Fanzones trumpet

Pitching, pitching, and more pitching. The need to improve their offense as well as their pitching. You got that right; better pitching and better offense but better pitching first (and second).

I'm all for getting better OBP, but I'm having a tough time understanding why that is the biggest problem on the team. The Houston Astros scored 9 fewer runs than the Cubs this year, and the White Sox, when the DH is factored in, were no better offensively than the Cubs.

I wish they hadn't traded Willis. But, it's purely hindsight to presume that Willis would end up being as good as he ended up being in the majors. Or, to assume he would stay fairly healthy all this time. The Cubs had several better left handers (or at least more advanced) in the system when they traded Willis. Jones, Sisco and Sanchez come to mind. I agree that it's purely hindsight, but it's not accurate to say the other guys were more advanced at the time Willis was traded in March 2002. Willis had been an excellent pitcher at Boise in 2001, and the BA book for 2002 was very complimentary of his understanding of pitching and projectibility. Jones wasn't even drafted until 3 months after Willis had beem traded. Sisco had spent the previous year working on mechanics in rookie ball. Sanchez was in the system and was regarded as having better pure stuff than Willis, but he was at the same level (as was Guzman). The problem with the trade was not necessarily misevaluation of Willis's talent, although the way things look now, it may wind up being one of the two or three worst trades in Cubs' history; it was an overestimation of the parent club's 2002 chances, which precipitated the trade in the first place. The trade was made because the team was desperate for a closer after Gordon went down in spring training, and the brass had convinced itself that the Cubs were a legitimate contender after a fluky 2001 and the signing of Alou. (As you point out, Clement was really the secondary component in that trade.) If health or other trades were not a factor, I'm not sure Willis would have cracked the Cubs rotation even this year. Can't agree with this one. Willis was on the same track as Guzman. MacPhail stated repeatedly that Guzman was going to be called up in July 2003 from AA before hurting his shoulder despite the presence of Clement in the rotation. The Cubs had also called up Cruz from AA in August 2001. If Willis had dominated in the minor leagues for the Cubs in 2002 and 2003, it's a lock he would have made Chicago no later than last year. Just looking at Clement's ERA and/or wins and losses, he doesn't look all that impressive. However, I believe he was right up there among the team leaders in 2003 in quality starts. In other words, when he was pitching good, he kept the team in games. When he wasn't pitching good, he got blown out. The 2003 Cubs were fine in the rotation. It was weak in offense, which explains the poor win/loss records of all the Cubs pitchers that year. Zambrano was 13-11 with a 3.11 ERA. Wood was 14-11 with a 3.20 ERA. Clement was 14-12 with a 4.11 ERA. I wish I could see Clement's game log from 2003, because his ERA was in the mid 3's until he started running out of gas in September of that year. The next year, he had a 3.68 ERA. 3.68 was top 30 in the majors this year. Actually, Clement was lousy in the first part of 2003, to the point where the Cubs skipped a couple of his starts (including one against the Yankees). There's no question he pitched very well the second half of that season and was a major contributor the playoff run. Of course, willis was ROY that year for the eventual champion.

This is also written by Sullivan, so who knows. So maybe the Cubs might be in the hunt for Burnett. Not thrilled with Morris, and something tells me he might pull a "Steve Kline", so I would stay away from Crybaby Morris. I'm probably in the minority, but I want nothing to do with AJ Burnett. And it has nothing to do with his critical comments of Marlin management. I look at it simply from performance: from Aug. 24 to Sept. 25, he lost all 6 decisions he had, which included a 4 game stretch where he gave up 18 earned runs in 18 innings. I don't want Hendry shelling out big money to a non-big money pitcher. I'd be all over Millwood. In his last 6 starts, he's given up 8 earned runs in his last 40 innings. That's getting it done. A rotation of Zambrano, Prior, Maddux, Wood and Millwood would be amazing with either Jerome Williams or Rich Hill there in case of injury to Wood. I agree 100% on Burnett. I disagree on Millwood. He was lousy the last two years in Philadelphia and has had arm problems in the past. He's likely to be as overpaid as Burnett. IMO Cubs should look to acquire a starter in a trade who's underperformed in a bad situation and is too expensive for a team. Someone like Jason Jennings. Even away from Coors, Jennings has never been good. Cubs have a ton of options in their own farm system who can do just as well or better. Not sure I want Millwood either, but I'd take him over any other FA starter. Looking at his stats shows an interesting trend. He seems to have 1 good season, then 2 bad/mediocre seasons, then 1 good season again. I'd say his ERA next year will be well over 4.00. Jennings would be a classic example of low risk high reward. He has an excellent sinker perfect for Wrigley. He was ROY in 2002, is only 27 years old and is an excellent athelete (despite his weight). The record of guys who leave Coors and succeed elsewhere (Kile, Hampton, Chacon) is notable. He suffered a finger injury this year, but has been durable in the past. He could well put up 200 innings and 15 wins next year for far less than Burnett or Millwood.

