biittner77

All I can say is...WOW. You're done, Todd. Might as well get something of value and write this season off. Do you really expect him to come out and say, "yeah, this season is over. We don't have a chance. Let's pack it in and wait till next year." I don't think that would go over very well. Let me ask you this Willis, if Walker had said, ""yeah, this season is over. We don't have a chance. Let's pack it in and wait till next year," would you agree with him? As fans, we can admit that the season is over. The players however have to keep playing and I want them to believe they still have a chance. At the very least they must tell reporters they still have a chance even if they don't actually believe it. As for trading Walker, unless they get somebody really good it would be a mistake. What Walker provides offensively at the price for which he provides it the Cubs would be foolish to trade him now unless someone knocks their socks off- not easy to do in a post deadline deal. Who needs a second baseman that has something the Cubs want?

Another factor to consider in evaluating position players is the transition from aluminum to wood bats. That alone has ruined many prospects. Ty Griffin comes to mind.

It almost sounds as though Murton is the player that the Cubs wanted Patterson to be. So now the plan is to have Murton try to become more like Patterson and Patterson to continue trying to be more like Murton. Brilliant. Actually, like a lot of what Baker says it can be taken in many different ways depending on how you feel about Baker. Considering that Murton has room to grow into his body he could develop more power. Baker was probably alluding to that.

Then go ahead and say it. A week after it happens, who'll know/ remember the person's name? "Remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it's true."- George Costanza

If the Sept. games are meaningful, Hill will provide a valuable arm from the BP. If the Cubs fall out of contention- which could happen this week, next week or not at all- I still don't see Hill getting more than 1-2 starts anyway. A 3 game losing streak would effectively end any slim chance at the WC but that would not signal the end of the Cubs trying to win games. To us the games would seem meaningless but they aren't to people like Baker and Hendry since winning games is how they are judged. Baker has already shown that he's not going to disrespect a veteran by playing a younger player. Hendry remember is the guy that said it was more important to start McGriff so he could reach a meaningless record than to give PT and ABs to Choi. So it will likely be at least 3 weeks before the Cubs start thinking about next year. So what are the priorities? The Cubs have big decisions to make on Mitre and Wellemeyer whereas they already know that Hill figures in their plans next season.

Shouldn't it be a Harvey Wall banger? Has more pizzazz.

Did anyone notice how cubs-like the Astros looked in this series? -Blowout win in game one then struggle to score runs -rarely took more than a coupls pitches per AB -made bad defensive plays -wasted decent outings by their good pitchers -struggled with men on base I wonder if seeing another team with the same horrible approach could make an impression, ie. make the Cubs reconsider their free swinging ways?

Didn't I read somewhere that Greenberg's back in Mesa, still recuperating from the beanball? I feel really bad for him, and hope he recovers soon... I seem to remember that too. I think the article I read said he'd be a Sept. call up if all goes well.

Why is corey patterson all of a sudden a lock in center field?....the guy hasn't changed his swing very much..before .232/.379/.270 through 8 games .236/.388/.274 , the other night he struck out on a fastball at his head and a ball in the dirt to andy pettite, patterson should platoon with hairston Because defense in CF is really important. If Hairston doesn't get to a ball it's a double. From a defensive standpoint it's very hard to give up CF defense because the result is more extra base hits, more runners in scoring position and ultimately more runs. If Greenberg was ready perhaps they'd give him a chance. For the time being Patterson should be the starting CF and take whatever offense he provides as a bonus. That's the advantage of having a catcher and a SS that can hit.

I'd trade/ release Hollandsworth. Demoting Wellemeyer makes too much sense. The Cubs will demote Murton. Hairston platoons with Lawton, making the lineup vs. LH starters look like this: LF Hairston 2nd Neifi F. Perez Lee Ramirez Nomar Barrett Burnitz/ Macias Patterson Lawton and Walker against RH pitchers.

If I had my druthers, I'd keep him AND sign another starter or TWO, because I don't trust Wood's shoulder or whatever it may be next year. (I'm sure I'm not alone there.) Also, now that I finally understand the evil demon that Larry Himes was, I'd be really ticked to see the org screw Maddux again. And it's not like Maddux is washed up. Yes, he does drive me nuts when he gives up multiple HRs in a game, but as I have said before, he still has the uncanny ability to bring the big game just when it's most needed. And his first half was better this year, I THINK - he stepped it up with Wood and Prior out. And the second half is still pretty darn good. Heck, at worst we have a steady innings-eater at the 3rd-5th spot in the rotation. So it's $9 mil - but we have other better players at less than that - I figure it evens out. Plus, if we can pay Sammy $16 mil not to be a Cub and Alou whatever we paid him in severance, $9 mil for a consistently healthy and dependable SP (crossed fingers) is a bargain. What's the commotion? I guess a lot of people here would rather spend that money on Burnett. The decision is out of the Cubs' hands so the point is moot. Maddux will probably be back and the Cubs likely won't suffer too much from having him around. Do they retire his number when he makes the HOF?

Actually, these claims and non claims make sense. Claimed: Patterson: young enough and worth claiming Perez: bad enough that the Cubs wouldn't mind trading him but good enough to appear valuable Rusch: LH pitcher that can spot start Unclaimed: Walker: other teams don't believe the Cubs would be dumb enough to trade him Hollandsworth: not much value

The sportswriters and vets are usually pretty traditional. It seems to me that there will be a backlash against anyone suspected of juicing. Thus it should help the cause of anyone from the pre streoids era. The question is how much. The case for Dawson in the HOF rests on two things. First, the only players with 300 SB and 300+ HRs are Mays, Bonds, Bonds and Dawson. Second, his career was cut short by injuries. But he didn't hit 500 HRs or get 3000 hits. His numbers didn't look as impressive when compared to Palmeiro. That is, until Palmeiro tested positive.

