Scotti

I think part of the reason (and perhaps a large part of the reason) that Mike Quade is the manager of the Cubs today is because the Cubs went on a tear at the end of the season last year under his leadership. TR would hire the GM with (perhaps) input from the team president. Hendry hired the manager (Q) with input from TR. However, from TR's perspective, Q's pluses were that he is a hands on teacher with the understanding that we will have young players on board (compaired to the prior manager), he knows the system, he knows the City and long-standing issues with the team (born and raised in the area), he is a hands on manager and very positive during trying times (compaired to the other manager). The fact that he works well with the press (as compaired to the other manager) and the fact that he handled the team well through adversity (prior manager, coming off a losing record, Zambrano) certainly didn't detract from his credentials. However, the fact that he was hands on with the young players, IMO, was the #1 selling point for Q with TR. Beliveing that TR was "duped" (so to speak) by a short-term winning record sells TR very, very, very short IMO.

There's the potential risk that the interim GM makes short-sighted moves in an effort to impress his bosses with a meaningless W/L record. It may not make a difference to the Ricketts, but it might and that may be enough for an interim to buy instead of sell at the deadline. I'm not one for firing Hendry but given that TR highly values the farm system (as assets) there is no reason that he couldn't merely say to any interim guy, "Don't go selling the farm to try to impress me--it will do the opposite." Simple as that.

Thanks Raisin Keep in mind that 22 pounds off a 170-175 pound frame is 153-158 pounds (or roughly 13% of his playing weight). Vogelbach lost 14% intentionally and his numbers skyrocketed between his JR and SR years. The difference is that Simpson needed to gain weight and yet he lost it. That's like Voglebach adding 40 pounds to his 280 pound JR body. While Simpson isn't playing at that weight it does take about a year to recover from a mono relapse (my son had a very similar thing happen several years back). Lets see what a season of pitching and an off-season of "Camp Colvin" and Instructs will do. I'm not really concerned...

Isnt he pretty much the same guy as Jonathon Mota? Why do they refuse to promote Flaherty? I don't see where they are refusing to promote Flaherty but, rather, seems to me that they want him to continue to play around the field. That's something that he wouldn't do if he was brought up to AAA to replace an injured 3B. This year he's only played 3rd 7 times (1B 4, 2B 30, SS 12, LF 21, RF 12, DH 1).

Welcome new guys... Just in case there is any confussion, I'm the coolest NSBB.com poster. Evah.

I like him. He's different than Santo but everyone is different than Santo.

Yeah, if they knew he would be a star then trading for Beckett was incredibly short-sighted. They would have much rather had Hanley than Beckett the last 6 years, and that isn't even accounting for the money they would have saved to use on another pitcher. I was under the impression that Hanley was widely considered to be a star in the making at the time of the trade. Maybe they didn't think he'd be as good as he ending up being so soon, but he was star material nonetheless. #30 in BA the offseason he was traded. Coming off a poor year at AA. Unless people are willing to relent on the Cubs having high-end talent and claim Brett Jackson as a star, the Red Sox are full of it. He was the red-sox top prospect in 03 and in 04. He also moved two levels in 04 from low A to AA. I would say that they knew he was a going to be a good player. Plus I remember reading a lot of hype about him in BA back then. Read BA's last write up of the guy. The Red Sox were frustrated with Ramirez because they saw the potential but didn't see him putting it together. Ooops.

Reposted from another thread: If you fire Hendry tomorrow, who replaces him? Unless there's just some random awesome GM sitting around doing nothing, then the answer is Randy Bush. If Randy Bush becomes the interim GM, his #1 job is not going to be making the Cubs better in the long run, it's going to be making desperation moves in hopes to make the Cubs better in the short term so that he can win the job outright. If you keep Hendry, there's a decent chance he feels secure in his job and considers to take the long term health of the club into account. There's really no upside in firing Hendry now, especially since it'd be a near certainty that the interim GM would make rash desperation moves. Any gm that would take over would likely get at least a 3-4 year deal. So making rash decisions to ensure the team is in win-now mode next year shouldn't come into play. There are definitely guys out there. IMO, no way do you keep randy bush. If you want to change the organization you don't promote from within. there are plenty of ex-gm's or up and coming baseball exec's that would fit the bill. Paul depodesta or Pat Gillick come to mind (although he is 75). Heck Maybe Bob Watson wants to get away from MLB's rules board. There are other experienced guys out there that have done a good job. Plus there are a bunch of young guys who have brought along in the right organizations. list of the young guys: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/cubs-den/2011/05/top-cubs-gm-candidates-if-cubs-dont-retain-jim-hendry.html DePodesta? Up and coming? Uh, no. He might still be young (for a GM) but he isn't up and coming. His failures in LA (with players, fans, media and other baseball people) are the reason that he has not been a GM for the last seven seasons. I really doubt that he's learned how to be a people person since.

