Blueheart05

Cabrera walks.

Hopefully, Hill will be relaxed pitching with a 4 run lead.

His count is now 3-0 on my computer :wink: I feel so behind...

Murton with the RBI double. :D

WOW, Gameday audio is just talking about the first pitch...

Thanks for explaining how the MRI figures in -- that was the most confusing of the initial reports. On the national (not local) ESPN radio update, they just mentioned Prior and led it off with "if the Cubs know the results of Prior's MRI, they aren't talking. ' Wow, I wonder if that means the skepticism of Cubs management is national. LOL, ya think? That's hard to argue especially when you have guys like Mariotti constantly trashing the Cubs on ESPN.

Somehow, I don't think you meant ladies literally...

Ok, thanks for the update!

In related news, Miles doesn't mention Guzman as a possible fifth starter. The idea must be out of the question for the Cubs.I was surprised to see Marshall & Ryu named.

Maybe he delayed the MRI because the soreness/pain subsided so he figured that it wasn't as bad as feared. There's more to come in this drama but I don't expect a turn for the worse.

My thoughts exactly...

Not as green as you are with jealousy and envy Why would he be jealous? Pierre>Edmonds. Alsonotreally. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: I know, not a fair comparison. If Pierre is the sparkplug Eck is for the Cards he will make a huge difference for the Cubs. But there's going to be a lot of people stretching doubles into triples with that arm. Not necessarily. I don't think the Marlins gave up an inordinate number of triples (or doubles for that matter) while Pierre patroled their outfield. Playing halftime in Wrigley Field may give him the opportunity to make some of those would-be doubles long outs. :wink:

I don't see how that deal shows anything. I don't think there was a huge conspiracy to cover up an injury. I just think they are an dishonest and partially inept organization that can't handle the situation. Prior obviously wasn't 100% this spring. My guess is they thought he could work through it without there being a problem. But he clearly wasn't 100%. It doesn't have to be a huge elaborate plan to hide the nature of his injury until after tickets were sold or anything. He was not 100% and they didn't want to talk about it. Now they are forced to. The Cubs never claimed he was 100%. I'm sure they attributed Prior's issues to his offseason illness (which can be proven since Prior volunteered that he went to the ER in San Diego). Rothschild probably deduced that any soreness leading up to being shutdown was both due to his lack of offseason conditioning and the normal rigors of getting the body inshape to play. I don't see a failure to disclose every bump and bruise as a lie. No one even noticed when Maddux was held back from his first scheduled Spring start (granted he's older but he also, reportedly, had a trainer in the offseason to get him ready for Spring, and beyond, so one would assume he would have no setbacks). Part of me still thinks this is nothing major. Hopefully. that's the case.

The US still has to get past Mexico to advance.

Until about April 15th My guess is Zambrano Maddux Williams Rusch After the 15th I think they will spot start Hill or Guzman. Oh yeah, who is John Baker? :wink: I believe Dusty's real name is "Johnnie." LOL

There's something to be said about being efficient, but let's not pretend that strikeouts are a bonus. A pitcher can only control so much, and striking people out is the best he can do in that regard. When you start pitching to contact, you open up a lot of variables outside the pitcher's control. I'm not saying that you try to strike out every hitter, but when you have the stuff conducive for it(and possibly stuff/control NOT conducive to hitting spots and getting poorly batted balls), K's and power pitching should be the route taken. Striking batters out is a bonus because it gives certain pitchers another way to get an out (and as you say, an extra bit of control over the outcome of an at bat). While it's true that the pitcher can't control anything outside of the strikeout I think that a pitcher will do best to trust his defense. One could argue that good pitching and good defense are synonymous. In the case of the Cubs, I don't think many of their pitchers trust the defense behind them.

Unless my memory is wrong, I think we had a poor bullpen in 2003. I recall always fearing that the 'pen would blow the game. I think they were the reason why Wood didn't win more than 14 games that year. The main bullpen guys were had the following numbers: Joe Borowski 68 0 2 2 33 0 1 68.1 53 20 5 19 66 8.69 0.0 1.05 2.63 Mark Guthrie 65 0 2 3 0 0 10 42.2 40 13 6 22 24 5.06 0.0 1.45 2.74 K. Farnsworth 77 0 3 2 0 0 19 76.1 53 28 6 36 92 10.85 0.0 1.17 3.30 M. Remlinger 73 0 6 5 0 0 17 69.0 54 28 11 39 83 10.83 0.0 1.35 3.65 Of course, guys like Alfonseca and Cruz struggled out of the pen. However, these four certainly held their own. Those numbers are telling. The ERA's are respectable yet the W/L records tell me that they had a lot to do with late inning scoring. Also, Alf used to give me nightmares. LOL

Unless my memory is wrong, I think we had a poor bullpen in 2003. I recall always fearing that the 'pen would blow the game. I think they were the reason why Wood didn't win more than 14 games that year.

