Bruce Miles

So would Jones play center or platoon with Murton? I ask these questions and Cubs people remind me the season doesn't start for almost three more months. As of now, and this could change, it appears that Jones will play center and there will be a Murton/somebody time-share (not necessarily platoon) in left. But one trade or one injury between now and April 2 changes the whole picture. Does Pie control his own destiny to some extent this spring? Yes, he does. I don't see him opening the season with the big club, but it isn't out of the question.

So would Jones play center or platoon with Murton? I ask these questions and Cubs people remind me the season doesn't start for almost three more months. As of now, and this could change, it appears that Jones will play center and there will be a Murton/somebody time-share (not necessarily platoon) in left. But one trade or one injury between now and April 2 changes the whole picture.

Any word on Jacque Jones? Think he's gonna be a Cub when the season starts? Hard to tell. Ideally, I'm sure the Cubs would like to move him and his (by this off-season's financial standards) moveable contract. But they've gotten nothing for guys like Sosa and Patterson in the past, so I'm sure they're not just going to give Jacque away. He can be a pretty serviceable player in a lineup that has Soriano, Barrett, Lee, Ramirez and Murton (yes, Murton!) all healthy and producing. Bruce, with the recent injury to rivera, is there any likelyhood of a jones for figgins swap that has been suggested? I don't see this trade happening. I'd rather have Jones.

Any word on Jacque Jones? Think he's gonna be a Cub when the season starts? Hard to tell. Ideally, I'm sure the Cubs would like to move him and his (by this off-season's financial standards) moveable contract. But they've gotten nothing for guys like Sosa and Patterson in the past, so I'm sure they're not just going to give Jacque away. He can be a pretty serviceable player in a lineup that has Soriano, Barrett, Lee, Ramirez and Murton (yes, Murton!) all healthy and producing. If he does stay, is he going to center or would Soriano? From Day One, the Cubs said they got Soriano to play right. I believe it will stay that way.

Any word on Jacque Jones? Think he's gonna be a Cub when the season starts? Hard to tell. Ideally, I'm sure the Cubs would like to move him and his (by this off-season's financial standards) moveable contract. But they've gotten nothing for guys like Sosa and Patterson in the past, so I'm sure they're not just going to give Jacque away. He can be a pretty serviceable player in a lineup that has Soriano, Barrett, Lee, Ramirez and Murton (yes, Murton!) all healthy and producing.

Only 39 days until I leave for spring training. I'll come up with something soon. I'd say "patience," but this is a Cubs fan board and nobody want to hear "patience."

It's going to be a long time before you see pieces in the mainstream media that are akin to what they do in BP and the Hardball Times. Now and then, yes, but not regularly. And with some good reason. While most of the people here are in-tune with sabermetrics and the like, you must remember that this is a very specialized board and that many in the general public don't have the foggiest notion of what things like VORP are. Nor do they care to learn. I had an older reader ask me what OPS was. Another asked why I was constantly "carrying on" about on-base percentage. The job of the baseball writer in the newspaper is to tell a story. Sometimes that story revolves around stats. Other times it centers on human interest or injury or intrigue of some sort. On top of that, you have very limited space with which to work in the paper. (As more papers focus more on their Web sites, that problem will be alleviated somewhat, thankfully.) I still have to write for a general audience and bring many of them along slowly when it comes to some of the newer thinking that's shaping the game. A few thoughts about Bruce's post: 1. "The job of the baseball writer in the newspaper is to tell a story." I'm pretty sure we can expand that statement to cover all sports writers in newspapers and other forms of media. I'd personally like to strangle Dick Ebersol (and others like him) for his role in emphasizing storytelling over the athletic event itself. I think it's great that a 15-year-old swimmer from Belarus overcame cancer and dyslexia on her way to the Olympics, but that doesn't mean that I'd rather watch a smarmy ten-minute documentary about her struggles instead of the actual freestyle race. Also, the need to tell a story produces some very questionable cause and effect relationships between off-field events and on-field events. When Rex Grossman throws three interceptions, it's not because he didn't read the defenses correctly, it's because he has a punctured soul and a cracked psyche. When the hits weren't falling for Aramis in the first part of 2006, it had nothing to do with BABIP, it's because he doesn't have the guts and leadership ability to put the team on his back with Derrek Lee hurt. If a sports writer feels the need to do a story on who Derek Jeter is dating or what Ryan Church's religious beliefs or Carl Everett's thoughts on dinosaurs, that's fine. But don't tell me there's a correlation between dating Jennifer Biel and fielding grounders at shortstop. Don't tell me that the Nationals stink because of "bad chemistry" in the clubhouse. Don't tell me that Everett's weird personal beliefs have anything to do with hitting a fastball. 2. It is possible to tell a story to a wide audience without producing total drivel. Integrity (artistic or otherwise) does not preclude commercial success or widespread appeal. The Departed and Scary Movie 4 put up similar box office numbers, for example. I don't dislike Muskat's work because she writes for a broad audience. I dislike her work because she is an unabashed apologist for the Cubs organization. 3. The Bill Plaschkes, Jay Mariottis, and Carrie Muskats of this world make me appreciate writers like Bruce all the more. Sure, he's not going into the same depth as guys like Dan Fox or Nate Silver, but it would be inappropriate to do so considering his audience. Thanks for the thoughtful post, Cheapseats. You make great points, and I appreciate them and take them to heart. You're right, you can tell a "story" and still make it relevant without reducing it to meaningless drivel. In fact, that's REAL storytelling and it's what we in the media should be striving to do every day. Great insight.

