Bruce Miles

Bruce's blog: Confirmed in an article on cubs.com. You have to confirm what I've told you?

Cubs have interest: http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1527

I did not mention that, quite the opposite.

Thanks for the link. I posed the question today, and Lou made it interesting, as usual. Expect things to change, though, about 876 times.

People complain about paying Bradley because of health concerns, but let's sign Hudson (who has health concerns). :-k No need to worry either way. The Cubs have never been interested in signing Hudson.

Thanks for the link. Hendry has told me twice he feels Harden will be stronger than last year. We shall see.

I've been told today the Cubs have no interest in Hudson. Oh, and feel free to check out the blog and contribute your own selves. :D

"Young" is a relative term, I guess. Wuertz is 30. Hill is soon to be 29. Cedeno will be 26 soon. The quandary the Cubs found themselves in was that each of these players was in a situation where he was facing competition for a job while being out of minor-league options. It's likely each would be claimed on waivers at the end of spring training. At the very least, the Cubs got warm bodies for players who may or may not pan out for their new teams.

Guzman was granted another medical exemption and has an option remaining. I know I've seen that here by the most reputable posters, you, Navin, etc, but its disheartening that even cubs.com disagrees. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20081214&content_id=3717139&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc&partnerId=rss_chc It is Muskat, but still...I haven't been able to find any links confirming Guzman was granted an extra option year. I checked with the Cubs today. Guzman is indeed out of options.

debunked many times You're right, Tim. It was entirely a hypothetical.

Not happening until you get a new owner, if then. So you're saying there's a chance. . .. . . . . .. I got ya. :wink: Of course, there's a chance. I've learned never to say never when Hendry is after a guy he really wants.

They'e also posted my news story: http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=264437

Not happening until you get a new owner, if then.

I hope that Hendry has a Peavy deal in his back pocket and is ready to move on it as soon as the Cubs get a new owner. It was a good read, even as depressing as it was. I love the idea of having Marmol as the closer, but to have to compete with Kevin Gregg for the role? And unless Gregg puts together a career year, the Cubs are really going to miss Woody. Is Hendry worried about the depleted bullpen? Gregg, Cotts, & Gaudin doesn't exactly sound like a shut down bullpen in the late innings. And would a person be wrong to think that Rothschild's comments tend to be wishy washy because the Cubs actually prefer Shark in the late innings and don't want to necessarily frustrate Shark for wanting to start? Finally, Hendry's comments on Pie are discouraging. Pie has done nothing but produce at every level in the minors. I'm not an entitlement type of person, but where was the harm in giving him an actual shot at improving at the big league level? The Cubs could have eased him into the CF role instead of making hasty decisions based on 10 or so starts. I will not be surprised if Pie is traded and then excels after getting an opportunity to adjust to the mlb. Good questions. I've always found Larry to be an honest guy, and he said what he said because he doesn't know whom the Cubs will have yet. If they get Peavy or another starter and Harden is healthy, Samardzija could open in the pen or at Iowa as a starter. The Cubs know Samardzija would like to start eventually, and maybe they'd like him to do so, too, but at this point, there's no real reason for them to make any proclamations.

Lots of fun stuff on the blog today from Harry Caray's: http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1241

I don't know how many writers make their votes public. I know I'm always willing to do so. As far as the lifetime thing goes, I believe if you've been in the BBWAA for 10 years and retire or leave the business, you have a chance to pay a membership fee for a lifetime BBWAA card. No, there is no way to be certain these lifetime members are following the game, but the fact that they apply for the card suggests they might. But I don't know for sure. And it seems many fans have a problem with the way some "active" members vote.

The Cubs kick off their annual caravan tomorrow with a media event at Harry Caray's in Chicago. I believe Joey Gathright and Kevin Gregg will be there. That's probably what this is all about.

That sounds less "balanced" and leaning more toward the subjective nature of evaluating baseball. And you might want to take a look at some of the comments on this site about how many journalists still dismiss and even ridicule sabermetrics: http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/index.php/topic,65754.0.html You might even come back thinking I'm Voros McCracken by comparison. :D Don't take offense if I say I hate you for introducing me to that site. Players should be evaluated by the stats that were en vogue at the time they played. That site would be perfect for an FJM-style assault. That might be enough to bring them out of retirement. I like the guy that says Rice was basically punished for being a jerk and several voters may have always intended to eventually vote him in, but may have not voted for him for years just to let him stew. Goodness. If there are voters like that, they are in a vast minority. As I wrote in the blog, most members of the BBWAA take the responsibility very seriously. It's fine to debate the merits of their vote and their methodology, but the writers I know are very responsible. But in any crowd, there always are a few....

Hell of a good question.

That sounds less "balanced" and leaning more toward the subjective nature of evaluating baseball. And you might want to take a look at some of the comments on this site about how many journalists still dismiss and even ridicule sabermetrics: http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/index.php/topic,65754.0.html You might even come back thinking I'm Voros McCracken by comparison. :D Don't take offense if I say I hate you for introducing me to that site. Players should be evaluated by the stats that were en vogue at the time they played. That site would be perfect for an FJM-style assault. No offense taken. RIP FJM.

i encourage you to revisit alan trammell's qualifications, bruce. Been noted and will do.

