Blueheart05

By all accounts, Corey did everything else that was asked of him. He worked extra hours so they could screw up his swing even further. He allowed them to try to change his style of hitting because they needed a slappy leadoff hitter much worse than a power hitter trying to improve his current swing and OBP. He accepted his demotion to AAA. He worked on his swing this fall. Baker and Clines commented on the radio about how happy they were with his effort, just not his progress. Listach was quoted as saying positive things about his work. There wasn't anything wrong with his work ethic that was visible to anyone outside of the organization. And let's not forget about them bringing up Patterson before he was able to have any kind of consistent success at the plate in AAA. That would have been a pretty good time to work on his swing in game situations. Corey's fate was sealed before the season was over. His value off the bench would not have been very great, especially considering he needs to play every day to improve. Hendry knew very well that Juan Pierre or a Juan Pierre-type was going to be one of their main goals. Unfortunately for them, Patterson couldn't be converted. He and Baker talked non-stop about needing a leadoff hitter. Left field was going to Murton and whichever veteran they signed to start instead of him. And I don't think they wanted to keep him around for right field. I'd have to believe the only reason why it took so long to move him was because he's more valuable in a multi-player trade for an impact player than in a trade like this. I don't think Corey accepted his demotion well at all. Also, when he went to the minor leagues he reportedly told his new hitting coach that the Cubs staff had not tried to help him close the holes in his swing (which prompted him to later retract his statement). I don't disagree that the Cubs wanted a true "leadoff man," but I do believe that if Corey had shown the organization that he was willing to follow their direction he would not have been traded. I believe they would have considered moving him to RF and batting him lower in the lineup.

Corey doesn't have much room to blast anyone. The Cubs (especially Hendry) would have loved for him to have had a productive 2005. Patterson's refusal to go to winter ball cemented his exit. I'd have to believe winter ball was nothing more than a convenient excuse for Hendry to use. Corey worked with a hitting coach (and a good one, at that) down in Arizona during the fall, which in my opinion, is much more important than just going down to play winter ball. That is if he re-overhauled it, of course. Going down to play winter ball with what the Cubs were trying to do to him wasn't going to do any good, anyways. And they talked his demotion up to be about clearing his head. If that was really their intention, not having a few months off to just forget about baseball, spend time with family, and stay in shape is quite the opposite. The day that certain people in this organization will finally be held accountable for jerking around and hindering development of young players will be a happy one for me. I disagree. I don't believe that trading Corey was an easy decision for Hendry; I think Corey was/is one of his favorite players. However, it was obvious that the Cubs wanted him to work on his swing in game situations. Also, the Cubs wanted Corey to give them an answer about playing in the WL before the end of the season (I recall Casper mentioning it on air). Perhaps a trade could have been averted with work on Corey's part. IMO, his refusal to go to winterball showed defiance toward the organization and a lack of understanding about the severity of the situation. In the final analysis, Patterson put himself in a position to be traded because of his lack of plate discipline and seeming disinterest in tackling the problem in a way that was satisfactory to the club.

Corey doesn't have much room to blast anyone. The Cubs (especially Hendry) would have loved for him to have had a productive 2005. Patterson's refusal to go to winter ball cemented his exit.

I just happened to look over at Rotoworld. No email was sent to me.

Per Rotoworld:

So the Phillies would have 2 SS's? I wonder if the Cubs would get involved with the Phillies if the Phils don't move thier SS to the O's. According to the rumor, the Phillies would move Tejada to thirdbase.

To be honest, I'd much rather have a defensive catcher than an offensive (Barrett) one. I like Michael but I don't think he makes the pitching staff better or that he has good instincts (like throwing to thirdbase when a runner is coming home). Conversely, I think the pitchers are better with Blanco catching. PLus, he throws out a high number of runners attempting to steal. I wish the Cubs would upgrade the starting catcher poswition but I think they view Barrett as an untouchable.

I think we can put to rest the idea that the White Sox are in serious Tejada talks. That said, if the O's don't lower their demands Tejada will continue to be disgruntled in baltimore. Chicago Tribune

Says the St Petersburgh Times

This is the laughable part: So while entertaining offers that involve Manny and Clement, Prior, and possibly some nice offers from the White Sox, the Orioles will settle for the Lugo and Benson package? This story has to be 100% fabricated. This deal may infact be fabricated. The NY Post quotes sources that dispute it's validity. On a related note, I was happy to see in the Suntimes that, despite rumors to the contrary, the Cubs didn't offer Prior for Tejada (the O's asked for him first only to later ask for Zambrano (?). Who knows if any of these Tejada stories have legs...