I'm interested to see how Palmeiro's positive test affects voters attitudes.

A few months ago McGwire was getting lambasted for not denying steroid use. Meanwhile Palmeiro was adamantly denying using steroids and then tests positive.

Last year Sosa was saying he wanted to play 3-4 more seasons. I'd be very surprised if he did retire. Someone will sign him. I'm sure he thinks his lack of success this year is due to the injuries and to changing leagues. At this point another bad season (or half season if he's really bad) won't hurt his legacy too much. If he does have a resurgent year then people will maybe not remember the corked bat as much.

In light of recent events, whose chances of entering the HOF were hurt more?

I guess that's good news for Iowa Cub fans that wanted to see Matt Murton in person. Or anyone that wanted Murton to get some PT.

Historically, the WC team has had to win at least 93 games. I haven't looked it up but I'm not sure any team has won the WC with less than 90. While the East teams may beat each other up there's also a chance that one will emerge and will build a lead to the point where the Cubs can't catch them. The Cubs have 10 games remaining against Houston. To make up the ground on them they have to win 8 of those games. The last problem is that when the contenders play each other the Cubs can gain ground on one but will be treading water against the other. Every game that burns off the schedule hurts the Cubs and helps the teams in front of them.

The problem is that 3/4 isn't good enough. The Cubs need to play .800 ball in order to win the 93-95 games it's going to take to win the WC. I'm not sure if any team has ever maintained that level of play for that long of a stretch.

Just to clarify as there seems to be a lot of confusion: Hill is not anything like Randy Johnson in terms of talent. The comparison to Randy Johnson was his age. I think we've become spoiled as Cub fans that we've broken in some young pitchers who made there debut in their early 20s. Many many pitchers don't figure it out that early or their bodies haven't matured enough to make that jump. The fatc that Hill is 25 does not mean that he's all that old for a pitching prospect. Hill is not anything like Carlos Zambrano in terms of talent. I used Zambrano as an example of the general impatience of fans. In 2001 Zambrano couldn't get people out very consistently and many fans wanted to dump him. MacPhail and Hendry were smart enough not to do that. Hendry sees a lot of potential in Hill. If he thinks Hill is going to be very good then I trust his judgement on the matter. Hendry is usually pretty good about evaluating his own minor league talent. Back to the original aspect of this thread, Dunn is not a Hendry type player. Hendry seems to place a lot of emphasis on BA, favoring it to OBP. He probably should value OBP more highly but he doesn't and has said so (to Hoops at the convention "I don't pay much attention to OBP" or words to that effect) Dunn would also be expensive in terms of prospects and Hendry doesn't like to overpay.

See, that's why they don't have a playoff in college football. Isn't it more fun to be able to debate who the real champion was?

You should change that name to Bigots rather than segregationists. It's hard to understand if you haven't lived in the South but segregation is in many ways self imposed. Also resistance to integration was not unique to the South. People in northern cities like Boston for example protested quite vocally. Actually, there are people here that believe integration was a big masitake and many of them are black. The theory goes that the all black schools had a black principal and black teachers. As a result there was a more profound sense of community. Also, kids were surrounded by positive role models, especially male ones. I'm not sure if that outweighs the disadvantages that the black schools had to deal with (hand me down textbooks, lack of materials, etc.) but there are many people that thought they had taken a step down in quality when they had to leave their all black school. Just something to consider.

I respectfully disagree. Are you going to refute anything I say or are you just disagreeing? What do you want me to say? I like you guys over here, and have been posting here for a long time. I don't see any reason to kick someone when they're down, you guys are struggling and that's painful enough. I just think it's a little far fetched to start talking post season when you've won 1 game after losing 8 straight. If you look at the original post there are 8 things listed that all have to happen for the Cubs to have a chance. It's a pretty small chance but it's still a chance. Pie in the sky optimism would be to say the Cubs are in the driver's seat or even to say "I like our chances". It's not very likely and I don't see where anyone is saying they are confident of a playoff birth. At the same time, you of all people should know that strange things happen in baseball. Your team was given up for dead last season and came back to win the WC. Heck, your team was given up for dead this season and leads the WC. Then again, you came here more or less stating that you didn't believe your team could do it last year, saying something to the effect of "Thanks for getting our hopes up" after the ill fated (for Cubs' fans) series. As virtually the only Astros fan that posts here your thoughts on that particular subject stand out. At the time I would have agreed with you that the Astros didn't have much of a chance. I don't believe the combination of things that need to happen will. I certainly hope that we're both wrong again.

THis reminds me of 2001 when everyone thought Juan Cruz was the next Pedro Martinez and Carlos Zambrano should be selling used cars. The point is that when you have a starting pitcher that you think could be great its better to hold on to him even if he struggles early on. How many of the fans that were screaming for Zambrano to be traded "while he still had value" (in other words before he had much value) wisj the Cubs had traded Zambrano? I'm sure someone will bring up Guzman as someone the Cubs held onto for too long but we'll forget about holding on to Guzman too long a lot earlier than we'll stop regretting the Dontrelle Willis trade. The important difference between Hill and Zambrano (and Willis, too) is age. Zambrano is currently younger than Hill. Certainly that is a factor. But Hill is 25 not 35. Randy Johonson didn't figure it out until his late 20s. Also, since Hill is LH he will retain value for his potential longer as MLB teams are seemingly always desparate for LH pitching.