BigbadB

Baltimore worked it out with Tejada. Boston worked it out with Manny. Teams work out their disagreements, and if you can keep it out of the public, even better. Cubs management doesn't appear as though they have any desire to work out any disagreements, which makes me wonder why they picked up his option in the first place. I think they did it to piss him off. He said that he didn't want it picked up if all they were going to do is trade him. This whole Walker debacle is ridiculous. I agree that he needs to shut his trap. However, he's likely the best 2b option we have, and even if he's sitting on the bench, he's probably our best option off the bench. Work it out and move on. Trade him for Luis Matos, and this place is going to erupt.

We know what they do when they want guys out. Apparently, they still haven't learned from Patterson and Sosa. I really don't understand the concept of destroying a guys value to the point he is worthless in trade. Unlike Sosa and Patterson, the Cubs tried to trade Walker before mentioning anything negative about him (and they got no takers). I think the Cubs inability to trade Walker has been predicated on his own reputation as a subpar defender. As it stands, the only team (Baltimore) that's rumored to be interested in him would prefer to use him as a DH. Then it stands to reason, IMO, that you don't trade a guy who currently has little to no trade value. You sit him down and work it out. He's still way better coming off the bench with his bat than he is playing for some other team.

And if the Cubs do it that's supposed to be the right decision? I disagree with Cubs management on more things than most people, and I know you won't argue that point with me. Anymore disagreements and people might start questioning my loyalty. However, yes I think it is the right decision to have a swing man in the pen, ESPECIALLY when you only have 4 starting pitchers on the squad.

What do you think the long man/spot starter is? He's a reliever. In your pen, you need a guy who can give you more than just an inning or two. Glendon Rusch was the long man last year, and if I recall correctly, he came into a few games early and pitched several innings. I never brought up SS and I never brought up C. My argument is that you need a guy in the pen who can provide long relief when necessary. It's what I have been saying since I jumped into this argument. Go back and read all of my posts. Who will the long man be when we break camp? Hill, Guzman, Koronka, etc...? A guy like that needs to be 1 of the 7 bullpen arms. That's all I have been saying all along. Goony doesn't believe you need a guy who can provide more than an inning or two. I disagree.

We know what they do when they want guys out. Apparently, they still haven't learned from Patterson and Sosa. I really don't understand the concept of destroying a guys value to the point he is worthless in trade.

Did you ever hear me say we need a 3rd shortstop or a 3rd catcher? I never said we did. Bullpen guys are trained to be effective for an inning or two at the most. With only 4 starters, why make all of your bullpen arms guys who only have the capability to pitch an inning or two when a guy might be needed to pitch 4 or 5? I'll make a wager with you right now that the Cubs WILL NOT handicap the team going into this season with only 4 starters and nothing but short relievers. It's not going to happen. And why won't it happen? And if you think it will happen, what shall the wager be?

Sure, you can call someone up, but what good does that do you when you are out of bullpen arms and the game is going to extra innings? This is like the situation with Macias last year. He was lauded as the 3rd catcher, but it was a worthless title. Macias was ALWAYS used before Blanco, so his use as a 3rd catcher was absolutely pointless. The hypotheticals you bring up are pretty far-fetched to be making roster decisions off of. With the injuries this team suffers, I don't know how any Cub fan can call any hypothetical too far fetched.

When was the last time the Cubs DIDN'T have a long man in the bullpen for security? I don't know. Either way, you don't save a spot specifically for a longman. Especially not when you have 7 relievers. If things get off to a rough start, go ahead and make some moves. But you don't purposefully handicap your roster because of hypotheticals. It's not purposefully handicapping your roster because of hypotheticals. It's being prepared.

I'm just saying, if you are going North with only 4 starting pitchers, one of your bullpen guys needs to be able to go 4 or 5 innings. You can disagree with me all you want, but it won't change my opinion. If they had 5 starters healthy in April, you may not need that long man in the pen. But, with only 4, someone has to be able to step up out of the pen.

Sure, you can call someone up, but what good does that do you when you are out of bullpen arms and the game is going to extra innings?

When was the last time the Cubs DIDN'T have a long man in the bullpen for security?