And you know this how? Sorry, but you always seem to be calling people out for statements similar to this one. Calling people out? That's your opinion. I try to treat people with respect whether I agree with them or not. Dubois was traded because he was a bad defender. I think that speaks volumes.

Hollandsworth and Dubois were identical in Rate last year, they weren't that much different defensively. That is not a good thing considering Dubois had fewer opportunities. The rate may have been identical at year's end but Dubois was worse by far. He rarely took a good route to a ball, he didn't throw accurately, and his misjudgements caused runs to score. Hollandsworth was a more consistent defender.

And I can respect your opinion. However, I don't see it that way. Hendry basically said Dubois was his starting LFer for 2005. Didn't happen. Hollandsworth was brought back to be the pinch hit extraordinaire that he was in 2004. Didn't happen. Dubois got 7 starts in April. He finished April with a .346 AVG. In the first 8 games in May, he got 5 at bats total. After that long layoff, all of a sudden, Dusty gave Dubois the everyday job. 31 at bats total over the first 31 games of the season, then blam, thrust into the starting job. Meanwhile, Hollandsworth was about as horrible as it gets as an everyday LFer. Granted, Dubois didn't amount to anything, but Dusty gave Hollandsworth and his .211 AVG all the playing time over a guy hitting .346 and having a hot month. The first time Murton has an 0fer, we should all be very scared. Unlike his Muton comments, Hendry never said Dubois was the starting LF. He always talked about the wealth of talent (:D ) they could play in LF. In his heart, he was hoping Hollandsworth would get the job because Dubois was an huge defensive liability.

I'm not so sure of that. Wasn't one of the big reasons Dusty didn't receive an extension in SF because he didn't get along with Sabean. It seems to be his mode of operation to cause a rift between himself and the GM so he can leave "adhering to his principles." Touche LOL, I knew after I posted it that the Giants would come up. I don't know the specific reason(s) he was fired but direct opposition/insubordination isn't usually received well by anyone. Thus far, Hendry seems to be in support of Baker so I don't see him (Dusty) doing very much to jeopardize the relationship. It would also be a reason for him not to let it happen again (heaven forbid there be that pattern). I'm sure he'd like to manage again elsewhere.

Come on, please be reasonable here. It makes no sense to over expose Grissom by having him start over Murton or platoon with him. Even Dusty knows Murton hits well against LHP (I would be concerned if Marquis was lefthanded). Logic dictates that he will split time with Jones I missed this one while I was out working in the garage. Reasonable is thinking that Grissom would play in place of Murton long before he plays in place of Jones when Dusty is the manager. Last year when Murton got called up, he got very little playing time if any. The Cubs used Hollandsworth, Dubois until that proved inadequate. They used Hairston and Gerut while Murton was available. They traded for Lawton while Murton was outproducing all of them. Only once the season was basically over for Cubs playoff chances did Murton get any significant playing time. Jones makes big money. Dusty doesn't sit the big money guys. Same thing with Cedeno. When Cedeno was the best available option while Nomar and Walker were out, Enrique Wilson was brought in and Cedeno was sent down. I watch this team daily too. I've lost a lot of faith in Dusty doing the right thing. Dusty is also the same guy who made the comment that light skinned players can't handle playing most of their games in the hot daytime sun like dark skinned players, so who sits on back to back hot days in the sun? Jones or Murton? Maybe Dusty will prove me wrong. But, until he does, I have every reason to be extremely skeptical at this point. If Murton is still on this team when the season starts (and no big name LF is acquired) I think Murton will start. I know Dusty fills out the lineup cards but I think this year his hands will be tied because Hendry has already gone on record to say that Murton will be the starting LF and his job is on the line. Whether or not Dusty wants this job is up for debate but I don't think he wants to be fired for being in opposition with his GM (who's job may also be on the line baring an extension). On the subject of Grissom, there aren't that many LHP so platooning with Jones (even a strict platoon which I don't think will happen) won't net Marquis too many starting opportunities. If the Cubs sign him it will be as a bench player.

