nolanwood

You're never as good as your best performance or as bad as your worst.

I really hope Murton makes up for that AB his next time at the plate.

I'd love to have Burnett, and he's got tons of upside. However, he's got an insane injury history and it wasn't that long ago that the Blue Jays were so fed up with his nonstop injuries that they publicly questioned whether he was seriously hurt... The odds are overwhelming that he'd spend some time on the DL this year.

Probably b/c he was playing like crap when he went on the DL before, so it was unlikely his replacement couldn't match his .577 OPS. That doesn't really make any sense, unless you're suggesting the mental impact will play a big role. What Soriano was doing at the time of his 2 injuries is irrelevant when discussing how they'll be without him. They'll be playing with the same team they played with last time he got injured, the same team they did fine with. Are you serious? A player's performance is irrelevant as to how the team will do without him? You realize that players don't perform at the exact same level throughout the season, right? You'e missing the point. I'm not talking about how Soriano was playing at the time of the injury, because it's irrelevcant (other than the fact that mentally it feels worse). What Soriano was doing at the time of each injury doesn't change anything about the team that they will put on the field in his absence. A team minus a red hot Soriano is exactly the same as a team minus an ice cold Soriano. I'm not sure how much more I can lay this out for you, because it seems like I'm being pretty clear. I understand your point. I just think you're wrong. If you have to replace a guy putting up a .900 OPS and your bench doesn't contain anyone that good, you're not likely to sustain the success you had when that guy gets injured. If you have to replace a guy with a .600 OPS and your bench has a lot of guys that are playing better than that, you're likely to sustain your success, if not improve. Soriano will likely end up with a .900 OPS at the end of the year, but he started the year terribly cold. So we didn't miss his bat b/c we weren't getting anything from him anyway. Now, we'll more likely miss his bat b/c he was really hot and some guys that were hot before have cooled. I'm not sure how much more I can lay this out for you... That's an interesting use of logic, and taking it further one could say that Soriano's .900 OPS could be replaced by a bench player with a .600 OPS, and one of the starters who had a bad month while Soriano was hot (D Lee who's .avg and .obp dropped nearly 100 points since Soriano's return) would make up for the slack, putting up well over the numbers they had for the last month. Why can't the guys who were hot when he was out make up for the slack? Soriano is one the streakiest players on the team, so it's very plausible that he was going to cool off for a period soon anyways, thus negating your reasoning in the first place. Obviously you can't know how the team is going to play without him. Some players might step up to cover his production, he might have been on the verge of a decline, etc. But to suggest that Soriano's performance is irrelevant to the discussion of how the team will do seems odd to me. Discounting the fact that the rest of the team is fully capable of picking up the slack seems rather odd to me, too. I didn't suggest that Soriano's performance was irrelevant to the discussion, either...

Probably b/c he was playing like crap when he went on the DL before, so it was unlikely his replacement couldn't match his .577 OPS. That doesn't really make any sense, unless you're suggesting the mental impact will play a big role. What Soriano was doing at the time of his 2 injuries is irrelevant when discussing how they'll be without him. They'll be playing with the same team they played with last time he got injured, the same team they did fine with. Are you serious? A player's performance is irrelevant as to how the team will do without him? You realize that players don't perform at the exact same level throughout the season, right? You'e missing the point. I'm not talking about how Soriano was playing at the time of the injury, because it's irrelevcant (other than the fact that mentally it feels worse). What Soriano was doing at the time of each injury doesn't change anything about the team that they will put on the field in his absence. A team minus a red hot Soriano is exactly the same as a team minus an ice cold Soriano. I'm not sure how much more I can lay this out for you, because it seems like I'm being pretty clear. I understand your point. I just think you're wrong. If you have to replace a guy putting up a .900 OPS and your bench doesn't contain anyone that good, you're not likely to sustain the success you had when that guy gets injured. If you have to replace a guy with a .600 OPS and your bench has a lot of guys that are playing better than that, you're likely to sustain your success, if not improve. Soriano will likely end up with a .900 OPS at the end of the year, but he started the year terribly cold. So we didn't miss his bat b/c we weren't getting anything from him anyway. Now, we'll more likely miss his bat b/c he was really hot and some guys that were hot before have cooled. I'm not sure how much more I can lay this out for you... That's an interesting use of logic, and taking it further one could say that Soriano's .900 OPS could be replaced by a bench player with a .600 OPS, and one of the starters who had a bad month while Soriano was hot (D Lee who's .avg and .obp dropped nearly 100 points since Soriano's return) would make up for the slack, putting up well over the numbers they had for the last month. Why can't the guys who were hot when he was out make up for the slack? Soriano is one the streakiest players on the team, so it's very plausible that he was going to cool off for a period soon anyways, thus negating your reasoning in the first place.

