammerin' Hank. Just because the Cubs could use one of their patented 1-2-3 innings with about 5 pitches they will probably start taking walks next inning.

Marshall has been doing a pretty good Glendon Rusch imitation over his last 5 or so starts (other than that one good one against Houston). He doesn't eat a 6 pack of Twinkies between innings though. I wouldn't care if he ate a 12 pack of Twinkies if he could get guys out. If Marshall keeps strugging I wonder if there is any consideration of keeping Marmol or Guzman as the 5th starter once Prior and Wood are both back in rotation hopefully by the all star break and sending Marshall down?

Marshall has been doing a pretty good Glendon Rusch imitation over his last 5 or so starts (other than that one good one against Houston).

I'm game. So when Steve Kline suggest that Mark Prior get hit by one, it's wrong, and it's okay for two of us to say it. I'm becoming less and less proud to be a Cub fan with comments lke this. There's a 4-page thread on Ozzie Guillen, a manager with a World Series ring and a competitive team this year, and it's all negative. So many "real" Cub fans talk about how obsessed with the Cubs Sox fans are, and how they're fickle, and don't exist. Judging by this section of the board and half the people that are/were Cub "fans," many of us aren't too far from that either. I feel like making some of you feel like that Sox pitcher last night. Grow up. I find it real tough to criticize a manager who just brought a World Series to a town where our manager does nothing but underachieve and make excuses. Yes, it was wrong, but how many of you wouldn't trade Guillen for Baker? You can have them both and I will take what is behind curtain #3.

Crawford is signed to a relatively long term deal. $2.5 million in 2006, $4 million in 2007 and $5.25 million in 2008. Tampa Bay has an $8.25 million option for 2009 with a $2.5 million buyout. If the Devil Rays exercise that option, the team gets a $10 million option for 2010 with a $1.25 million buyout. In addition, the contract includes escalators that could boost Crawford's salary to $11.5 million in the final year. This is a big reason why the Rays will not trade him unless they are blown away by an offer.

Don't forget after his first rehab start, the leader of the Mark Prior Chicken Little army chimed in with this: From Will Carroll at BP:

for one, that wasn't your point. your argument was that rusch has been "really good" 75% of the time...not that he had been "good" more often than not. secondly, instead of arguing over what constitutes a good or really good outing, how about we just look at his overall numbers, which are awful. No, abuck, that was my point. I originally used the stat, albeit a subjective one, that Rusch has been good about 75% of his time with the Cubs going into this season, to make the point that he may turn things around by the trade deadline and actually have some trade value. I then used it to show how people were forgetting how good he was for much of his time with the Cubs. I broke down his numbers to give the argument more specificity. But to look at good outings vs. bad outings isn't the best barometer because every pitcher is up and down even in a really good year. I'm all for looking at overall numbers going into this season so long as we do it with a certain amount of specificity. Just looking at the numbers a pitchers has at year's end doesn't always tell the whole story. But lets start by just doing that. Do you call 2004 a "good" year for Rusch or a "not good" year? I call 6-2, 3.47 good. Did he have his bad outings? Yes. Do I feel comfortable calling all of his 32 appearances good? No, and that's how I got into the other way of looking at it. But, over all, 2004 was good. Now how about 2005? Some great, some good, some really bad. And it wasn't all inconsistent and jumbled together either which is weird. If he had wound up with his overall numbers 9-8 4.52 by being up and down from game to game all year long, I would call the year "not good" on the whole. But he was excellent for the first two months plus and then fell apart. This falling apart period hurt the Cubs and it definetly counts against him. And if he had never returned to his 2004 form throughout the entire month of September, I don't think the Cubs should have resigned him this past off season. But he did. He was excellent from the beginning of the season until June 12th and then basically bad until August 31st, and then consistently good the entire month of September. That's over half the calendar season in which he was consistently good or excellent. That can't be ignored just like we shouldn't ignore how bad he has been this season or for the two and half months last year. But because his 2005 season was so night and day with him being so good in parts of it and so bad in others and because he got it back at the end, it seems inaccurate to me to call it a "not good" season overall. I think it would be more accurate to call it "half good". So, you put a good season in 2004 with a half good season in 2005 and you get 75% of the time. Now that is so unscientific that I had to go with the other method, but that's the way I see his overall numbers. How do you see them? I remember him having some really good stretches in the starting rotation in '04 and '05. That being said, whatever magic fairy dust he found for those stretches must have run out because I can not imagine a pitcher looking worse than Rusch has for most of this year. I have seen less hard hit balls in batting practice than in his last start against the Reds.

Yesterday it was Dusty's fault Dempster struggled because he had not pitched him in 7 days and today it is Dusty's fault that Dempster struggled because he is pitching him too much. Ok....

It's crossed my mind. At least he made the majors, which puts him ahead of many a minor league player. Thanks Tim McCarver.

I would prefer a little personal responsibility. I assume he can get work in the bullpen between appearances. There is no excuse for 3 walks in 4 batters. because work in the bullpen is the same as being in a game? No, because having a few more days off than usual is no excuse for not being able to throw strikes with the bases loaded when you are almost 20 pitches into an inning. He had four walks combined in his two recent blown saves. He was getting plenty of work then. Blaming the layoff on his control problems is convenient but not necessarily accurate.

Common, the correct word is lose :P

I would prefer a little personal responsibility. I assume he can get work in the bullpen between appearances. There is no excuse for 3 walks in 4 batters.