Are you refering to this line by me? If so, I don't know how else to phrase it. If you've paid attention to the Cubs, you have to realize that Grissom would cut into Murton's playing time. I didn't say he'd platoon with him. And for the record, my line came in response to an earlier post by you, saying somebody was unreasonable for noting that rotoworld and dusty won't necessarily make the same decision. I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest a Grissom acquisition would mean he'll start for Murton on occasion, which would be stupid. What I think is unreasonable is expecting Dusty to go against character and suddenly make the one untested guy in the group the everyday player without threat of a platoon by a veteran. Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to. I have been watching the same manager you have and I know his faults but I still think the chances are greater that he takes more time from Jones than Murton. BigbadB wrote: My response: My plea for the poster to reasonable had to do with the idea that Dusty always does something counter to good sense (an exaggeration).

It's okay to think whatever you want. This is a discussion board. No one knows for sure about anything, but half the fun is discussing or debating what would be better. As long as it stays respectful, people shouldn't have to feel like they are being ganged up on. I really don't care if no one agrees with my opinions, but I'm going to give them anyway. It only feels like you are getting ganged up on if your opinion differs from the majority. I've also seen opinions change (including my own) when enough information is provided that makes sense, was well presented and/or educated me more on a topic I didn't really know that much about. CubfaninCa battles with many people here everyday. I think I go to battle with him myself, everyday. I don't have any ill feelings towards him or his opinion, I just don't agree with him very often. Doesn't mean my opinion is right and his is wrong, they just differ. If someone is disrespectful of you and your opinion, PM a mod and we will address it right away. If we didn't have differing opinions on anything, this place would be very boring. Perhaps I'm not being clear. A difference of opinion is welcomed. Insulting and condescending remarks shouldn't be.

I find it amusing that some people are so pessimistic about everything (even signings that have yet to occur). I disagree that the team isn't improved over last year. Also, it's speculation to say that people will be "disappointed when the season goes down the drain." The way some people are talking, there's no reason to watch the games because the outcome has already been determined. I tend to be neither overly critical nor overly optimistic but I will say that my inital post in this thread was not well received. It's one thing to disagree (this is a messageboard afterall) it's another thing to imply that a poster doesn't know what she/he is talking about (or more accurately that they haven't been paying attention) when, in fact, I haven't missed one Cubs game in over 5 years.

We're all speculating at this point (me included) but why does it seem to be OK to think the absolute worstcase senario will happen? Conversely, if someone tries to inject an opposing, dare I say, positive view it's shot down immediately (when the truth is none of us know for sure). As a sidenote, it's sometimes difficult for me to post my true thoughts without feeling that someone will jump all over them. Aren't we all entitled to post here without feeling like we aren't in the know if the view isn't in the majority? I'm not so sure.

Let me clarify, my earlier statement about Jones batting second wasn't an endorsement just a hunch. I think he should bat no higher than 6th and that's only because he has power.

You simply cannot use the "until last year" phrase when talking about a 39 year old baseball player. He's coming in as another veteran for Dusty to overuse. The likelihood of him using Jones/Grissom in a proper platoon is extremely low since Dusty has shown little ability to properly platoon players, wait through the slump of an inexperienced player, limit the playing time of unproductive veterans, and properly read splits. That's one view. I believe Grissom will split most of his time with Jones and not adversely affect Murton.

Come on, please be reasonable here. It makes no sense to over expose Grissom by having him start over Murton or platoon with him. Even Dusty knows Murton hits well against LHP (I would be concerned if Marquis was lefthanded). Logic dictates that he will split time with Jones Dusty doesn't know crap about splits. He did play Karros against a ton of RHP, and he was terrible. It makes no sense to even consider putting a 39 year old has been who never was like Grissom anywhere near this roster. There is no logic when it comes to Dusty thinking. Any Cubs fans who has paid the least bit of attention would realize this type of move would most likely cut into Murton's playing time. I have been paying attention and I disagree with you. It was Dusty that wanted to put Murton "in a position to be successful" by batting him soley against LHP (initially). Grissom is most likely for Jones.

Come on, please be reasonable here. It makes no sense to over expose Grissom by having him start over Murton or platoon with him. Even Dusty knows Murton hits well against LHP (I would be concerned if Marquis was lefthanded). Logic dictates that he will split time with Jones

It makes sense, but will it make the team better? And the question then becomes will Dusty actually play Murton even if Grissom is brought in to platoon with Jones? We all saw how the "platoon" of Neifi/Cendeno went last season. What a shame this is all becomming. I don't see a sensible "platoon" for Matt and Marquis because Murton hits well against lefties (far superior to Grissom). He will probably be sharing time with Jacque and like you, I think they will bat 2nd (at least Jones is most likely going to bat second).

FWIW, Rotoworld seems to think that Grissom will share time with Jones (not Murton). That makes more sense...