If a deal is made, it needs to be for a top tier pitcher - Wolf and Meche aren't the kinda help we need.

Isn't he a really bad drunk?

About a week ago a sox-fan buddy of mine told me I should check out this non-sox related article on soxtalk.com. I asked him why, at the time, there were 7 threads on the 1st page related to the Cubs... =D>

Do you really think the Cardinals are the 2nd best team in the NL Central? If you believe their season thus far is the "real deal", then you can't deny the success of Ryan Dempster in '08. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you also claiming that Wainwright/Wellemeyer is a better combo than Zambrano/Dempster? Glaus' OPS AND SLG have decreased by .030 each season since '04. Glaus is slugging .063 below his avg, however it is reasonable to expect another significant decline this season.

tell that to Zambrano/Sabathia \:D/ :beg:

Glaus currently has a .264 avg & .370 obp - his career #'s are a .254 avg and .359 obp. Duncan is currently in the minor leagues. What makes you think both of these guys are gonna improve? What are the odds Carp returns and immediately is at Cy Young status? Only in Dreamland is Wainwright and the magical return of Carpenter the best 1-2 punch in the NL. Wainwright's #'s are currently worse than Dempster, Zambrano, Webb, Haren, Volquez, Lincecum & Sheets.

Hawk definitely had the range with the Expos before the turf got to him. He still had it his first year with the Cubs in '87, then they started to slow him down. Hands down one of the nicest Cubs I've ever met!

What a classless, selfish ball of suckage.

That easily makes it more frustrating...it's not like a lot of the other bust closers this year, who have been shaky or worse in most of their appeaances, even when they get the save...those other 18 games, he pretty much looks like one of the most dominant bullpen arms in the game. Very true - and even when he does hit somebody, he still appears to have his "stuff".

Wait a minute. When Buerhle is on? It's easy to say that at his best a guy is better than somebody else is at their non-best. But come on here, Buerhle/Vazquez are not more solid than Zambrano/Lilly. Zambrano has been the most consistently good pitcher of that group, while the rest of the three have had their ups and downs. I think they are. I say when Buehrle is on because he tends to be inconsistent, but not on a start to start basis, but a half season to half season sort of basis (don't have the stats handy, but this is what I've noticed). I think bar none Vazquez is better than Lilly. So together, if Buehrle is throwing well, I would take them over Z and Lilly. You are right though, Zambrano is easily the most talented off the 4 pitches. Try and justify it all you want, but when you compare guys by using one pitcher's "on" stats vs another pitcher's average stats, it's completely bogus. It doesn't matter though. If created a fictitious world where Buehrle was "on" (for instance like first half '07), I would take him and Vazquez over Z and Lilly. When Z is "on" he's unspeakably better than Buehrle. It makes up for the difference between Lilly and Vazquez. =D> :thumbsup:

Woody is just plain nasty. =D>

2-1 when Gallagher starts. Am I missing something here? I realize his performance doesn't necessarily dictate a 2-1 record, but he's far from causing the Cubs to concede games. Am I missing something here? Gallagher has started for a total of 10 innings and given up 10 runs in those innings. Granted, I'd still rather have him out there than Marquis, but Gallagher hasn't impressed me in the least thus far (and I was very excited to see him in the rotation). 3 starts: 15 IP, 10 ER, 13 K, 1.60 WHIP My bad...15ip is correct.

