maandig

Since you're in the eye of the storm, what about him is controversial or confrontational, etc. What makes him the proverbial cancer in the clubhouse. Asking because I have no clue about the guy. I don't have any inside knowledge of the Nationals clubhouse and hope never to pretend to, nevertheless beat-writers and bloggers in the DC area have tended to be fairly polarized in their thoughts on Church. His apologists chalked up his surly behavior and poor attitude to being managed by Frank Robinson. I'm not sure what this year's excuse will be. Last year Church reacted poorly to not making the major league roster. That happens. The previous year he was rumored to have been the source of quite a bit of acrimony in the clubhouse. This year he proclaimed that he would turn it all around. Here are his exact words: "I can't wait," Church said yesterday by phone. "This is the year I prove everybody wrong." And he has done just that, or at least he's proved Manny Acta wrong: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402197.html When Ryan first came up, the fans here, such as they are, really took to him. That enthusiasm has waned and is now, for most, tepid at best. Last year, the question was Ryan Church or Marlon Byrd (or some other similar fill-in) and everyone answered Church. This year, I'm not sure that would be true. This has been a disappointing year for Nats fans, even though expectations were already low. Zimmerman, Kearns, and Lopez have also disappointed, but each one of them, at least, has validated people's optimism about them at the major league level. I have come to really dislike Church -- the game he cost Cordero against the Phillies is what I've come to expect from him, so I am certainly not objective about this. The Cubs would be better off without him.

Great. If the Cubs acquire Church, we can all look forward to articles about how Church will turn his attitude around and finally realize his potential in a new environment. Love that a player is defined by his OPS and not what he brings to the table as a member of a clubhouse. Perhaps the local media can get a family package deal on stories about how members of the Church family weren't ever given a fair shake if and when Staggs gets cut from the Bears. It is painful enough having to watch Church routinely and consistently disappoint his defenders at RFK. I have no desire to see him anywhere near the Cubs franchise.

I don't get the anger to the news that the Cubs might be sitting pat. The Cubs have added star players/bats over the last few years that were intended to get them over the hump and into the playoffs who ended up having little discernable impact on the team's fortunes (Nomar; McGriff), while in 2003 were successful by adding what were considered marginal but were integral to the team's brilliant year (Karros; Simon; Womack; excepting Lofton). If this team goes past the non-waiver trading deadline and doesn't add anyone, what's the problem? Does the team have holes? Sure. Do the holes preclude them from competing for a championship? No. Do the holes mean that Hendry ought to find a way to mortgage the future of the club for a good additional outfield bat or another arm? No. If the Cubs get through tomorrow without making a deal, I'm pumped. Let Hendry figure out what might be added to the team in terms of a veteran right-handed off the bench in August, there is no reason anything has to be done now.

Good day. I like this regime. Theriot plays well, hustles, works hard, and he is rewarded with PT. Theriot continues to play well, Fontenot comes up, rakes when he gets here, but begins to struggle a bit, and the brass reacts by shipping out veteran dead weight. These are good times. These are great times. If Lou wants to put Fox in because of his "moxie" regardless of the OBP he posted at AA, then more power to him. The sayonara to Cesar confirms what we've not witnessed in several years: performance will be rewarded. If Fox flails, he'll be back down in AA. If he doesn't, one more arrow in the quiver.

Steve Stone's importance to the franchise was that he made Cub games more enjoyable to watch when he called them for the team. He is a good announcer and, before that, was a good pitcher. But beyond that, I don't understand the continued attention on his exploits or ruminations on any possible future he might have with the Cubs. Stone certainly understands how the game is played and can aptly describe the way action unfolds, but I've never seen or heard anything from him that evinces knowledge that would improve this team's front office.

For what its worth, I watched Marshall pitch against Gallardo on Saturday at Fitch park. He seemed to just completely come apart after he lost control of a few pitches. At least on Saturday he appeared to be very, very frustrated and was bouncing pitches two feet before the plate. It was a troubling performance given that I've always been impressed with the poise that Marshall appears to bring to the mound. Yovani Gallardo, on the other hand, was phenomenal.

I am grateful for what both Bellhorn and Walker did for this team as Cubs and enjoyed watching both play in Cubbie blue, but I have no interest in seeing them back with the team. I am fairly optimistic about the offensive lineup this team will put on the field opening day, sans the starting shortstop. And I had no idea that DeRosa is as good defensively as he had appeared to be over the last few ST games. The Cubs seem like they have a good balance coming out of spring training with almost everyone having a fairly well-defined role going into the season. Absent the availability of someone who could really make a difference, I don't see any value in making marginal changes over the next week.

Cubs haven't acquired Church yet, but should that change it will be interesting to see if his performance with the team provides any pause to those who follow the school of thought that stats, on their own, are the definitive measure of the value of a player. Church got sent down to the minors after losing his starting spot in the last week of spring training. He said that he'd prove that he didn't deserve to lose his job with his play in New Orleans: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032802188.html He didn't. Those who look at Church's stats and see the quality part-time production numbers he's put up the last two years feel obliged to apologize for him: Frank Robinson didn't like him. He didn't perform well in AAA last year because he was upset about being demoted. The media doesn't like him. The stuff about him being, for lack of a better word, a "pansy" is overblown. But this doesn't address the glaring problem: While Robinson may not have liked Church, Jim Bowden was a huge fan of Ryan's. Robinson is gone, Bowden remains and Church is being peddled. Here's what Bowden recently said about Church: "We respect what he's done in his minimal at-bats in the big leagues." Those promoting the acquisition of Church will interpret this as feeding into their belief that Robinson refused to play Church. For people who follow the Nats, however unwillingly, the statement is code for what the fans have come to realize, Church will never have more than minimal at-bats in the big leagues and they will come when he feels like taking them. I concede that I care way too much about this, but I really do not want to see Church ever come close to putting on a Cubs uniform.