On some level I am worried that he'll try something desperate to save his butt. This argument has been made numerous times over the last few months and yet no one can point to Hendry actually ever having done anything "desperate to save his butt" when his "job has been on the line" in the past. The guy has gone through three owners with much speculation about his butt needing saving. And, no, Zell giving him $300 million of the new owner's money to spend does not count as Hendry doing something desperate but, rather, Hendry following orders.

Given that nowhere in the article--including the header--does this article claim that any Ricketts family member is being sued for sexual harrassment I suggest that a mod change the title. The article further points out that "The Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission found reasonable cause of retaliation against both women but not of sexual harassment."

Given that nowhere in the article--including the header--does this article claim that any Ricketts family member is being sued for sexual harrassment I suggest that a mod change the title. The article further points out that "The Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission found reasonable cause of retaliation against both women but not of sexual harassment."

Correct. High error totals are even worse when you consider teenage shortstops in professional ball (lot of angst about Hak-Ju Lee and Castro when they were in the low minors). Physiologically what is happening is that with each repetition (move to the ball, catch the ball, throw to the base, repeat) with each of the myriad of plays that occur at short, the brain's neural pathways fire and form stronger bonds. The less experience that a player has doing a given thing, the weaker those pathways are. Its like a pathway through a forest--the more traffic that there is the deeper and wider the pathway.

The problem with the "but if they do get taken they'll likely get sent back" is that, for the most part, the guys that you get back are the guys that you don't want and the guys you don't get back are the only guys you'd really miss. I.e. "Oh, PITT is sending Lake back, they've decided he's crap" vs. "Oh, crap. Look at what Lake is doing for PITT."

I confess to the same but it disappears as soon as I remember how poorly big money DR kids do. Those guys just haven't been the best DR baseball players out there.

If you want to watch him knock the cover off the ball, it would be better to promote him to the great hitting environs of the PCL. Better yet, drop him down to Peoria and watch him go nuts. Yet, if the name of the game were to see how many hits a kid can get you'd never see promotions. Part of the reason that Vitters has so-so numbers overall is that they have aggressively promoted him. They have been aggressively promoting him not "because he has nothing else to learn at this level" but, rather, to challenge his bat and to avoid (as much as possible) the lazy habits that come from having too much talent for your level.

Don't mean to throw a water on your theory but the "trend" didn't start in his Boise/Peoria season because he didn't have a Boise/Peoria season. He had a Peoria/Boise season. He started that year in Peoria and got three hits--all doubles--in his first game. He also hurt his hand and went hitless in the next three games and was sent to Mesa to recover. After he recovered he then went to Boise and tore the place up. That means that the success at Peoria in year three was just that--success. He did move on to Daytona and struggled there. At 19. The only trend there is that the trend for 19-y/o hitters in High A is "suck." So what you have is last year and this year. Not much of a trend. Craig pointed out that Vitters started to hit in his first go around at AA before he got hurt and that he started out "hot" for 3-8 games this year before he slumped really badly. If the trend existed he wouldn't have started to hit so well at AA last year before he got hurt nor would he have struggled through 150 or so AB this year. What I do see is a hitter who has struggled to make adjustments and suffered through long droughts of ineffectiveness followed by, and sometimes proceeded by, incredible flashes of really hot hitting. If Vitters can ever discipline his stroke to swing at hitters' pitches (not to take walks but to lay off pitchers' pitches) then he has an All-Star caliber bat with 25-30 HR power. That's very good power for the post-preservative era. Defensively he's a 1B/LF type guy but, if he swings at hitters' pitches, he's got plenty of bat for those positions. I don't say that he's a 1B/LF because of any poster's observations. Remember when AZPhil saw Vitters take BP??? The Interwebs were all atwitter with how Vitters would never hit. AZPhil isn't a bad observer, per se, it's just that one observer over a relatively short period of time is not so meaningful. However, four years of not getting your fielding percentage much over .900 is meaningful. == FWIW, the 3rd pick in the draft has not been a treasure trove of success. Evan Longoria has done very well for himself but, prior to him, you have to go back to Glaus in '97 to find anyone with more success than Corey Patterson. Phillip Humber is having a nice season with the Sox but he's already been granted free agency once and waived--twice--before having any success. Longoria, a college bat, was picked the year before Vitters (four years younger). Before that you have: *Jeff Clement (former top prospect who has been stuck in AAA since 2006), *Humber (once a part of the Johan Santana trade is now on his fifth organization), *Kyle Sleeth (onetime time prospect out of baseball without ever having reached the majors), *Chris Gruler (onetime time prospect out of baseball without ever having reached the majors--hiccup), *Dewon Brazelton (another top prospect, was drafted because he was MLB-ready--he wasn't), *Luis Montanez (who taught me all those years ago a new way to say Montanez), *Eric Munson (who, like Clement, was a can't miss bat who missed), *Corey Patterson (considering the company should be considered a decent #3 pick). Prior to that you have Glaus who, I believe, could have been decent without the steroids. Glaus and Longoria as bookends and crap in between. Here's a Wall Street Journal article on the very same subject: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576359612358976204.html?mod=googlenews_wsj While a dig is made about Vitters having never played MLB ball, the kid is just 21 and in AA ball. Very age appropriate. He was drafted at age 17 and been aggressively pushed for the most part.