This is also written by Sullivan, so who knows. So maybe the Cubs might be in the hunt for Burnett. Not thrilled with Morris, and something tells me he might pull a "Steve Kline", so I would stay away from Crybaby Morris. I'm probably in the minority, but I want nothing to do with AJ Burnett. And it has nothing to do with his critical comments of Marlin management. I look at it simply from performance: from Aug. 24 to Sept. 25, he lost all 6 decisions he had, which included a 4 game stretch where he gave up 18 earned runs in 18 innings. I don't want Hendry shelling out big money to a non-big money pitcher. I'd be all over Millwood. In his last 6 starts, he's given up 8 earned runs in his last 40 innings. That's getting it done. A rotation of Zambrano, Prior, Maddux, Wood and Millwood would be amazing with either Jerome Williams or Rich Hill there in case of injury to Wood. I agree 100% on Burnett. I disagree on Millwood. He was lousy the last two years in Philadelphia and has had arm problems in the past. He's likely to be as overpaid as Burnett. IMO Cubs should look to acquire a starter in a trade who's underperformed in a bad situation and is too expensive for a team. Someone like Jason Jennings.

They picked Montanez in 2000.

My theory is that they've emphasized pitching at the expense of position players in the 1st round of the draft. in the Hendry era, they've only taken position players in the 1st round 3 times: Patterson (1998), Montanez (2000) and Harvey (2003). An example of the preference is taking Prior instead of Texeira in 2001. A more unfortunate example is using five high draft picks in 2002 on pitchers, including taking Brownlie ahead of Jeff Francouer. Yeah, but a lot of times the baseball draft can be a crapshoot. I still don't know why you can't draft position players even in rounds let's say 4-9 and not still have talent left. Heck, even diamonds in the rough. I still say there's some sort of difference in scouting or in player development between our pitching and position prospects. You're correct that talent can be found in later rounds (Pujols is the best current case). It is surprising that they haven't found at least one quality guy in the later rounds (they did find Hinske in round 17). But the reality is that if an organization doesn't draft position players in Round 1, it cuts down its chances of developing an impact guy significantly. It's interesting that this pitcher/position player dichotomy long predates Hendry/Macphail. The Cubs of the late 60s/70s developed a good number of quality pitchers but no position players (although Joe Carter was the last #1 pick of the Wrigley regime). The only time they've developed position players over the past 45 years was Green/Goldsberry. But in that era, they only developed one quality pitcher for the team --Maddux--and had several high profile pitching busts with #1 picks (Davidson, Hall, Masters). (Green/Goldsberry also developed Moyer but he didn't emerge until long after he left the Cubs.)