Now that hurts. Why do I feel like the guy in the GEICO commercial? Well, I'll be 50 in April, and the guy who asked about OPS is in his late 60s. The guy that said I was "carrying on" about on-base percentage claimed to be a Cubs fan for 60 years. Were these questions sent to you via telegraph? Actually, one guy asked me in person and another sent his via the U.S. Mail. I don't even remember how to send a letter anymore.

Now that hurts. Why do I feel like the guy in the GEICO commercial? Well, I'll be 50 in April, and the guy who asked about OPS is in his late 60s. The guy that said I was "carrying on" about on-base percentage claimed to be a Cubs fan for 60 years.

It's going to be a long time before you see pieces in the mainstream media that are akin to what they do in BP and the Hardball Times. Now and then, yes, but not regularly. And with some good reason. While most of the people here are in-tune with sabermetrics and the like, you must remember that this is a very specialized board and that many in the general public don't have the foggiest notion of what things like VORP are. Nor do they care to learn. I had an older reader ask me what OPS was. Another asked why I was constantly "carrying on" about on-base percentage. The job of the baseball writer in the newspaper is to tell a story. Sometimes that story revolves around stats. Other times it centers on human interest or injury or intrigue of some sort. On top of that, you have very limited space with which to work in the paper. (As more papers focus more on their Web sites, that problem will be alleviated somewhat, thankfully.) I still have to write for a general audience and bring many of them along slowly when it comes to some of the newer thinking that's shaping the game.

Other options were also to not have added others to the 40 man, wasting spots on crap players like Walrond, Bynum, Pagan, and Womack. Pagan was the only one of these players on the 40-man at the start of spring training last year. Walrond was a non-roster invitee to spring training. They got Bynum in a trade at the end of spring training, and Womack showed up whenever he showed up during the season.

No, she doesn't. She gets a Hall of Fame vote based on 10 years or more of BBWAA membership before joining mlb.com. Active members of the BBWAA vote for Cy Young, MVP and the like. Carrie was a BBWAA member from her days as a wire-service reporter for UPI and AP.

Was it Hendry? Yes. Hope you're having a great holiday season, Bruce. Thank. I am. I've been on vacation since December 14. I had the time coming, and if I don't use it, I lose it. I'll be back at it this coming week, and the Cubs Convention is less than three weeks away.

Was it Hendry? Yes.

Don't you read the boards? He's this years Jacque Jones. He can do no good and will be run out of town at the end of the season. Since you've got a cool hockey thing going, I likened the No. 21 situation to a couple of other hockey things in a column last Tuesday. http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/beatwriters.asp?column=miles Excellent column. I think it's no big deal if Jason Marquis wears number 21 or not. But as you said in your column he'll be under enough pressure. Thanks. It was one of those off-the-cuff things I did just for fun. I look for the Cubs and Sammy to kiss and make up, perhaps sooner rather than later. Too many good things happened along the way.

Don't you read the boards? He's this years Jacque Jones. He can do no good and will be run out of town at the end of the season. Since you've got a cool hockey thing going, I likened the No. 21 situation to a couple of other hockey things in a column last Tuesday. http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/beatwriters.asp?column=miles

Exactly. And when it's all said and done, I believe the point will be moot. My guess is that Marquis won't mess with 21 and the Cubs eventually will retire it.

While we're at it, can people stop calling Jason Marquis (or anybody, for that matter) a "douchebag?" What has he done? Nowhere has he been quoted saying he wants No. 21. It's all been speculation. Let's see what happens.

Much like Superman, the best martial artists must know when to pull their punches. ;) Why do you think Sisco only ended up with a broken hand? :D (Although, I heard Sisco took a swing at Ryu and missed pretty badly, hence the broken hand.) I've heard only bits and pieces of the story, so I don't know why Sisco ended up with only a broken hand. Maybe he missed and hit the wall. Mabye someday somebody will tell all. I'd like to know myself.

Yep. He was reportedly massively overweight while pitching for Daytona at the start of their season a couple of years back. He also broke his non-pitching hand. One account was that he was really frustrated with an outing and punched a wall out of anger. Another account was that he got into a fight with JK Ryu over who had a larger signing bonus. Ryu apparently won that fight on both accounts. This could turn out to be a Bobby Jenks-like move for the Sox in having an overweight guy with attitude problems finally reach his upside. Or he could end up being an enormous headache and eat himself out of baseball. Either way, I'm impressed the White Sox actually got something of value for Gload. I don't know about the fight with J.K. Ryu. If Mr. Sisco had been foolish enough to try that, there might not be much left of him. I hear J.K. is quite skilled in martial arts.

If he wasn't working out well, the Royals, bad as they were, might have offered him back to the Cubs, and they would have taken him back. At the time they let him go, they had other guys in the system to whom they had to send a message. Perform well, play by the rules, be a good teammate, and you'll have a shot at being on the 40-man roster. It's the same in any workplace. If you were doing all the right things but somebody your bosses deemed as "talented" got ahead despite a spotty record in behavioral and other areas, you wouldn't have been happy. That's what the Cubs were faced with back during the 2004 Rule 5 draft.

The questions about Johnson weren't like they were with Sisco. We'll see what happens the first time he runs afoul of Ozzie. A third franchise this early means there are definite red flags. Doesn't he have the same type of "makeup" questions that Jenks had? Get your calculator out and hit the multiplication key. Believe me, there were people in the Cubs organization from teammates on up who weren't sad to see this guy go.

The questions about Johnson weren't like they were with Sisco. We'll see what happens the first time he runs afoul of Ozzie. A third franchise this early means there are definite red flags.

When was the last time you saw "on-base percentage" in a Cubs news release?

No idea at this point.