Bruce Miles

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1231 Bruce, I'm glad to see that you were among the 22% that voted for Raines. Bruce - I don't want to jump down your throat b/c I appreciate you posting your votes. But, unless my eyes deceive me, Alan Trammel isn't among your vote-getters. Would you mind explaining your thoughts on that? Well, Tram hasn't jumped down my throat yet. Seriously, this is another good question and one I'll have to reconsider. I'm leaning toward voting for him.

I believe he was the No.1 Starter on all three of those teams during the seasons. It's possible he was designated as such, but he wasn't the best pitcher on any of those teams. It's close in '84, but I'll still take Morris over Petry. Morris tossed two complete game victories in the '84 Series. In his World Series career, Morris was 4-2 with a 2.96 ERA.

:blush: Not saying, just saying. No foul intended.

NSBB gets a little shout-out in today's blog entry about the Hall: http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1236 Enjoy

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.

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.

Do you see Sosa running into the same resistance that the "known" steroid abusers like Mac, Clemens, and Bonds are/will encounter on the ballot? I do. In fact, I had heard that some would hold the corked bat against him, at least as far as "first-ballot" goes. But maybe that'll be forgotten by the time Sammy is eligible. But Sosa's name has not been specifically linked to any scandal, so we'll see what happens with him. I have a feeling he'll have an easier time than McGwire for sure and perhaps Bonds and Clemens.

http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/1231 Bruce, I'm glad to see that you were among the 22% that voted for Raines. And I will continue to do so. There are those who say he's the greatest leadoff man in NL history. I dont' know if that's true, but he's got Hall of Fame credentials in my mind.

It's going to be a long, long, long time before the vast majority of writers are going to look at OPS+ when voting for the Hall of Fame. (It's interesting to note, however, that Will Carroll and Kristina Kahrl from Baseball Prospectus now are BBWAA members, although they won't be Hall of Fame voters until they're in for 10 years. But that is a sign of positive change.) In fact, the player capsules that accompany the ballot include these stats for batters: Years, AVG, G, R, H, 2B, 3B, HR, RBI, BB, SO, SB, OBP and SLG. I read with interest the comparisons between Frank Howard and Jim Rice. When Howard retired, stats such as OBP and SLG weren't widely discussed. Nowadays, you have much more discussion on candidates and their stats. Also, the electorate is constantly changing. I didn't vote until 2002. Even as stats such as OBP are being better understood, there are voters who look at Andre Dawson's OBP and disqualifying him. What you have is a highly imperfect system that combines the subjective with objective. The Hall of Fame itself sets out no minimum statistical requirements other than a player must have played 10 years. All I ask is that a voter study the ballot, study the stats, consider the integrity and sportsmanship of the player and make a well-reasoned choice to the best of his or her ability. And even after that, you ain't gonna please everybody.

:( Any internal discussions going on that Cub fans can be excited about? From the way things have gone so far this off season, it appears that Hendry is really restricted as to what he is able to do. They continue to talk about Peavy. Bruce, do you feel a deal will get done for Peavy, or is this just a pipedream? The Cubs' front office is just one part of the equation on this, so the answer depends on what the other parts do. Those other parts are the Padres' front office, Cubs ownership and Padres ownership. A deal was close during the winter meetings, so no, it's hardly a pipedream. Give the complexities, a lot is going to have to happen for this to get done.

:( Any internal discussions going on that Cub fans can be excited about? From the way things have gone so far this off season, it appears that Hendry is really restricted as to what he is able to do. They continue to talk about Peavy.

The Cubs have not had serious internal discussions about Ben Sheets. They see too much risk on a long-term deal. The loss of a draft pick if Sheets would somehow agree to a one-year deal doesn't seem attractive to the Cubs, either.

Is hendry pretty much done after Bradley/Marquis? Is another SP after the ownership situation is resolved unrealistic? The Peavy thing, from what I've been told, probably can't happen until the ownership situation is resolved. However, Hendry will try to add a starting pitcher not named Peavy before spring training opens. So are you saying that Peavy is no longer an option, or are you saying that until the ownership situation is resolved, Hendry will try to find someone else for SP? Peavy is not an option for now. The ownership situation will have to be resolved first. Hendry has had no serious talks with SD lately, but he will continue keeping an eye on the situation. Until then, I fully expect the Cubs to obtain another starting pitcher.

Is hendry pretty much done after Bradley/Marquis? Is another SP after the ownership situation is resolved unrealistic? The Peavy thing, from what I've been told, probably can't happen until the ownership situation is resolved. However, Hendry will try to add a starting pitcher not named Peavy before spring training opens.

Aurilia is a back-burner guy. He's a guy in whom the Cubs have had interest, but he's one of those players they may bring in (even on a minor-league deal) once they get everything else done.

I don't think that word means what you think it means... Some people think these moves are trangressions. As for Peavy, that situation is not directly related to any of these moves. As I blogged, the ownership situation has to sort itself out first. Was DeRosa a cancer in the clubhouse or was there something behind the scenes we are not privy to? It seems pretty odd to move on of your better offensive players for 3 B- or C rated prospects. Even if this isn't related to Peavy, they needed to clear up money for Bradley. Exactly.

I don't think that word means what you think it means... Some people think these moves are trangressions. As for Peavy, that situation is not directly related to any of these moves. As I blogged, the ownership situation has to sort itself out first. Was DeRosa a cancer in the clubhouse or was there something behind the scenes we are not privy to? It seems pretty odd to move on of your better offensive players for 3 B- or C rated prospects. Nothing like that. DeRosa was great with the media and great with his teammates. The Cubs wanted to get "more left-handed." DeRosa is really the only right-handed hitter they can trade. Lee, Soriano and Ramirez have no-trades, and Hendry has no interest in moving any of the three anyway. So DeRosa was it. If the Cubs sign Bradley, they feel they have a more flexible and left-handed hitting team. We'll see how it shakes out and then see how it works.

I don't think that word means what you think it means... Some people think these moves are trangressions. As for Peavy, that situation is not directly related to any of these moves. As I blogged, the ownership situation has to sort itself out first.

Guess I can get that jersey with my name on it now.

No, but I'm sure it would be one with an option or maybe two with an option. I'm not sure how far along they are in the talks, but I'm told he's definitely their No. 1 choice for OF. Thanks, sounds good. 2 with an option sounds about right to me. Is a possible Bradley signing something we could expect to hear any time soon, or will it take time? Yes. :D

No, but I'm sure it would be one with an option or maybe two with an option. I'm not sure how far along they are in the talks, but I'm told he's definitely their No. 1 choice for OF.

Randy Johnson is the pitcher highest on their radar. Do you know of any other pitchers that might be on the radar? Not really. They're focusing on Bradley right now, along with trading Marquis.

Randy Johnson is the pitcher highest on their radar.

Well there's one outfielder taken care of. Is anything else going on? Same. Try to trade Marquis. Try to sign Bradley, who's their No. 1 choice for OF. If not Bradley, who would be the second choice? Any chance for Adam Dunn? Very doubtful on Dunn. Not sure about a second choice as they feel pretty confident they can get Bradley. If not, there will be choices out there.

Possible.