Tracer Bullet

How am I supposed to know? What has he done to hurt them? What I know is what he did as GM of the Dodgers and those were good moves. His impact on the Padres is difficult to judge from the outside. But you were the one attributing the success of the current team through less than 2 months to his presence.

why, because he hasn't hit in a handful of games? trust me, he'll be gone soon and he won't have caused even a particle of the damage that any of the guys you named did. i've heard of meatball hate, but this is ridiculous. actually it's ridiculous to keep calling people "meatballs." you supported the signing of edmonds; time to take your medicine. i don't get it. i wasn't telling anyone that this was for sure an awesome signing. i was saying that it was, at worst, a pointless signing. but you've decided to put words in my mouth, apparently. i'll not deny that one of my favorite pastimes is ridiculing the poor slobs who hate edmonds not for his offensive decline, but for his past with the cardinals and because he's apparently gay. if you hate him for one these meatball reasons, you're a meatball and you belong with da superfans. that's all. The gay jokes were old when he was a cardinal and they're getting embarrassing at this point. But I don't get why you think you can call people poor slobs and meatballs because they they don't like a particular player and they didn't want him signed by their favorite team and he took ABs (although limited ABs) from a young prospect...oh, and because he sucks. It's hard to separate all the reasons why people wouldn't like Edmonds, but it's disingenuous to suggest that most Cubs fans would hate for any former Cardinal to be signed by the Cubs. Hatred for this particular Cardinal can't be generalized to hatred of all Cardinals (at least for most people). There was a history with Edmonds and the Cubs (esp Z). He has a pretty bad reputation. And he's now terrible. But those are apparently meatball reasons, since you don't approve of them. You know what would make things easier? If you came up with a stupid little self-important "stamp of approval."

You & several others are here must be watching a different game than the rest because Soriano clearly has blown as many games as he's won. Why does he get mentioned so often? Because he's a very easy target. He has no legs, can't play in the OF, is about the least clutch performer as it gets in baseball. Has no patience at the plate even though his spot in the lineup calls for it. Brenly is fully aware of it. Why aren't you? Lou continues to cater to this baby. It's like keeping him happy is more important than winning games. It's almost as bad as it was during the Sammy era the last 2-3 yrs. This team goes nowhere in the postseason if it thinks Soriano first, team second. You believe that Brenly and everyone except me and most of this board agrees with you that Soriano should be sent to AAA? The team isn't thinking Soriano first. The team is thinking win first. Having a guy slugging .710 in your lineup and playing LF helps the team win. It's clear his legs aren't 100% and he's certainly cost the team some runs with his defense (though it's hard to blame a guy for losing a ball in the sun - it happens). But his offense in the last month has more than made up for his defense and running problems. I'm not going to derail this thread by responding to this crap any longer.

You're right. Since the season ends today and the team with the best record as of today wins the WS, there's no need to improve the team.

Well, you could not mess with a guy's swing when he's had success at all levels. CPatt didn't have as much success in the minors, but Pie's had quite a bit, especially after making adjustments at each level. I'm not sure why Lou's hell bent on changing things with young players that have had success in the minors. If you have to make an adjustment to how you're being pitched, that's one thing. But sounds like they're making big changes to Pie's swing. ..which may be proven by his abysmal start in Iowa. I mean in nearly a thousand PAs at Iowa he was hitting over .300 with power. This has to be the biggest slump of his minor league career. maybe. then again, it's been 10 games.

jeepers creepers. This may have worked several weeks ago, but the guy is SLG .710 in May. .710. Slugging. I hate his contract. I wish he weren't hitting first in the lineup this season. But a .710 slugging and you want him shipped to Iowa? If what Hendry says is true, then when will Zambrano be sent to Iowa? Who's with me?

