Illini Iceman

"Hey Jose, you're starting at 2nd today." "But, my name is Freddy" "Anything you say, Jose. Now go take batting practice...... Jose." Yeah, Dusty just can't stop playing him as evidenced by the whopping 18 AB's he has this season.

No rush to trade Rusch. Perhaps he can recapture his mojo in the bullpen. If he's traded, Florida might be a nice destination - a team with little to lose that might benefit from advice from a veteran. I wouldn't wish exile in KC on anybody. exactly. give him the long relief role out of the pen & hope he gets on track. Half the teams in baseball have era's over 4.65, so it's quite likely a few of those teams will take a chance on rusch, if he looks decent in long relief. rusch had an era of 4.32 as a starter in 05 and 3.50 in 04. saying rusch had little value at the end of 2005 is just hyperbole. the numbers from 04 & 05 say otherwise. Rusch is fine as the long reliever and spot starter when they need an extra guy for a double header or due to a minor injury. He seems to have done pretty well with that role in the past. ASSUMING that Wood and Prior come back healthy in May why would we want Guzman and/or Hill rotting at the end of the bullpen instead of gaining pitching experience and innings in Iowa? If Rusch turns it around he may gain some value so they shouldn't just give him away for nothing now. Maybe it would make sense if there was a fantastic reliever in AAA that was being held back but Wuertz would be no great improvement (if any) over what Rusch can provide.

Good question, although both have done well at AAA so far. If Pagan goes on the DL I would say Aardsma might come up as the 12th pitcher now that they are back to a 5 man rotation.

As a parent you are responsible for monitoring your kid's internet activity. Nice try. Just seems strange to me that a guy that is so worried about respecting women would have that avatar. Did your dad take you to too many NFL games with those evil cheerleaders during your childhood?

I hope you are correct - as long as it is in RF.

I'm sorry Mr. T&A. Some people don't wish to subject their kids to scantily clad women at a sporting event. BTW, they're not 18 and able to legally decide for themselves. If the ballpark wasn't a family venue, I'd say go for it. Girls dancing on the dugout doesn't enhance my baseball experience, only those pathetic individuals not happy with the women in their lives (if they exist). You buy a baseball ticket to...watch baseball. :shock: Amazing. Revolutionary. So are you saying the NFL and NBA aren't family venues. I'd say drunks shouting obsenities is more an affront to my children than those women. No, the NFL and NBA aren't family venues. If drunks are shouting obsenities, you need to ask them to keep it down. I've never had a problem with it. If you let them carry on in front of your children, that's your problem. You've never sat in the bleachers have you? And you actually don't think the NFL is a family venue? I'm guessing you don't like PG movies either. Yes I have sat in the bleachers. I wouldn't bring my kids there. The problem with the cheerleaders (standing on top of the dugout) is that is where the tourists sit with their families, if you haven't noticed. No, the NFL isn't a family venue for the most part, depending on where you sit (and what stadium). If you're far away from the cheerleaders and away from the drunks, it's perfectly ok for kids. I don't care that people want to drink and look at chicks. Fine. Just don't do it around my kids. I'd rather my kids grow up respecting women. My kid is looking at your avatar and it offends me that you would subject him to that. Now he won't respect women.

With a lefty on the mound does Dusty dare sit Walker? I hope not.

I second this entire post. Exactly what I was thinking. Does anyone take kids to the ballpark? Is it a family experience? Go to the strip club w/o your kids. The cheerleaders are going to be stripping? If so, then that is a definite problem. If not, then I don't see the problem. Cheerleaders don't affect the "family" atmosphere in the NFL, college football, college basketball, etc. This seems like quite an overreaction. I have two kids and wouldn't even think twice about taking them to a sporting event with cheerleaders. Am I missing something?

Great, now the first time he gets in a game and throws a scoreless inning there is going to a thread about it like there is for all the other ex-Cubs prospects that have any early success.

This is the best spot they could find for the group photo? At the receiving dock wedged between an SUV and the fence? Looks like they are really running a first class operation there!

Actually I think complaining about a fishing analogy is nitpicking at it's finest but this is probably a close second.