Link The Sun-Times address your question, but doesn't really answer it. In my opinion, if you are going to create this so-called "surplus", then you trade it for young positional talent, not over-the-hill stop gaps. At the same time, I don't really see that this surpless has even emerged. The Rule V draft prohibits you from stockpiling ML-ready arms (lest Andy forget the Sisco Fiasco). Its all double talk. I no longer have much use for MacPhail. Here's my problem with what MacPhail is saying: If that is the true organizational philosophy, to emphasize pitching in the draft and acquire positional talent via free agency, why has the biggest offseason acquistion in the past few years been Greg Maddux? The idea isn't to acquire positional talent through free agency; it's to acquire it through trade of surplus pitching. The strategy works only if you develop the surplus. Three years ago it looked like they had it, with Prior, Wood, Z, Clement and Cruz in the major leagues and a bunch of promising arms in the system; unfortunately injuries (Blasko, Hagerty, Guzman, Wylie) took their toll.

My theory is that they've emphasized pitching at the expense of position players in the 1st round of the draft. in the Hendry era, they've only taken position players in the 1st round 3 times: Patterson (1998), Montanez (2000) and Harvey (2003). An example of the preference is taking Prior instead of Texeira in 2001. A more unfortunate example is using five high draft picks in 2002 on pitchers, including taking Brownlie ahead of Jeff Francouer.

Uniformed speculation by Stone IMO. Gordon Edes, loingtime Red Sox beat writer, repeatedly has said that the Red Sox liked Murton and didn't want to give him up; heck, they'd drafted him high just the year before and he hadn't done anything up to then to call that decision into question. The thing that allowed them to make the move was that Murton, as a LF, was excess for them; they had Ramirez locked up (and probably unmovable) for four years and other young outfielders (Murphy, Moss) in the system.

Again, the problem here is that the Cubs brought him up to see if he could be an everyday player. I have no idea if he will or will not be, and don't have a feeling one way or the other. That is the problem. Up until Lawton was acquired, the Cubs current LF was so bad there was absolutely no reason not to play Murton. If there was ever in the history of the game a situation more appropriate for a guy to be battle tested, I am not aware of it. Dubois got a decent look in May, and showed he wasn't quite as good as many thought (although he was better than Holla). Considering the alternatives, I can't understand why Murton wasn't afforded the same opportunity. Of course with Lawton on the team and Patterson on his way up, the window of opportunity has probably passed. No we'll have to wait till next year to see if Murton can do the job. I'd like to see Burnitz moved in a waiver deal if possible.

For clarification, I never said he wouldn't make it. I just asked why would it be out of the realm of possibility that he might not make it? I don't know if he will or if he won't, but I'm not going to swear that he'll make it or not. He may become an everyday player or he may be a career 4th or 5th outfielder, I don't know. I don't see why Steve Stone's opinion is wrong -- it's an opinion. However, I do remember him one time saying something similar about Kelton. I also never said he won't ever be able to hit righties. I just said in his limited at-bats, he hasn't hit righties very hard. I can handle hitting into outs if you're hitting the ball hard. Although I dislike a lot of Baker's moves this year, I think he made a good move by starting him off against lefties only to begin his career. Kelton never had Murton's plate discipline. And the notion that you need power at the corner OF positions to win in is a myth. The Yankees won 4 WS with guys like Chad Curtis and Gerald Williams in LF. And the White Sox are doing pretty damn well with Scott Podsednik in LF. Given the steroid situation, it's likely that power #s are going to continue to decrease over the next several years, making it much more of a balanced game. If the Cubs were smart--which is open to question--they'd stick Murton at #2 in the lineup and leave him alone. I have never bought into the power position myth, either. Heck, I was infuriated back in 1989 when Palmeiro was traded and Frey and Zimmer said he would never hit for power and you can't have guys not hitting homers in two power positions (1B and LF). Regarding Murton, power shouldn't be addressed. I just don't know why it's deemed impossible that he won't ever be an everyday player. He might be, but, again, maybe he won't. A player doesn't have a bad career if he's a lifetime 4th or 5th outfielder. I agree that the jury's still out on Murton as an everyday player. But for what it's worth, he looks better to me than any position player the Cubs have brought up in the last five years, including Patterson. Perhaps it's my preference (bias?) for smart, contact hitters who aren't afraid to work the count. I sincerely feel that the game is swinging away from the HR and the Murton-type of player will become more appreciated.