That sounds less "balanced" and leaning more toward the subjective nature of evaluating baseball. And you might want to take a look at some of the comments on this site about how many journalists still dismiss and even ridicule sabermetrics: http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/index.php/topic,65754.0.html You might even come back thinking I'm Voros McCracken by comparison. :D

That sounds less "balanced" and leaning more toward the subjective nature of evaluating baseball. Well, I actually looked at some of the "comparables" to Morris over at baseballreference.com. My first thought, without looking, was Jim Bunning, a Hall of Famer. He was on the list, along with Bob Feller, Bob Gibson and Burleigh Grimes, all Hall of Famers. Then I ran the numbers. Morris' compare pretty well, except for ERA (he played in a DH era, though) and WHIP. Wow, I'm citing stats. No, I do take a balanced approached. Maybe I should have delineated all the stats I consider.

It's a good and fair question and one I'm going to have to confront pretty soon. I had always gone with the Rolling Stones song of time being on my side here when it comes to considering McGwire. But as my friend Joe Sheean of BP points out, that's probably no longer a good approach because we're probably not going to get any more info on McGwire and steroids. Can I ask why you voted for Jack Morris? The main thing I always hear about is that he was awesome in the 1991 World Series. But overall, his postseason numbers are good but not great, and I would classify his career regular season numbers as "pretty good". But definitely not HOF material. "...defintely note HOF material" is your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth. Morris: Five-time all-star; 254-186 record; 175 CG; member of three world champion teams; led all pitchers in the '80s in wins (ducks to avoid flying objects); held AL record for most consecutive starting assignments (515) before Clemens broke it; 28 shutouts. I've also talked with people such as Ernie Harwell, Sparky Anderson and Alan Trammell about Morris. To me, he qualifies. This isn't meant to be snarky, but those seem like really bad justifications for Morris. All-Star voting is a crock. It probably wasn't as bad before online voting made it so easy to vote thousands of times, but it still should have absolutely no weight in evaluating a player. I imagine there are a number of guys that won 3 WS rings that aren't good enough for the Hall. He pitched a long time and his arm could withstand going deep in games. Those are valuable things, but lots of mediocre pitchers have those abilities. He did pitch well in some WS games, but WS or not, that doesn't seem like enough to overcome the overwhelming blandness of his complete picture. Did you tell Trammell you weren't voting for him when you asked him about Morris? :wink: You're right about all-star voting being a crock. Being a pitcher, Morris wasn't subject to it. His all-star manager, based on input from other baseball people (presumably who knew the game the kind of pitcher Morris was) chose him. No, didn't tell Tram. Don't think he'd care anyway. I should have been more clear. All Star selection, generally, is a crock. Whether it's managers or fans doing the selecting. But that's a pretty minor point in Morris' candidacy. And I hope you knew I was joking about Trammell. He certainly doesn't seem like he would care. He seems like a real great guy (which makes his poor showing in HOF voting even more difficult for me to understand, I guess). Oh, I know you were kidding about Trammell. He is a great guy. When I started covering baseball in 1989, I did a story on the Tigers. Trammell was one of the best, never big-timing anybody. Sparky Anderson was tremendous, too. And I don't mind the debate about Morris, either. We've all got our points of view.

It's a good and fair question and one I'm going to have to confront pretty soon. I had always gone with the Rolling Stones song of time being on my side here when it comes to considering McGwire. But as my friend Joe Sheean of BP points out, that's probably no longer a good approach because we're probably not going to get any more info on McGwire and steroids. Can I ask why you voted for Jack Morris? The main thing I always hear about is that he was awesome in the 1991 World Series. But overall, his postseason numbers are good but not great, and I would classify his career regular season numbers as "pretty good". But definitely not HOF material. "...defintely note HOF material" is your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I try to take a balanced approach, incorporating stats, perceived dominance, how a guy helped his team win, what his teammates and opponents thought of him and so forth. Morris: Five-time all-star; 254-186 record; 175 CG; member of three world champion teams; led all pitchers in the '80s in wins (ducks to avoid flying objects); held AL record for most consecutive starting assignments (515) before Clemens broke it; 28 shutouts. I've also talked with people such as Ernie Harwell, Sparky Anderson and Alan Trammell about Morris. To me, he qualifies. This isn't meant to be snarky, but those seem like really bad justifications for Morris. All-Star voting is a crock. It probably wasn't as bad before online voting made it so easy to vote thousands of times, but it still should have absolutely no weight in evaluating a player. I imagine there are a number of guys that won 3 WS rings that aren't good enough for the Hall. He pitched a long time and his arm could withstand going deep in games. Those are valuable things, but lots of mediocre pitchers have those abilities. He did pitch well in some WS games, but WS or not, that doesn't seem like enough to overcome the overwhelming blandness of his complete picture. Did you tell Trammell you weren't voting for him when you asked him about Morris? :wink: You're right about all-star voting being a crock. Being a pitcher, Morris wasn't subject to it. His all-star manager, based on input from other baseball people (presumably who knew the game the kind of pitcher Morris was) chose him. No, didn't tell Tram. Don't think he'd care anyway.