Right before they called him up somebody, Dusty or Hendry, said they were not going to give Corey the yo-yo treatment, but that is exactly what they did. They did all sorts of things like make him sit for days at a time for no good reason, then get sent to AAA to work on slapping the ball and being a bunter. Patterson started 72 out of the first 79 games in 2005. I'd hardly call that jerking him around. His line after July 2nd of that year when he lost his job: .236/.274/.387 in 305 AB's. I don't agree with what they had him work on in the minor leagues, and believe that was a mistake. But I don't think they gave him the yo-yo treatment. They also didn't start him as much as I'd like after he came back, but he did start 37 out of the 50 games. Baylor and the injury were the worst things to happen to Patterson. He got a fair shot in 05. And, btw, fixing Pie's swing this early is a mistake, no matter how bad he looked. They're taking a huge gamble before even seeing how well he can adjust on his own. That's nice, but Corey was first called up to the majors in 2000. He went back to AAA in 2001, then got called up where he platooned for a while and then more or less turned into a pinch hitter for 2 months. The names you mentioned were Dusty and Hendry. I would agree that Patterson was yo-yo'd back in 2000-2001, but you said that Dusty and Hendry did it, and neither of them were in the key decision maker spots back then. Did you mean Baylor and MacPhail? I don't recall who said it actually. I meant Baylor or Hendry. Andy was the key decision maker, but Hendry was heavily involved and quoted. I just know somebody specifically referred to "yoyo treatment" when Corey was first called up. When he was drafted I believe it was Andy who essentially said, "he's a fast centerfielder but he's not a leadoff hitter. We think of him as a middle of the order run producer." I remembered that too. Google turns up this quote in a Feb 2001 article about Corey. But I'm not paying to get the whole article. I just don't want the yo-yo to happen," Baylor said link

The whole Hendry quote is amazing. We're going to shuffle the roster all year. If you're playing well at Iowa, we'll bring you up. But you've got to produce instantly, even if over just a few ABs. Like Soto. If you don't have an OPS over a thousand like Geo, your ass is heading back to Iowa. Unless you're Ryan Theriot, then we'll take an OPS of .630 for a few months. Of course, if you're one of the 30 best pitchers in the league over a full year, we'll screw with your mechanics. If that messes you up, you're not cut out for our team. We need power out of our corner OFs. We can't have a guy hit just 1 HR a month in RF or our whole team will collapse. And we need production in CF. We can't have a struggling 22-year-old. A struggling 38-year-old we can handle, but a 22-year-old needs to rake right from the start.

A good portion of the article which is the subject of this thread discussed Matt Murton (the Cubs handling of him, his spot on this team, to the extent he has one, etc). I'm commenting on that. Why are you still complaining about people discussing Matt Murton? And at this point, the Cubs are getting close to completely wasting Murton's trade value. He'll be 27 in October and the Cubs don't even view him as their 5th OF or first option in the OF when an injury occurs. If you can't get Byrd for Murton, what valuable piece is he going to bring?

I can only assume at this point that it makes TOO much sense for Lou and Hendry. It's such an obvious movi that they automatically don't trust it, and kind of fear it. I never thought of that, but that's the most likely explanation. It's too good to be true - we can't possibly have a great offense with a young guy struggling to adjust to the majors, so it must not be possible, even though logic dictates that our total offense wouldn't suffer if your replaced a horribly-performing vet with a less-horribly-performing young player.

I see your point, but those two negative trades don't offset the two good ones. They haven't been nearly as damaging as the Lee/Aramis trades have been beneficial. A - I wasn't just comparing those 2 bad trades to those 2 good ones. He's made lots of trades, some good, some bad. B - I'm talking the net effect of his player acquisition outside the draft; hence "trades/signings." It's difficult to compare because you obviously don't know how things would play out if these deals hadn't been done. But in addition to the lost prospects, there's the opportunity cost and wasted assets in the trades and FA signings.

I don't understand your 2nd paragraph. You think if Johnson had options and Edmonds sucks for a few more weeks, they'd get rid of both and what, put Fukudome there full time? Seems unlikely. Johnson's here for the season. He'd had to start sucking something awful to at least not start in CF against LHP and spell Soriano occasionally. They clearly thought Edmonds had something left, though I'm not sure what the scouts saw in SD that made them think that. If Edmonds gets cut, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hendry go out and get another veteran CF. But this doesn't make any sense to me. The team is going great offensively while getting nothing from CF against RHP. As many posters have said many times, now is a great time to let a young guy develop while giving you stellar defense in CF.