For clarification, I never said he wouldn't make it. I just asked why would it be out of the realm of possibility that he might not make it? I don't know if he will or if he won't, but I'm not going to swear that he'll make it or not. He may become an everyday player or he may be a career 4th or 5th outfielder, I don't know. I don't see why Steve Stone's opinion is wrong -- it's an opinion. However, I do remember him one time saying something similar about Kelton. I also never said he won't ever be able to hit righties. I just said in his limited at-bats, he hasn't hit righties very hard. I can handle hitting into outs if you're hitting the ball hard. Although I dislike a lot of Baker's moves this year, I think he made a good move by starting him off against lefties only to begin his career. Kelton never had Murton's plate discipline. And the notion that you need power at the corner OF positions to win in is a myth. The Yankees won 4 WS with guys like Chad Curtis and Gerald Williams in LF. And the White Sox are doing pretty damn well with Scott Podsednik in LF. Given the steroid situation, it's likely that power #s are going to continue to decrease over the next several years, making it much more of a balanced game. If the Cubs were smart--which is open to question--they'd stick Murton at #2 in the lineup and leave him alone.

I cannot believe how much love Hendry gets as if he's done no wrong. He was 0-4 in the offseason when everyone said we needed a LF, closer, leadoff man and OBP guys. He's 0-5 if you include the need to improve the middle relief. I guess people still are revering him for the Ramirez trade while ignoring re-signing Macias (at his salary), Hollandsworth and signing of Burnitz. They both should go or they both should stay. But I'm sure the tune will slowly change once Maddux's reaches his innings. And I used to be a big Baker/Hendry fan. IMO getting rid of Hendry now would be tantamount to the firing of Dallas Green in 1987; it would set the organization back years. As we learned with Green, continuity in that spot is critical, particularly when it comes to integrating young players. Hendry's surely made mistakes, but he's shown signs of learning from them (e.g. developing a bullpen from within) and he's certainly proven to be an adept judge of young talent. As a big Dallas Green fan (hence my name), I would slightly disagree. At that time, Dallas Green was the only "baseball" guy making decisions. To prove my point is the idiots at Tribune, Co. wanted him to move down to field manager. I still think we would've made a World Series appearance had Green stayed as GM. I think now we have more "baseball" guys in the organiztion. I don't see MacPhail going from Hendry to a bad candidate like we did when hiring Jim Frey after Dallas Green. I'm just not as hopeful as others that he will change his spending habits when it comes to overvaluing and paying for veteran players. 1. Who's to say MacPhail wouldn't go along with Hendry? Those two are far more joined at the hip than Hendry and Baker. And even if MacPhail survived and Hendry didn't, MacPhail's hiring of Ed Lynch doesn't give me a lot of confidence that he'd pick a first-rate GM. 2. We agree on Dallas Green. But let's remember that his track record while GM was pretty bad except for 1984, and a lot worse than Hendry's--five losing seasons out of six years, including a last place finish in 1987, his last year. The problem with firing Green was that all of his labors with the farm system were starting to bear fruit (as we saw in 1989), and his successor was utterly incapable of taking advantage of it. I feel that there's a parallel with Hendry. The bottom line is that no one knows the abilities of the young players in the farm system better than Hendry.