Yes, in fact, he is terrible. In a recent Baseball Prospectus article, he appeared as the #12 worst offensive baseball player since 1900. He is an ideal late-innings replacement or backup shortstop, but he shouldn't be starting. I don't think anyone here hates him - it's not that he kicks babies or eats puppies - but, like lots here say, I hate the way Dusty uses him. Neifi shouldn't start, but when he does, he shouldn't be anywhere near the 2 slot. Neifi is a far from good offensive player but #12 worst since 1900 is absolutely ridiculous. I could probably think of 12 former Cubs in the last 10 years who were worse than him. I'd like to know what kind of criteria were used becuase I've seen this quoted on here a few times. It has to be based on have a large number of ABs and disregard position or something. I'm sure it was park-adjusted. Someone who has gotten 57% of his career at bats with the Rockies having Neifi's career numbers is very very bad. Yeah that's a good point. That being said, I still can't say I would rather have Paul Bako, Curtis Goodwin, Augie Ojeda, Manny Alexander, Sandy Martinez, Jeff Huson, Chad Meyers, Eric Yelding or Steve Lake bat than him just to name a few. I think if forced to choose I would also select Neifi over Mick Kelleher.

If they were "crap" pitchers wouldn't you want them to stay in the game as long as possible?

The original claim was that nobody knew who he was. That's disingenuos. And who cares how many fans knew, they still gave him up. People want to applaud him for getting Matt Murton, who was a relatively unheard of prospect (and I think he does deserve praise for that). But then you also have to criticize him for giving up Willis. It doesn't matter if fans knew him, or if we thought well of him. Jim had the inside info. That wasn't the point of the convo as I remember it. In any case, you have to give value to get value. Clement was good during his stay with us. Willis has been for the most part better than Clement was (Willis' 2004 was, at best, average), but I for one won't kill JH for taking that risk. I am mainly upset with JH for the things he has failed to do. If the Cubs don't make the trade they don't win the division without Clement and therefore would not have made the playoffs. In retrospect you could argue that not making the playoffs would have been a good thing considering the NLCS anguish involved, but that is another story all together.

True. I can't believe the Braves actually put Remilinger on their opening day 25 man roster. I guess his ERA of 5.56 in ST this year showed them that last year was a fluke and he still has something left in the tank. :?

Show off! :wink:

Bobby Abreu

Meh. JVB would be so far down the pecking order at this point that it is not very likely he would be of any usefulness to the big league club. As it is now when (if?) Wood, Prior, and Miller are healthy guys like Williams and Wuertz might be in jeopardy of being squeezed out of spots.

Hendry has moved a lot of pitchers off his 40 man roster in the last few months: Leicester Van Buren Pinto Mitre Nolasco Wellemeyer Koronka Since all except Nolasco and probably Pinto were marginal prospects and/or out of options IMO it was a pretty good accomplishment that he was able to actually get something for each of these guys instead of needing to outright release any of them. Overall I would hope that this will help development of other pitchers in the system by not having AAA clogged with pitchers that don't have much future with the team due to their advanced age or limited potential.

It has nothing to do with Koronka. It's that we have six middle infielders on the active roster and something has to give. And it better not be Walker. It was Theriot if not Bynum so the overall 25 man roster mix does not change much. I don't believe there's any need to have another middle infielder in the system, including as backup for the big league team. And Theriot was only going to be on the team until they added another pitcher (most likely when Wood was going to be actived). There wouldn't be a need to carry Bynum, Neifi, and Hairston throughout the season. If nobody else gets moved, this doesn't make much sense to me. Bynum was added to the 40-man on Cubs.com. Does anyone remember Hairston being listed as an outfielder before? I would say it lets Theriot develop a bit at AAA instead of rotting at the end of the bench getting only a couple at bats a week. Plus, Bynum is a poor man's Chone Figgins, right! :lol:

It has nothing to do with Koronka. It's that we have six middle infielders on the active roster and something has to give. And it better not be Walker. It was Theriot if not Bynum so the overall 25 man roster mix does not change much.

I can't believe anyone would be disappointed about anything Hendry would get for Koronka. Most people here thought he should have been outright released off the 40 man in the offseason. I made my one visit to Wrigley last year and was lucky enough to see the classic Koronka vs. Willis duel. Aaah, the precious memories of the Kornonka era in Chicago.

http://www.chicagosuntimes.com/output/cubs/cst-spt-kiley31.html

That's easy: Juan Cruz. He had good numbers as a starter, then Dusty put him in the bullpen where he sucked, and unfortunately the reliever label has stuck to him. Cruz' career could have taken a whole different trajectory if Dusty had displayed as much patience with him as a starter as was given to Shawn Estes. Ha! That's pretty funny. The two great organizations in ATL and OAK both gave up on Cruz because of the "reliever label Dusty stuck to him"? Maybe it is instead just because he was overated and not that good. Nah, blame it on Dusty.

Carrie Muskat stepping out and making a statement! No maybe? No possibly? He HAS been switched to long man. :-k http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060330&content_id=1374738&vkey=spt2006gamer&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc EDIT: I see it on cubs.com in the notes article and also confirmed in a few other threads so I guess it is true. I like it.