Bruce Miles

Wow, is this ever an interesting discussion. Let me clarify a few things, at least from my point of view: In nine years of traveling with the Cubs, no one has ever "planted" a story with me. It just doesn't work that way. To say there is an orchestrated "smear" campaign is ridiculous. Jim Hendry regularly talks to very few media people. In order, I'd say it's: 1. Myself, 2. Paul Sullivan, 3, Bruce Levine, 4. WGN Radio, 5. Jeff Vorva (Daily Southtown), 6. Whoever is writing these days for the Sun-Times, 7. Carrie Muskat (cubs.com), 8. All others. He rarely talks to columnists and to the Score, which really doesn't have a full-time baseball reporter. Jim has no interest in "smearing" Ramirez, in large part because he wants him back and needs him back. In the end, I think Ramirez will stay. Remember, too, that there are two sides to every negotiation. Is the agent and are the agents (the esteemed Adam Katz is part of this agency) playing the game totally honestly and keeping their word? We'll find out. Ramirez's bad image has to do with several factors. First is public relations. Aramis is not good with the media _ I've seen him blow people off who want to do nice stories. Sammy (1998-2003) got a break because he dealt well with the media. Mark Grace learned early on to be nice. Another reason is that many media members are not sabermetrically friendly. I'm about it. So you get people looking at defense and hustle and all that. My position is that the Cubs MUST keep him. Now, this board is also very specialized. Believe it or not, I get a lot of e-mails saying to let the bum walk (he isn't going to hustle, as we all know) out of town. Maybe that helps. Maybe not.

Bruce, I understand what you are saying. However, at the same time I can't help but wonder why? If Aramis wants to stay in Chicago If Hendry wants Aramis to stay in Chicago Then, shouldn't they have worked out the parameters of a contract before this? I mean, holy crist, he's only been the most productive Cub player for the last three years (combined). What is the problem? He's 28, he's arguably one the best players at his position in MLB, and he's publically stated he wants to be in Chicago. I can't help but panic. As to the first part, when were they going to work out the parameters ofa new contract, during the season? Most players don't like to do this. That leaves now, and they've been negotiating. As for the "problem," you answered your own question. He's 28 and productive. Add to that a scarce market for third basemen and you've got one hell of a seller's market. Of the 200-odd eligible free agents, all end up filing if they don't sign back with their teams right away. That's just smart business.

This is a formality. All eligible players file to protect themselves. In and of itself, it means nothing. Remember, that the Cubs are the only team that can sign him for the next couple of weeks.

Bruce, do you think it gets done? Eventually, yes. The agent is doing a little squeezing right now.

This is a question that would be better asked to Bruce Miles, I thought the Cubs had a choice to get someone from the Dodgers minor league system (assuming the Dodgers created a list of minor league players as well as the Cubs creating one) or getting someone who can help now and the Cubs decided to get someone who can help now. Given the Cubs current state and the possibility of getting someone from the Dodgers, I think they would've been better off exploring a prospect rather than someone like Izturis. They did explore a prospect (prospects, actually) and were told flat-out no.

I'm not sure what to make of that. Hendry apparently understood the need to focus on next year. But pull your scouts? Really? No. What they did was less advance-game and advance-series scouting and more player-evaluation scouting for potential trades and free agents. They did get back into Asia more extensively.

I don't doubt that baseball people respect Larry. In fact, I know they do, since they've said so over and over. My problems is there is no evidence to support it, at least not with the Cubs. I want proof, not opinion. Larry's pitchers have stunk under Larry. Some have stunk . Some haven't. This year, some of Leo's pitchers stunk under Leo in Baltimore. This is the same pitching coach who was a genius in Atlanta. If you have good pitchers, most of the time they do well. Bad pitchers will do poorly most of the time. A pitching coach can lift some pitchers from bad to mediocre or even good. Once again, if the Cubs had fired Larry, I could see it. Is he a bad pitching coach per se? No.

The Cubs fired one trainer after 2003, another and an assistant after '04. Why the rush to fire Mark O'Neal, who does a pretty good job? Let's remember, O'Neal and his staff personally went down to the Dominican Republic last winter to make sure Aramis was working. He actually ended up playing 157 games, one short of his career best. That means he played virtually every day. Wood and Prior? Totally out of the trainer's control. As far as Larry goes, I'll neither attack nor defend. But I will point out a few things that likely will be viewed as a defense. The towel drill, which seems to get a lot of ridicule, is not unique to the Cubs, and it does serve a purpose. Wood and Prior? Here we go with that question again. They aren't Larry's fault, either. Wood had surgery, and who knows what's going on with Prior. Sometimes, instead of blaming others, we need to look at the individual. Matt Clement and Joe Borowski did pretty well under Larry (I hate trying to spell "Rothschild"), with Joe resurrecting his career. Carlos Zambrano blossomed into an elite under Larry. He had the talent, but he wasn't going to "get it" under Oscar Acosta. All of the young pitchers were rushed up here this year. Larry worked closely with Alan Dunn in Iowa this year on Rich Hill. Both coaches and Rich himself had a hand in Rich's improvement. All that said, I won't deny bringing Larry back is a tough sell to the public. I'm interested to see how he'll do under a different manager.

Well, I'm looking forward to working with Lou. He seems like he'll be a lot of fun. He also expressed a lot of love for Chicago, an important thing to do that his predecessor never quite grasped.

Any chance you'll interview some of the new coaches as well (espec. John McLaren)? Yes, we'll get a chance to interview the coaches. I did ask Lou and Jim some OBP-related questions today. Overall, I was reasonably impressed with Lou. He deserves the "honeymoon period" with the media and public, kind of like the ones that U.S. presidents get, or used to get.

I'm getting to 'em, guys. It's been a hellacious couple weeks.

There is no truth at all to that part of the report. None whatsoever.

I'm still doing the Q and A. This thread just seemed to take on that quality.

The light is going on. Maybe not at the speed of light, but they're not ignoring the poor walks and OBP totals from this year. It'll be on the table at the org meetings.

He'll make the team out of spring training. What his role is will be up for debate at the organizational meetings next month. I'd like to see him thrown in the mix to start.

No. I was told late today that there is really nothing new to report there. We'll see some back and forth. I expect him to come back.

They'll at least talk about second base.

Wells, Dave Roberts and Carl Crawford all will be on the radar screen. It'll depend on what happens with Pierre and others.

Fair question. Westbrook is a good name, but I don't know if Cleveland would want to get rid of him.

The Cubs never mentioned him as part of their wish list. He's got a great gig down there in Houston. I like the guy a lot, as a manager and as somebody who treats the media well. He's one of the nicest guys you could meet, and he's got some good ideas ont the game. It could be that he's no longer interested.

All speculation at this point.

Always my pleasure. Thanks for having me here.

I would bet heavily against that one. They have no such interest.

Honestly, I'm not ducking the question, but I'm having a real hard time getting a true handle on any of them. Bochy isn't a candidate _ yet _ but he might intrigue me. I could live with any of the others. I know that's hardly a ringing endorsement, but this group has been tough to get a feel for.

No on Bonds. They'll look at both Schmidt and Zito.