bukie

Still a classic Dusty-ism, though.

From today's FJM:

Wagner was hardly a flame-out prospect at the time of the trade. He was a 24-year old that torched up a relief role in AAA. Kearns and Lopez were two of the better hitting players the Reds had, and were just entering their prime years. Unless Krivsky knew they were both going to fall off the map at age 27, it's difficult to give him credit for that. Harris was probably the best part of the deal for the Reds, but they gave him away for nothing at the end of the year, where he finally caught on offensively in Tampa. Majewski was no better than Wagner could've expected to have been, and was two years older. Bray is currently in his 4th year of AAA as a relief pitcher, getting an average of about 22 innings a year. This year, though, he looks pretty good after 6 innings. Thompson was drafted in 2003, and spent part of 2006 in rookie ball. He's finally moving up the levels, but isn't among the top 20 prospects the Reds have. At the time of the trade, this was a historically lopsided trade, and everyone from Rotoworld to BA was blasting it, particularly because the Reds traded two quality young starters for a reliever (Majewski) and two low-rated prospects, while at the same time trading away their best young reliever (Wagner). It was a very bad trade at the time, and only looks better now because Lopez and Wagner declined.

Cincy got nothing out of Harris. At the time of the trade, Cincy was giving up the three best players in the deal, and nobody has done anything to dissuade that perception aside from Harris, who's in Minnesota.

ESPN so far only reporting Krivsky fired. I had almost forgotten about this trade: Wow, was that a historically bad trade. When you are giving away the best three players in a seven player deal involving Jim Bowden, you got worked over.

Despite the fact that I believe Fontenot shouldn't be starting, he IS a better hitter than he's been this year. Murton is a perfectly serviceable backup RF/LF that should be able to get on base at a .360+ clip over the course of the year, even with PH duty. Both can be useful bench pieces (more useful than some light-hitting defensive whiz that would probably take up the 25th spot otherwise). Until Eyre comes back, I don't see the problem with having 14 position players and 11 pitchers on the roster when you already have 3 long relievers. The Cub relief corps has already settled into defined roles with 2 long men (Hart, Lieber), 2 stopgap short guys (Howry, Wuertz) and 2 game finishers (Marmol, Wood). Marshall doesn't have a clear role in the pen other than LOOGY, which is a waste of Marshall. Much better suited to someone like Eyre (if he can come back effectively), while Marshall starts in AAA to give the Cubs a clear, valuable starter for when one of the five currently in the rotation (personally, my money's on Marquis first) implodes, gets traded, or gets injured. Much better than simply banking on those five to come through over the entire year with no hiccups (see: 2004).

That was a good AB, it was a borderline pitch low and outside. A good pitch that he just didn't pull the trigger on. He had 11 runners possible to drive in yesterday, and he knocked in 4 of them (the fifth RBI was himself). A 36% conversion rate is as good as can reasonably be asked for from any player in RBI situations. I'm curious if there's a stat available that lists players RBI conversion %. That'd be much more useful than raw RBI to determine how effective a player is at run production. It may seem like there are a lot of runners left on base, but that's merely because the Cubs are putting a lot of guys on base. More opportunities leads to more runs.

Belt high, middle-in, looked like a mistake breaking ball that just kind of rolled over.

Here's my line of thinking (not to be confused with the Cubs' front office line of thinking): Sean Marshall is barely being used right now, thanks to the rotation stabilizing itself. The Cubs already have two long relievers available besides Marshall that are pitching well anyway (Hart, Lieber), and the lack of a lefty in the pen hasn't hurt them (in fact, it keeps Lou from using relievers like tissues to play the lefty/righty matchups). Also, the way Lou manages, the Cubs are regularly out of available position players well before the 9th (heck, they were winning 8-1 yesterday and had to use Marquis to PH), so having an extra position player available, even simply in a PH role, wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. In addition, it was pretty obvious that Ward has no business as a backup OF from the one time he was used there. He's strictly a PH/backup 1B at this point. So then, putting it all together, it would make sense to send down Marshall, get him some use as a starter to stretch him out as an available starter when the Cubs need one, and leave Murton up, giving the Cubs 14 position players and 11 pitchers.

Cub front office think: Currently the Cubs' offensive balance looks like this: 9 righties, 4 lefties. Soriano is a righty, so it only makes sense to send down another righty when he comes back. Blanco is necessary as a backup C, Cedeno is necessary as a backup SS and is hitting the cover off the ball, so that leaves Murton to go down.

A couple years ago, I decided: Wrigley East: PNC Wrigley West: Coors Wrigley South: Turner Wrigley North: Miller The GAB needs its own place on that map at some point, I'm working on the theory. GAB is Wrigley Middle East, PNC is Wrigley Far East.

The Cubs are 4-4 against teams that would without a doubt be considered contenders (Milwaukee, Philadelphia, NY Mets), and 10-2 against everybody else. That's a recipe for 100 wins.

Although if you are talking since WWII (1945), you'd be almost correct (Milwaukee, SD, Colorado) I think this is probably what I heard. And it looks like I typed a 2 where I meant to type a 3 in my original post. Couldn't recall the teams, but seemed to remember hearing San Diego in the group. Make that 4, and add the Mets. :)

But I like Ronny.

I'm on a half first name basis with the commish...I call him Bud and he doesn't call me...

The smart-ass answer to this would be on May 28, when the USMNT plays England in a friendly. Isn't Spain before that? I think that could be the big La Liga/Jozy showcase. England is on May 28, Spain is on June 4. Who knows, Jozy may not be on the plane back to America after that.

If I'm the Cubs, I think about starting the game with Lieber ready to go at a moment's notice. Lilly needs to start remembering how to throw strikes.

And...Utah just won game 2 on the road.

The smart-ass answer to this would be on May 28, when the USMNT plays England in a friendly.

Jim Hickman, statistically, or are you saying physically? Statistically. And although that's an impressive jump late in a career, I wouldn't call it Sosa-like. That's just me, though. It was a significant, unprecedented jump in power and patience. Remember the era also, of the high mound and dominant pitchers of the late 60's, so a jump of 20 HRs in one season was really unheard of. Most of the other similar "late bloomers" are more due to teams simply not giving them a chance until their 30s or going off to fight in WWI or WWII during their prime years (Hank Sauer, Dixie Walker, Dazzy Vance, Earl Caldwell). Nobody is suggesting that Sosa's jump in productivity wasn't rare. It was rare (and, of course, not nearly as rare in the "steroid era"), but mostly due to a change of patience, which isn't something that a steroid-assisted boost would provide.

Jim Hickman, statistically, or are you saying physically?

I think he's completely drunk on Boston success. He was much more accurate on everything when all his favorite teams were jokes. I swear I posted this comment before he posted this article. God help us all if the Bruins win tonight.

Although if you are talking since WWII (1945), you'd be almost correct (Milwaukee, SD, Colorado)

Huh? The Cubs have a .514 lifetime winning percentage, and the second most overall wins in MLB history. Just the NL teams that the Cubs have winning records against: Atlanta, Cincinnati, Colorado, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, San Diego, and St. Louis. Add the Mets if the Cubs win today and tomorrow, and they have a lifetime .500 even record against the Dodgers. The Diamondbacks own the Cubs, though. And the Astros, Marlins, Nationals, Pirates and Giants.

Closest I can get (1901-2007)