Repetitive but please, please, please no Church. Like his stats? Fine. But you can look forward to the same things that Nats fans have been frustrated at for the last two years: http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060508&content_id=1444069&vkey=news_was&fext=.jsp&c_id=was http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062401922.html

I know that this board focuses heavily on stats and emphasizes the -- shamelessly stealing a phrase here -- tantalizing nature of a player's performance, but I'm not sure that any transaction this offseason would disappoint me more than the Cubs acquiring Ryan Church. Blaming Ryan's limited major league resume over the last three seasons on Frank Robinson is, as an empirical matter, wrong. A great deal has been expected from Church since his 2004 performance with Edmonton and he hasn't fulfilled that promise. He may yet achieve that, but the negatives he brings, which are perhaps not reflected in his career statistics, outweigh any benefits the team would glean from having him on the bench. After Church lost the starting center field job for the Nationals and the team went with considerably less talented players (i.e. Brendon Watson) at that position, Church had the opportunity to show up Robinson by playing well in the minors. He didn't. Frank Robinson didn't coach him in New Orleans. Instead, Church has routinely rankled his coaches and his fellow teammates by allowing what was considered minor injuries to keep him out of the lineup and not playing hard when he was penciled in. Church blew a lot of good will in Washington. He was a fan favorite in the team's inaugral season in DC, but few seem to care if he is in the lineup come next season. I concede that my dislike for Church is personal as I was a season ticket holder for this last year's debacle of a Nats season. It was bad enough to have to pay to watch the team play, but Church's inability to be a consistent contributor to the team forced me to endure Marlon Anderson and Damian Jackson in centerfield. I am not a Nats fan, but Damian Jackson starting in centerfield is a crime against baseball (perhaps not as much of a crime as starting Jose Macias, but a crime nonetheless). The conventional wisdom outside of this area is that Church didn't play regularly because of his manager. I believe, but perhaps am in error in doing so, that few who watched him play make the same excuse. It was remarkable how the love that Ryan felt from DC fans in 2005 turned into a palpable antipathy by the end of the 2006 campaign. Robinson is not the manager for the Nationals now and the team still doesn't want him. Bowden and the Nationals are fortunate and likely will be able to get something for Church in a trade, but I think this is largely due to the fact that few people paid attention to the team and instead will focus on the limited stats Ryan put up when he decided to play. I hope that Hendry and the Cubs organization look beyond his stats and seek bench help elsewhere (although I recognize that almost everyone else here appears to disagree).

Everyday guy? Tigers fans are going to love that. Anyone know how a guy who was described as: drops to a projected backup catcher in the course of one year? I don't have any expectations (after all he came back for Neifi) but am curious as to how anyone who was an all-star in the Florida State League this year has his projections drop off that far so quickly.

There is no rational reason for this to be the case, but when I saw the news on ChicagoSports all I felt was tremendous joy. Even having to sit in an office on Sunday is not enough to diminish how happy this makes me. I do not dislike Neifi, am still grateful for his part in getting this team into the playoffs in 1998, and understand that, used correctly, he probably could be a valuable sub. But I cannot get over how pissed I am about paying money to see the Cubs play and having to witness a lineup with Neifi hitting second on a regular basis. And that is not going to happen again -- at least through 2007. Hooray.

I was watching the same game. Here is the link: http://www.presstelegram.com/sports/ci_4149705 Here is the quote:

I suppose that in several decades of watching baseball, I still just do not understand the sport, but I cannot fathom why there is such enthusiasm for shipping Maddux out. I realize that the only thing that matters is statistics and future potential, but I cannot let go of the belief that Maddux has been appropriately lauded for his effect on Sean Marshall's development. After years of watching pitchers like Wood, Prior, and even Z, lose focus on the mound and turn what could have been spectacular starts into horrific outings, it had been a comparable joy to watch Sean go out to the mound, with much less talent, and concentrate on getting batters out. Maybe he will never be dominant, but Marshall looks like a good candidate to develop into a solid middle of the rotation starter for this or some other team. This may (or may not) be causally connected to his eager willingness to learn from Maddux. In any event, I am likely misguided in a large number of ways because I also do not understand how Maddux "sucks." 10 of his 22 starts have been quality starts. He has walked more than two batters in only one of those 22 starts. His WHIP puts him on par with Aaron Harang, Brad Penny, Kenny Rogers, Chris Capuano, Jake Peavy, Scott Kazmir, and Erik Bedard. His start against the Dodgers on April 17th is, with all due respect to Z's great games, the best start that I've seen any Cubs pitcher put together this year. With the same caveat as everyone else (if the Cubs are blown away by an offer, see ya), I, for one, would prefer to see Maddux in a Cubs uniform until he decides he doesn't want to wear one anymore.

From a Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette June 7th article: http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/sports/baseball/14757410.htm And, although perhaps of little interest, an earlier article which appeared this year in the same paper (late April) which discussed both pitchers: http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/sports/baseball/minor_league/14405248.htm