packiowa

Neifi's case is done. Cub fans have it set in their minds and at least he won't ever produce like the last scapegoat is currently. I love Neifi as a backup and only get mad at Dusty (never booed Neifi) for playing him too much. I did want to get rid of Sammy for 3 years prior to him leaving, and Wood has been my least favorite Cub for another 2 years so I' not above criticism, but Jones doesn't deserve much this season. And the booing at 0-12 was disgusting. It was like Cubs fans didn't remember that you don't HAVE to boo your own players.

Kind of reminds me of the Bears draft this year. I had to dig deep to find info on Daniel Manning after getting over the shock of the pick. This pick is not that much like the Bears' draft. As a Pack fan I saw the Daniel Manning (small school, little exposure, but great measureables) pick much like the Packers' Nick Collins pick the previous year. This pick is a bit more of a stretch. He played at a high DI school, got plenty of exposure, but didn't rake. Some of the reports makes his measurables sound less than ideal. It all hinges on whether or not this past year is sustainable progression, and the Cubs seem to think so.

Current production--> decent deal Off-season free agent prices--> decent deal The crowd was still booing Jacque as recently as his 2 hr. game. These people are certainly not rooting FOR him. Seriously, if people can't let management decisions go and cheer for a player when he is producing, what future does he have in Chicago? It's just a waiting game for many of these "realists", and guess what? Jones will go into a slump and all these "realists" will feel great about not cheering for Jones since they were right. Then he'll hit the ball again, and the "realists" will remind us of his career averages (instead of enjoying the ride and cheering for Jones) until, once again, he slumps and they were "right". Here's a tip, enjoy the ride, b/c 5 million a year for a veteran in this day and age won't buy a whole heck of a lot. It sure seems that some Cubs fans prefer to root 'against management' as opposed to 'for the team' unless the Cubs are really producing.

He's doing what he can, but his presence still hurts the team overall. He sucked while the team was tanking. He's turned it on now that the team hit rock bottom. It's better than nothing, but it ain't good. And you can't just gloss over bad OBP, it's an enormous liability. No, Goony, he did not suck when the team was tanking. Over the last 5 weeks, while the CUBS have gone 8-25, Jones has put up the following line.... Fred, go back and read all of what I wrote in regards to this situation. From late April to early May, when the tanking started, Jones sucked. He's picked it up of late, long after the team was in the crapper. Good for him. Doesn't really help much though. I read what you wrote Goony, and Fred answered it directly. You quoted Jones' season batting averages (even though this stat is really out of place in this argument) as of April 28 and May 9, trying to prove that Jones season hasn't been good. It looks like you might have missed what was written, b/c nobody is claiming that JJ has been good all year, or that his season stats are good. We did claim that Jones' has played well during the tank and is not "the problem" (leaving aside the issue that everyone is part of the problem) he's being made out to be by many. Fred provided the "on point" stats. Between April 26 and May31 Jones' numbers look pretty good. He's not a savior, but he's hasn't been a problem for over a month. So the Cubs were 13-8 as of April 28. Jones stats as of April 26 are pretty good. How is 13-8 in the crapper? Even 13-13? I'll take a .500 team come August in most years.

That's some questionable logic. On April 28 the Cubs were 13-8 and Jacque Jones was hitting .231/.281/.500. On May 9 the Cubs were 14-18 and JJ was hitting .244/.289/.444. Jones is indeed very much part of the problem. Yes, he has turned it up of late, and that's great, and yes he has outperformed Aramis. But his history indicates it won't last, and his extremely poor .317 OBP is hurting the team a lot already. Aramis is part of the problem, Jones is part of the problem, Pierre is an enormous part of the problem, everybody is part of the problem. If people want to look for reasons to blame this season on Jacque Jones, go ahead. With the exception of some horrible throws, he's played well in the outfield, ranging better than anyone in that position for years. People need to get over the 0-12 start he had, b/c that sure seemed to set the tone for fans' perceptions. The Cubs won during Jones' early struggles, but he did provide a few key hits during that stretch (even though the hits weren't frequent). Since the Cubs have sunk below .500, he has hit well. In conclusion. My logic is not as poor as some indicate (those people should re-read my claims about being "the problem" and provide some post-.500 stats that aren't skewed by early struggles before they preach from their soap box). When the Cubs looked good, Cubs fans started to hate JJ for his lack of production. Since the Cubs started playing horrible, Cubs fans don't care that JJ has hit well, b/c the team has been sooo bad.