I think Wood's history of misuse began well before the Cubs even drafted him, but that's no excuse to keep doing it. There's no question that one usage pattern can affect Pitcher A one way and Pitcher B another. But I think the safest thing to do is err on the side of caution. Protect the pitchers you are counting on to be a key part of the team for many years. There's no doubt about it but there's plenty of blame to go around. The biggest difference between Guillen's staff and Baker's (outside of health) is in-game longevity. Guys like Burhele can pitch an entire game while using only 100 pitches where Cubs pitchers reach that plateau in the 5th or 6th inning. (which is common with power pitchers). I blame the pitching coach, and the pitchers themselves, for not being more economical. I think the team's pitching philosophy is also different because the starters don't typically pitch for contact which is another reason why they run up their pitch counts early. As far as Baker leaving the starters in the game too long is concerned, there's no arguing this point because it is true. It's also true that the pitchers have to do a better job of getting into the late innings consistently. I agree that there are pitchers who need to work on lowering their pitch counts. But I think that also goes back to coaching, not necessarily the manager, but certainly the pitching coach on his coaching staff. If you have a young pitcher that is consistently hitting the 95-100 pitch mark by the fifth inning, then certainly work with him on how to be more efficient with his pitches. If he can't fix the issue, then decisions need to be made. Do you build your bullpen with the understanding that you need a couple guys who are capable of going 2-3 innings to compensate? Do you convert the starter to a reliever? Do you carry 12 pitchers instead of 11? Do you trade the pitcher? Do you get a new pitching coach? I agree completely. On a controversial note, if Baker had not overpitched the starters in 2003 they may not have made the playoffs because the bullpen was unreliable. As it was, they barely made it to the postseason... Partial blame goes to the GM for bringing on a Manager, who at the time was very highly sought after, to "get them to the promise land" without equipping the team with all the necessary parts to start the season. 2006 will be the first season under Baker's administration that, on paper, the bullpen looks dominant. None of this is meant to excuse Baker for his part in misusing the starters.

I think Wood's history of misuse began well before the Cubs even drafted him, but that's no excuse to keep doing it. There's no question that one usage pattern can affect Pitcher A one way and Pitcher B another. But I think the safest thing to do is err on the side of caution. Protect the pitchers you are counting on to be a key part of the team for many years. There's no doubt about it but there's plenty of blame to go around. The biggest difference between Guillen's staff and Baker's (outside of health) is in-game longevity. Guys like Burhele can pitch an entire game while using only 100 pitches where Cubs pitchers reach that plateau in the 5th or 6th inning. (which is common with power pitchers). I blame the pitching coach, and the pitchers themselves, for not being more economical. I think the team's pitching philosophy is also different because the starters don't typically pitch for contact which is another reason why they run up their pitch counts early. As far as Baker leaving the starters in the game too long is concerned, there's no arguing this point because it is true. It's also true that the pitchers have to do a better job of getting into the late innings consistently. You blame the power pitchers for not changing the style that made them 1st round draft picks with major skills? Interesting. Yes, they are partially to blame but this also goes back to the pitching coach and team phlosophy. Maddux said that when he was younger he relished striking out and embarrasing hitters until his coach told him that it wouldn't get him far... Is it more important that they strikeout as many batters as possible or that they get into the 7th inning with the lead? Learning to be efficient with pitches is a part of the maturation process. A power pitcher is dangerous because he always has the option of striking out a batter but it shouldn't be the number one goal. When you hear a guy like Kerry Wood finally say that he doesn't care how many strikeouts he gets you know he finally gets it. Unfortunately, he's been abused/and abused his own arm for years.

I think Wood's history of misuse began well before the Cubs even drafted him, but that's no excuse to keep doing it. There's no question that one usage pattern can affect Pitcher A one way and Pitcher B another. But I think the safest thing to do is err on the side of caution. Protect the pitchers you are counting on to be a key part of the team for many years. There's no doubt about it but there's plenty of blame to go around. The biggest difference between Guillen's staff and Baker's (outside of health) is in-game longevity. Guys like Burhele can pitch an entire game while using only 100 pitches where Cubs pitchers reach that plateau in the 5th or 6th inning. (which is common with power pitchers). I blame the pitching coach, and the pitchers themselves, for not being more economical. I think the team's pitching philosophy is also different because the starters don't typically pitch for contact which is another reason why they run up their pitch counts early. As far as Baker leaving the starters in the game too long is concerned, there's no arguing this point because it is true. It's also true that the pitchers have to do a better job of getting into the late innings consistently.

LOL, in general I agree with you but if we're going to talk about value it has to include the importance the pitcher has to his team. It's hard to argue that Hermanson wasn't an important part of the 2005 White Sox. He was injured late but he helped that team get out to it's big lead by saving many close games. Hermanson is an older mediocre talent with little future. Wood and Prior were elite younger talents with almost unlimited upside. Would you please stop pretending the stories are at all similar? Roger's contention that Guillen handled his staff perfectly is pretend. Also, I don't even think we can compare Wood and Prior's histories. I think Wood is much more a case of abuse throughout the system (much of which predates Baker) whereas, Baker's influence on Prior's career, and propensity for injury, has been greater. Some of this is also individual to the pitchers. Some guys can handle large workloads without adverse affects. Zambrano doesn't appear to be breaking down under Baker's watch.

LOL, in general I agree with you but if we're going to talk about value it has to include the importance the pitcher has to his team. It's hard to argue that Hermanson wasn't an important part of the 2005 White Sox. He was injured late but he helped that team get out to it's big lead by saving many close games.

They got lucky with Hermanson in the first place. I don't see how they could have gone into last season thinking he was going to be anything more than a league-average pitcher. I think the earlier comparison with Rusch is very accurate. For that matter, the Cubs got lucky with Dempster. At least Hermanson had a track record of late inning success coming into the season. a track record? he relieved for like half of 2004. that was the only experience he had in the "closer role." that's not a track record. He was a reliever where Dempster had not been coming into the season. Obviously it was enough for them to bring him on as a closer.

They got lucky with Hermanson in the first place. I don't see how they could have gone into last season thinking he was going to be anything more than a league-average pitcher. I think the earlier comparison with Rusch is very accurate. For that matter, the Cubs got lucky with Dempster. At least Hermanson had a track record of late inning success coming into the season. Not much but some...