I cannot believe how much love Hendry gets as if he's done no wrong. He was 0-4 in the offseason when everyone said we needed a LF, closer, leadoff man and OBP guys. He's 0-5 if you include the need to improve the middle relief. I guess people still are revering him for the Ramirez trade while ignoring re-signing Macias (at his salary), Hollandsworth and signing of Burnitz. They both should go or they both should stay. But I'm sure the tune will slowly change once Maddux's reaches his innings. And I used to be a big Baker/Hendry fan. IMO getting rid of Hendry now would be tantamount to the firing of Dallas Green in 1987; it would set the organization back years. As we learned with Green, continuity in that spot is critical, particularly when it comes to integrating young players. Hendry's surely made mistakes, but he's shown signs of learning from them (e.g. developing a bullpen from within) and he's certainly proven to be an adept judge of young talent. As a big Dallas Green fan (hence my name), I would slightly disagree. At that time, Dallas Green was the only "baseball" guy making decisions. To prove my point is the idiots at Tribune, Co. wanted him to move down to field manager. I still think we would've made a World Series appearance had Green stayed as GM. I think now we have more "baseball" guys in the organiztion. I don't see MacPhail going from Hendry to a bad candidate like we did when hiring Jim Frey after Dallas Green. I'm just not as hopeful as others that he will change his spending habits when it comes to overvaluing and paying for veteran players. 1. Who's to say MacPhail wouldn't go along with Hendry? Those two are far more joined at the hip than Hendry and Baker. And even if MacPhail survived and Hendry didn't, MacPhail's hiring of Ed Lynch doesn't give me a lot of confidence that he'd pick a first-rate GM. 2. We agree on Dallas Green. But let's remember that his track record while GM was pretty bad except for 1984, and a lot worse than Hendry's--five losing seasons out of six years, including a last place finish in 1987, his last year. The problem with firing Green was that all of his labors with the farm system were starting to bear fruit (as we saw in 1989), and his successor was utterly incapable of taking advantage of it. I feel that there's a parallel with Hendry. The bottom line is that no one knows the abilities of the young players in the farm system better than Hendry.

I cannot believe how much love Hendry gets as if he's done no wrong. He was 0-4 in the offseason when everyone said we needed a LF, closer, leadoff man and OBP guys. He's 0-5 if you include the need to improve the middle relief. I guess people still are revering him for the Ramirez trade while ignoring re-signing Macias (at his salary), Hollandsworth and signing of Burnitz. They both should go or they both should stay. But I'm sure the tune will slowly change once Maddux's reaches his innings. And I used to be a big Baker/Hendry fan. IMO getting rid of Hendry now would be tantamount to the firing of Dallas Green in 1987; it would set the organization back years. As we learned with Green, continuity in that spot is critical, particularly when it comes to integrating young players. Hendry's surely made mistakes, but he's shown signs of learning from them (e.g. developing a bullpen from within) and he's certainly proven to be an adept judge of young talent. As a big Dallas Green fan (hence my name), I would slightly disagree. At that time, Dallas Green was the only "baseball" guy making decisions. To prove my point is the idiots at Tribune, Co. wanted him to move down to field manager. I still think we would've made a World Series appearance had Green stayed as GM. I think now we have more "baseball" guys in the organiztion. I don't see MacPhail going from Hendry to a bad candidate like we did when hiring Jim Frey after Dallas Green. I'm just not as hopeful as others that he will change his spending habits when it comes to overvaluing and paying for veteran players. 1. Who's to say MacPhail wouldn't go along with Hendry? Those two are far more joined at the hip than Hendry and Baker. And even if MacPhail survived and Hendry didn't, MacPhail's hiring of Ed Lynch doesn't give me a lot of confidence that he'd pick a first-rate GM. 2. We agree on Dallas Green. But let's remember that his track record while GM was pretty bad except for 1984, and a lot worse than Hendry's--five losing seasons out of six years, including a last place finish in 1987, his last year. The problem with firing Green was that all of his labors with the farm system were starting to bear fruit (as we saw in 1989), and his successor was utterly incapable of taking advantage of it. I feel that there's a parallel with Hendry. The bottom line is that no one knows the abilities of the young players in the farm system better than Hendry.

I cannot believe how much love Hendry gets as if he's done no wrong. He was 0-4 in the offseason when everyone said we needed a LF, closer, leadoff man and OBP guys. He's 0-5 if you include the need to improve the middle relief. I guess people still are revering him for the Ramirez trade while ignoring re-signing Macias (at his salary), Hollandsworth and signing of Burnitz. They both should go or they both should stay. But I'm sure the tune will slowly change once Maddux's reaches his innings. And I used to be a big Baker/Hendry fan. IMO getting rid of Hendry now would be tantamount to the firing of Dallas Green in 1987; it would set the organization back years. As we learned with Green, continuity in that spot is critical, particularly when it comes to integrating young players. Hendry's surely made mistakes, but he's shown signs of learning from them (e.g. developing a bullpen from within) and he's certainly proven to be an adept judge of young talent.