2-1 when Gallagher starts. Am I missing something here? I realize his performance doesn't necessarily dictate a 2-1 record, but he's far from causing the Cubs to concede games. Am I missing something here? Gallagher has started for a total of 10 innings and given up 10 runs in those innings. Granted, I'd still rather have him out there than Marquis, but Gallagher hasn't impressed me in the least thus far (and I was very excited to see him in the rotation).

Give this post a standing ovation until your hands bleed. After his 10AB-small-sample-size-batting-rampage he went 5/25 with 11 K's until he was sent down. He struck out 4/6 AB's immediately following this 10AB-batting-rampage-miracle-turnaround. =D>

I'd hope they're doing everything they can to dump Marquis.

When did they start working with him? April 17? By your numbers, he hit .270 with a .325 OBP after they started working with him. I'd say that's improvement from his number pre April 17, no? The article on Cubs.com came out on 4/17, they worked with him during the 3rd week of April. He played a full game on 4/15 with some "adjustments" to his swing, and went 0/4 with three K's. Given the fact that he was working on his swing, I'd say his #'s that game are reflective of his adaptation to the "improvements" Lou and Keller made, and I can recall BB discussing this during the game as Pie's swing looked horrid at times. Before 4/15, his #'s were: 4/22 8K's April 16-April 30: 5/18 2BB 6K's May 1- May 12: 5/19 1BB 7 K's There's minimal improvement there, but nothing out of the ordinary for such a small sample size. Hey, I want him up here like the rest of us.

i wasn't really trying to argue with you. i just didn't get the statement you made. Pie never started getting more at-bats after Lou (and Keller) worked with him. additionally, he actually started getting better results in the few at-bats he did get after that. Pie's #'s are above. The article about them taking the extra time to work with him was on 4/17.

Lou said the same thing about Pie when he was struggling - they worked with him, then got him more AB's & he didn't produce. The leash was very short with Pie, and I guarantee you it will be just as short with Edmonds. Hopefully soon Pie will (and should) be back up, as I would prefer to let him adjust at the major league level getting AB's everyday. The problem is that he WON'T be getting AB's everyday, it'll be a platoon with Johnson. So, is a Johnson platoon beneficial to Pie? HUH?!?! I'm pretty sure he didn't get more AB's after they worked with him and I'm pretty sure he did actually startto produce after that too. More or less the opposite of what you said. Huh? Show me the difference in production. Furthermore, what the hell are you arguing with me for? I'm on your side to bring Pie up and dump Edmonds! He's arguing with you because what you wrote is the complete oppisite of truth. Pie never got more at bats and the at bats he did get were producing more than earlier in the year. Pie's #'s from May 1- May 12: 5/19 1BB 7 K's Pie's #'s from April 16-April 30: 5/18 2BB 6K's Where is the improvement, and how is this the oppOsite of the truth?

Lou said the same thing about Pie when he was struggling - they worked with him, then got him more AB's & he didn't produce. The leash was very short with Pie, and I guarantee you it will be just as short with Edmonds. Hopefully soon Pie will (and should) be back up, as I would prefer to let him adjust at the major league level getting AB's everyday. The problem is that he WON'T be getting AB's everyday, it'll be a platoon with Johnson. So, is a Johnson platoon beneficial to Pie? HUH?!?! I'm pretty sure he didn't get more AB's after they worked with him and I'm pretty sure he did actually startto produce after that too. More or less the opposite of what you said. Huh? Show me the difference in production. Furthermore, what the hell are you arguing with me for? I'm on your side to bring Pie up and dump Edmonds!

Lou said the same thing about Pie when he was struggling - they worked with him, then got him more AB's & he didn't produce. The leash was very short with Pie, and I guarantee you it will be just as short with Edmonds. Hopefully soon Pie will (and should) be back up, as I would prefer to let him adjust at the major league level getting AB's everyday. The problem is that he WON'T be getting AB's everyday, it'll be a platoon with Johnson. So, is a Johnson platoon beneficial to Pie?