We have numerous guys faster than that. Daaaaang. Hahahaha Indeed.

We have numerous guys faster than that. Daaaaang. In football, just like in baseball, there are smaller guys who are signed for their speed. In both baseball and football guys need to do something with that speed or they don't make the team--otherwise Willie Gault and his 4.2 wouldn't be the rare track crossover. In football those guys need to catch the ball and in baseball they need to hit the ball. And, just like football (where Devin Hester isn't the fastest Bear and Jerry Rice ran a 4.7), in baseball how a guys speed plays matters more than what his 40 or 60 time is.

We have numerous guys faster than that.

BA had Szczur listed high last year as well. I expect either Szczur or Baez to be the BA number one. Szczur if he continues to hit like he has (at Peoria without moving up) and Baez if Szczur stumbles (BA LOVES hyping top picks--it sells subscriptions).

And his 4th HR of the season will only help that. 2/3 with a HR and 2 RBI. Now batting .341. I'm not sure I buy into "plus-plus" speed (Na is faster) but I do think that he'll have at least MLB average power. Szczur was one of the fastest players coming into the NFL draft, as memory serves. Now, whether or not he can use that speed as a weapon on the basepaths and also to help his range in the OF is another matter altogether. Well, he's got 14 stolen bases in 42 games against just 4 caught stealing. That's a pretty good ratio. And some scouting reports say that he is good to great defensively in center. Using SB as an indicator of speed (especially in the low minors) isn't a good idea. Numerous fast guys sucked at stealing in the low minors and numerous so-so speed guys had very good SB numbers down there. Szczur is an illustration here... In 100+ PA he had only 2 SB last year. Regardless, I didn't make the statement to disparage his play. He may legitimately be the Cubs best prospect. But plus-plus speed has been attributed to him and I have not seen it in any video that I've watched. Not in the minor league video and not in the college football video (where he was caught from behind numerous times by DIV II players pre-ankle injury). He's fast. Plus speed. He just isn't an eleven.

And his 4th HR of the season will only help that. 2/3 with a HR and 2 RBI. Now batting .341. I'm not sure I buy into "plus-plus" speed (Na is faster) but I do think that he'll have at least MLB average power. Szczur was one of the fastest players coming into the NFL draft, as memory serves. Now, whether or not he can use that speed as a weapon on the basepaths and also to help his range in the OF is another matter altogether. His stock as a WR would have been much higher if he had legitimate 4.3-4.4 speed. Szczur claimed a hand-timed 4.4-ish speed coming out of h.s. but it was never verified. His college coach said he was faster than Westbrook, whom he also coached, but Westbrook was not fast--his 40 was 4.57. My guess would be that Szczur is about a 4.50. Not bad. Not plus-plus. His plus-plus tool, however, is the most important tool there is (hitting for average). And if he can get great jumps on the bases and in the outfield his good speed can play great. I expect, given his size, strength and bat control, that he will have average to plus power. The guy didn't have a cannon in college but his arm is at least mlb average. He should wind up with five tools and hit for high average. He just isn't in the Na, Hak-Ju Lee, Corey Patterson level of speed.

And his 4th HR of the season will only help that. 2/3 with a HR and 2 RBI. Now batting .341. I'm not sure I buy into "plus-plus" speed (Na is faster) but I do think that he'll have at least MLB average power.

y'all never should have lost the faith! I wish we could see a little more power out of him. He's slugging .667 in the last ten games. That's power enough. His production thus far would project to 45 2B and 18 HR over 600 AB. Given that those numbers have occurred while he's slumped for the vast majority of the season I am not concerned with his power. As Craig said, I'd like to see him pull out of his slumps quicker (make adjustments sooner).

He's got an 8 game hitting streak--11 for 27 (.407) with 2 2B, 1 HR, 1 SB, 2 BB and 3 K. When he gets hot he either stays hot, gets hurt or gets promoted. * Rosscup with 6 K's on his birthday. Nice. His piggyback partner has been hot all year (albeit mostly in Mesa): http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?pos=P&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=594905 Loosen is starting to become intriguing. Loosen was interesting me with his play in Mesa but I'm pretty impressed with the way he came out of the gate with a bang at Daytona. I'd love to hear a report on what he's chucking up there.