1st place Yankees - That lasted about 20 hours :D I am going to go out on a limb and say that when the Yankees traded 3 pretty good players for Randy Johnson they excpected a lot more out of him than he gave them last night, a 6 inning effort against a first place team!. Your "Ace" should be going 7+ strong every night. Sorry, but a Red Sox fan shouldn't be talking smack about other team's pitchers. :wink: It's not smack, it's the facts. RJ is a good pitcher but he will have give NY a lot more than he gave them last night if they have World Series hopes. Boston is in 1st with their best pitcher being out 1/2 the year. Where would they be without Clement? Warning on Clement; he's been an inconsistent pitcher throughout his career who generally puts up one very good half-season and one bad half-season. He looks to be following the same pattern this year based on his last few starts.

Before coming to the Cubs, Ramirez had one great year, one terrible year, and was having a decent half-year. Kearns, like Ramirez, came up very young (straight from AA), and more than held his own. There's no question that he's an All-Star caliber talent when healthy and he's only 25 (the same age as Ramirez when he was traded). Any time I can get my hands on a young player like that who's coming from a bad situation, I'd be thrilled. Kearns had one good season in the majors, that can be characterized as lucky, or a fluke due to his ridiculous BABIP. Since then his IsoP and IsoD have remained constant(which indicates he's still got the same power and patience as he did before), but his numbers have caught up with his luck. Sure Kearns is talented, and only 25 with a solid minor league track record. I wouldn't mind him at a discounted price, but I don't think you can expect any improvement out of him if you acquire him. The term "fluke" was also used on this board with respect to Ramirez's 2001 season at the time of the trade. And I'd expect big improvement from Kearns, since he's still 2-3 years from coming into his prime.

Before coming to the Cubs, Ramirez had one great year, one terrible year, and was having a decent half-year. Kearns, like Ramirez, came up very young (straight from AA), and more than held his own. There's no question that he's an All-Star caliber talent when healthy and he's only 25 (the same age as Ramirez when he was traded). Any time I can get my hands on a young player like that who's coming from a bad situation, I'd be thrilled. True, but it's worth pointing out that Kearns has also been injured the last two years. BTW, I was a big proponent of the Ramirez trade at the time for the same reasons I'd love to get Kearns. There was a legitimate reason Aramis had a "terrible" year in 2002. He injured his ankle early in the season. In April of his "terrible" year, he was hitting .348 at the time he injured his ankle. He came back too soon and it didn't heal properly all year, thus creating his "terrible" year.

That's exactly the point. A much higher percentage of players who debut at 19 turn into stars than players who debut at 21. Not that there's anything wrong with debuting at 21. 19 is just much better. No question on 19 vs. 21 generally. But it would be interesting to know the percentage of players who turned in the kind of season that Kearns did at 21--particularly the plate discipline--that didn't turn into stars.

Before coming to the Cubs, Ramirez had one great year, one terrible year, and was having a decent half-year. Kearns, like Ramirez, came up very young (straight from AA), and more than held his own. There's no question that he's an All-Star caliber talent when healthy and he's only 25 (the same age as Ramirez when he was traded). Any time I can get my hands on a young player like that who's coming from a bad situation, I'd be thrilled. Aramis made his MLB debut at 19; Kearns made his at 21. That's a significant difference when evaluating potential stars. Very few players debut at 19 and there are many stars who debut at 21-22. Also, Ramirez didn't have success in the major leagues until he was 23. Kearns had a fine season at 21-22.

Before coming to the Cubs, Ramirez had one great year, one terrible year, and was having a decent half-year. Kearns, like Ramirez, came up very young (straight from AA), and more than held his own. There's no question that he's an All-Star caliber talent when healthy and he's only 25 (the same age as Ramirez when he was traded). Any time I can get my hands on a young player like that who's coming from a bad situation, I'd be thrilled.

I wouldn't be worried; I think he'd turn into another Ramirez in Chicago.