katway

Hendry is likely thinking beyond the PTBNL to opening another spot on the roster, which may give the team some flexibility to bring aboard another player, etc. He's clearly not finished tinkering.

It's unlikely Patterson will pitch in the majors any time soon. The Nats observed that his velocity and command had actually declined from last year when he went 1-5 with a 7.47 ERA. His fastball was in the low 80s and even he wasn't suprised about the move during a Friday interview on the local DC radio station. Even he admitted that the Nats gave him every opportunity they could and that he just didn't have his stuff. At this point, Patterson doesn't have much upside. Given the low upside to Patterson, the Cubs organization is better served developing the youngsters in the minors and focusing its resources, innings, etc. on them rather than John Patterson.

Simple call for the Cubs. Prior wanted to be paid for 2008 without giving the Cubs an club option for 2009. Seems pretty simple that if the guy has little chance of pitching in 2008, the club shouldn't sign him without assurances that they will have the first option for his services in the following year. Otherwise, the club is just paying for his rehab and doesn't lock in his services when (and if) he's healthy.

Yep. Also no curses to blame for this one. We were flat out beat.

Another swing at a pitcher's pitch in a hitter's count.

Rather he strike out and grab some pine that do that. Absolutely horrible at bat.

Hitter's counts and we still swing at a pitcher's pitch.

After 3 balls, Ramirez just expecting a walk, so he parked his bat on his shoulder.

Second verse same as the first...

Should have made this move in the 2nd inning... clearly didn't have his stuff and was rattled (unable to bunt, unable to field, etc.)

Lee held onto it this time.

Make it stop. Lilly has been as bad as one can be this game -- poor pitching, bunt for an out, can't field....

I think you may be right, but I'm still not sure why added salary effects the sale much?!?! Seriously, if Hendry signed Z long-term and added a big bat like Griffey, or Burrell.................... do you really think the sale price would drop at all. I really doubt it. I could be wrong, though, who knows! The organizational thinking may be that the Cubs are an asset sale. The Cubs as an asset have a given value somewhat independent of the players on the current roster. Future liabilities, such as player salaries, are likely to be used by any acquirer as leverage to lower the sales price. Players like Griffey with significant deferred salary for past services are even worse because if the Cubs assume the deferred salary payments, those future payments may not be deductible by the acquirer of the Cubs as they do not relate to services performed for the acquirer. On the other hand, if the Cubs go further in the playoffs (a big IF) and thereby increase merchandise/ticket sales, etc. it may increase their value.

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. In a way, Church has been the Nats version of Corey Patterson light. Sometimes he looks like an all-star. But, most of the time, he looks lost out there. I wouldn't mind picking him up because if he can get his head strait, he may be an excellent outfielder. But, that's a huge IF and the Cubs certainly shouldn't over pay for him. A lot has been brought up about him being able to play center. However, from the Nats games I've been to and observed, he's a notch below average as a center fielder.

Living in DC, I've followed Ryan Church's performance over the past 3 years. He's extremely streaky. When he's on, he can be a excellent hitter (Will Clark type swing), lots of gap doubles, power, etc. When he's off, he can be one of the worst hitters at the plate, just looks totally lost at times. He plays ok defense in the corners, but is a below average center fielder. I wouldn't pay too much for him -- way too inconsistent but he's got a good ceiling (however, just as likely to out of the league in 2 years as he is to be an all-star) and a change of scenery may help him get his head strait.

Neither of those statements is true. Floyd's OPS is 55 points lower than Murton's last year (both his OBP and SLG are worse, it's not just one of the 2). I don't get the better OF comment at all. Floyd's range is horrendous. And by all accounts, Murton went down and worked on his fielding in RF and has improved. Given that Murton was destroying the ball in AAA for a couple months, it makes no sense to keep running Floyd out there (or DeRosa who should be at 2B every game). The stats are "similar" to Murton's last year and far better this year. Murton wouldn't be in this position if he played better early on. In the long run Murton is the better player, but he wasn't able to adjust quickly to right field. But, after seeing Murton look lost out in right, it's easy to see why Lou went with Floyd and stuck with him (production "similar" to Murton's last year) as the team continues to play well.

thats not true Right field... Floyd -- Zone rating .875, Fielding pct 1.000 Murton -- Zone rating .826, Fielding pct .875 Floyd is not a great fielder by any measure, but Murton has looked awful in right. I hope he does improve and worked on it at AAA.

Murton's fielding and Floyd's decent play = less playing time for Matt. The fact is that Soriano is set in left and Murton really can't field another outfield position. He simply looks lost in right field. It's a sad state of affairs when Cliff Floyd is a better fielder, but for all of Floyds faults as a fielder, he's not as bad as Morton. It seems that Floyd has given the team hitting production similar to Murton's last year (as well as some quality clutch hitting) and is the better fielder between the two. All things being equal in a penant race, I can understand Lou sticking with Floyd -- same production, slightly better fielder, veteran, clutch hitting.

Nats still do well because everyone that buys into RFK will be first in line when the new ballpark opens. The rumor is that they are simply treading water until the new ballpark opens, focusing on minor league talent, and will only start to spend $ on free agents when the novelty of a new ballpark begins to wear off.

Aramis's contract is the product of negotiation. It's obvious that a team would not simply throw in an out clause if the player hadn't demanded it in the negotiations. So, really don't see how the Cubs could be blamed for this when it was part of an overall negotiated deal. As for Maddux, the LA Dodgers had a a little more leverage since Maddux had to sign-off on the deal and he wasn't going to do that for just any team. In the end, LA was one of the few teams we could trade him to and that gave them leverage to decrease Maddux's trade value.

There's only one person to blame for Corey's inconsistent play -- Corey Patterson. Just strikes me as one of those players with a great skill set that may never reach his potential because he just doesn't get it no matter who the coach or organization.

There are also years in which the reverse (much better day record than night record) is true.

thanks for the defense Pink. I think what alludes everybody in this discussion is the Cubs don't play the Cubs during the day. they play teams that haven't been playing day games five days in the past week. in July - Sept, they play teams that haven't played 50 day games over the past couple months. playing during the day takes more out of you physically and mentally. any non-Cub will tell you that. Assuming for the sake of discussion only that day games do affect players more than night games and that the cummulative effect of day games makes things a little bit more difficult... shouldn't the players make adjustments? For example, get in better shape, spend your nights resting for the next day game so your well rested when the visiting team who played the night before arrives, drink more fluids during the day, etc. There are many ways to mitigate the perceived cummulative effect of day games that players should make. It shouldn't be that difficult. As another poster noted -- it's not soccer, football, etc... it's baseball (a game in which Sidney Ponson can put on a uniform and call himself a ball player). Personally, I can't see how this team can ever win if players buy into the day game excuse. An organization that gives itself an excuse to lose has no reason to win.

I take it you haven't been keeping up with Griffey this year. He's been pretty horrible. His OBP is below .300. Wow, I didn't notice that before you posted it. I thought he was having a decent year last I checked. This is probably not just an off year. Given his age (37 next year) and health, he's probably going to have a tough time getting back to his 2005 numbers, and maybe even his 2004. And at his cost, it's probably not worth the investment. Junior is a free agent following the 2008 season (unless the Reds pick up his option for 2009).

Funny thing about day games is the opponents always seem to have no problem adjusting. It's a day game for us and a day game on the road for them... the day game excuse for losing never made sense.