Hypothetical: Zambrano goes 6 innings and throws 110 pitches. He's pinch hit for in the bottom of the 6th. Game becomes tied and ends up going 14 innings. That's 8 innings from the bullpen. Maddux gives up 10 runs in 1.1 innings. He obviously doesn't have anything decent and this game is already way out of hand. You can leave Maddux in, but why stretch him anymore than the 75 pitches he's already thrown? So, now you have to use the entire bullpen to finish up the last 7.2 innings of this game. Next game, Rusch fouls a pitch off his ankle in his first at bat and cannot continue in the game. The bullpen now has to work another 5 to 7 innings. Wouldn't it be nice if you weren't completely wearing out the bullpen in Maddux' meaningless blow out game? The bullpen might have been able to be sharp covering for Rusch. You have 4 starters, 7 bullpen guys and 1 long relief man for bullpen protection. Sure, my hypothetical is far fetched. But, it's not impossible. It's also not impossible to have back to back extra inning affairs. And it's not unreasonable to think that there might be a 1 1/2 hour rain delay after the 1st inning of an April game that would send your starter to the showers early, forcing you to use the bullpen for that entire game as well. There is room at the end of the bench for a spot starter/long relief guy, even if he isn't all that good. Rain happens, injuries happen and extra inning games happen. The extra arm is more important than the extra bat, IMO.

Seldom doesn't mean never. In 2004, the Cubs and Reds had nearly back to back games in early April with an 11-10 win and a 11-10 loss. It only takes one game where the wind blows out to knock a starter out in the first couple of innings. But, it's not just occasional winds blowing out. It's the chance someone tweaks something, extra innings, rain delays. Rain delays happen a lot in April.

I didn't say you asked him to do it. Dusty is the manager. I don't want Dusty taxing the few starters we have in April because he's afraid to use his bullpen. If you don't have to use the long man, great. But, he should be there for blow out games just the same.

We'll just have to disagree on this one, Goony. Starters aren't in full season form at the beginning of the year. Letting Zambrano throw 120 pitches in the first few weeks is just asking for trouble.

Besides the high scoring games from high winds, you also have extra inning games, rain delays. One of your few starters could take a come backer that could knock them out of the game. It's just poor planning, IMO, to not have a guy in the bullpen that you can send out there for 4 or 5 innings. Not to mention the fact you have Dusty Baker managing this club. Do you want to see him sending Williamson out there for more than an inning at a time? Did you see how Baker used Chad Fox last year?

Because you need someone to be able to go long innings on short notice. In April, the winds blow out a lot. Do you want Maddux giving up 12 runs in 5 innings or do you want Jon Koronka giving up 12 runs in 5 innings? Do you want to tax the entire bullpen by making them all pitch extended innings in back to back games? If the wind is blowing out, everyone outside of Zambrano can get torched. I'd rather see a scrub gobble up those innings rather than a much needed starter or bullpen arm.

Wow, 9? Unless his career goes through an unexpected nose dive, you may want to reconsider your rankings. 9th is probably pretty fair. Another strike against him is that he is playing on a bad offensive team and half of his games in a bad park to hit. I'd take Edwin Encarnacion over Zimmerman just for park effects alone. With the way Tony Clark played last year, Conor Jackson will not be a regular everyday player.

I'm just a seasoned veteran in this league at 42.

It's also not out of the realm of possibility that one of: Miller,Wood or Prior could be ready. I'm guessing Blueheart is right on what the rotation will look like in early April. And I believe Prior might still be back shortly after that, if not, Hill will get a start unless Guzman or some other kid is absolutely dominating at the time. Even if Blueheart's rotation is accurate, they will need a long man in the bullpen.

It's not that they didn't have Sammy's money to spend, it's how they spent it. A lot of players got raises this year, and a lot of other players were paid much more than they deserve.

Let's get Hill and Menechino and keep Walker. We could start a different 2b every day of the week.

Wow! I guess it's down to Geoff Blum, Mark Bellhorn and Josh Barfield in San Diego for that 2b job.

I'm in the same boat as you, Raw. I didn't think I'd find what I was hoping to in that thread, so I didn't read it. I'm going to assume Prior is okay, and all these injury rumors are just to better the Cubs odds in Vegas.

Have there been any Nic Jackson sightings this Spring, or is he completely done?