When Jones struggled, the Cubs were winning. Since Jones has been playing well, the Cubs are losing. Jones is not the problem. In fact, I'll take his play this year over Aramis.

The game is currently being televised on Mediacom (Channel 22) in Iowa City.

It's certainly not illogical to think that certain players might have success against Willis b/c . . . a) They aren't distracted by his deceptive leg kick and simply see the ball well or b) Willis doesn't pitch them as carefully b/c he isn't afraid of their power or b/c he reads Rotoworld as gospel. Neifi may fit any of these categories.

In last night's game, Lee probably would have held the bag on Ronny's wide throw off the low feed from Neifi. Also, I agree with the above poster who stated that Walker has been stretching too early on some throws. So far, Walker has played a solid 1B. Ronny has been making perfect throws when he has time, and Rammy (who I was most worried about after losing D-Lee) has made good throws, but IMO Walker has done well.

It may be commonplace to Cardinals fans, but for Cubs fans these sorts of issues only seem to come up a few times a year. Nearly every one of those instances involves Tony Larussa and the Cardinals. That's the point. Cardinals fans are used to it b/c that is how Tony plays. If it really were commonplace, Cubs fans would be much more used to it. As it stands, these issues will probably fall by the wayside until another Cards series.

Peoria Review: Veal: He had mediocre (at best) control of all his pitches all game. He walked 2 in the first (first batter on four straight) and the stats will say he appeared to settle down, but he didn't. The Kernels batters bailed Veal out of walks on two different occassions by striking out on ball 4. He struck 4 batters out on fastballs way up in the zone. Veal was up with his fastball all game, but the Kernels weren't very patient with the wind blowing out and a lead. He worked between 87-93 with most pitches at 89-91 (he hit 94 on one pitch against Warren Madrigal in the 4th or 5th). Mendoza from the Kernels is suppossed to have a very good f-ball and the gun clocked him at 91 on the majority of his fastballs (Never saw him top 93). It was a little chilly, but not a bad night. His breaking pitch wasn't great (around 78 with decent movement) , mainly due to control, but his slowest breaking ball (71) was his best. I'm hoping to see him a few more times b/c he just didn't control his f-ball and constantly was at 2-0 after two high fastballs. Hitters did not look good. Taylor and Gregg looked behind Mendoza much of the night. Reed showed little with his arm and failed to field a ball from right field and didn't hit. Layden got knocked around with 2 outs in the 8th. This Peoria Club doesn't seem to have the intrguing prospects at the plate that the I was getting used to watching. Who projects well at the plate from this years team . . Taylor and Reed?

The jet stream should be flying out of Vets tonight in Cedar Rapids. Could be a tough night to pitch, but I'm excited to see the new guys.

There's some truth to that, no doubt about it. But looking at Iowa's last four games (including the losses to Michigan and Northwestern) they completely outplayed their oppposition. Even though Michigan and NW beat us fair and square, it took a couple of lucky bounces to go their way. Then they just destroyed Wisconsin in Madison and did the same to Minny in Iowa City. I think the bowls also looked at how we finished in relation to the teams that beat us. We finished stronger than NW and Michigan and got the nod for that reason. I don't think it's fair to say that it was solely fanbase (though I'd be naive and foolish to say it didn't play a significant role). By those standards, you could say that Penn St. got some luck in beating NU then.. I mean, I don't know that you can say really use that in sports.. you know what I mean? NU also beat Wisconsin and destroyed Michigan St. in East Lansing when they were both very strong teams. And considering that Iowa and NU had the same record, and NU beat Iowa, I have to think that 90% of the decision was bowl-revenue related: Iowa had already been to the Sun Bowl and they have a bigger fanbase for the bigger bowl. Sorry to backtrack the thread, but were Wisconsin and Michigan State ever very good teams. They were well respected, but I'm not sure either were ever quality, balanced squads. I agree that the end of season made a huge difference. NOrthwestern's victories early in the season against Wisc and MS were nice, but hte Wisc game was an ugly, close game. In our last two games we destroyed Wisconsin and Minnesota. Sure we lost to NW three weeks earlier, but NW was beaten for 3-and a half quarters and needed to convert an onside kick at home to take the lead for the first time(?). NW gets the win, but bragging rights (we beat U, we should have a better bowl) are pretty scarce. Just my 2 cents