I had the same thought, but finally read it. You should, it's actually pretty good. Murton takes a nice little shot at Hendry, though veiled (at the end of the first page, he mentions the "win now" mentality, the sale of the team, the big spending on FAs and how people are trying to keep their jobs; I took at as a bit of a shot at Hendry). It's interesting to see Von Joshua say he's never in 5 years seen Pie's confidence gone like it is now that they've messed with his swing. Even the writer acknowledges that it's never really clear what Murton's short-coming is. And when they bring up the one topic people seem to point to - the lack of power - Murton appears to know his numbers show he has power. He points to his 2nd half stats from '06 and mentions that when he actually got to play every day, he really drove the ball, which is true. And Hendry's pointing to Theriot as 1 of the 2 guys (Soto the other) who have come up and produced right away to "prove they belong" is just hysterical to anyone who knows anything of Theriot's performance last year. He didn't produce right away. His OBP was ok to start the year, but slipped quickly and was horrible by June. Funny that he got over 200 pretty regular ABs of mostly absolute suck on a team trying to contend when guys like Pie get 4 games.

My biggest issue with Hendry's regime is his use of young players. The revolving door with Iowa, the very short leashes, not giving guys a chance to adjust. It makes no sense. When the team's terrible, we still play vets. When the offense is on fire, we can't find a spot to give a young guy a chance to adjust, though we'll find a way to get a washed-up vet some ABs to see if we'll get lucky. Part of our inability to develop young players is the failure to give them a real chance at the majors. Or to block them after they've had some success. Oh, and I was surprised Bruce didn't list the Lilly signing as a good move, which makes a nice contrast to the Marquis signing. Those 2 deals are good examples of the roller coaster that is JH. For every Choi for Lee, there's a JP. For every ARam/Loften there's a Trachsel. Hard to say what the net effect of Hendry has been on the trades/signing front.

So there you go folks. the cubs haven't been winning on the road because they haven't been playing as well there. Joe Morgan is the master at using lots of words to say absolutely nothing. And yet, still being wrong. There are a lot of times you play poorly and win and vice versa. Joe's a buffoon.

Well, you could not mess with a guy's swing when he's had success at all levels. CPatt didn't have as much success in the minors, but Pie's had quite a bit, especially after making adjustments at each level. I'm not sure why Lou's hell bent on changing things with young players that have had success in the minors. If you have to make an adjustment to how you're being pitched, that's one thing. But sounds like they're making big changes to Pie's swing.

He would have had a bad week then they would have sent him down to the minors and signed a 38 year old outfielder who just got cut by the worst offense in baseball to take his place. I think they would have been able to give him some stability and hopefully the correct mechanics to sustain a good career, much like they are trying to do with Pie. Whatever they would have done, they wouldn't have had him hitting in the top 2 spots in the lineup.

He probably realized the Cubs are stupid and aren't going to give him a decent shot, so he just gave up. If he truly has that attitude, and I doubt highly he does, then he doesn't deserve a shot. He should be more hungry and motivated right now than anyone. He should have a huge, unquenchable chip and a desire to prove Hendry and Piniella wrong, to rub it in their face even. You're right. Everyone should react the same way to all circumstances and if they don't, screw them.

I'm glad you recognize that. Now maybe you can explain why you feel DePo is directly responsible for the Pads record through 2 months.

He's got 110 ABs in 33 games this year (Pie had just over 60 ABs in 30 games) and has a sub .500 OPS. Why do his games in SD not count?

Mid 90s FB (topped out at 99) and circle change. So no.

What's the format? What other 1B were out there? I think Pence was the best player in that deal and I never like giving up the best player, unless it's a keeper league and I'm already out of it. But without more, I'm not sure how to evaluate the deal.

This might be the worst "stupid trade offer" post ever. agreed. Worst as in I was stupid to deny it or worst as in the guy who offered it to me is an idiot? Has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the offer or you denial of it. Worst in that it's far from a stupid trade offer. In fact, I think the guy was overpaying for Hamilton. But if you feel you're better off with Hamilton than accepting the deal, there's no fault in that either. It's just a trade offer that you didn't think benefited your team.

Well then the assistant to the GM in SF deserves a raise b/c apparently the team is a direct reflection on the ability of the assistant to the GM.

This might be the worst "stupid trade offer" post ever.