The Other One

I

Wild pitch altered the game. Not sure from the bleachers how bad, but wish Higgens could have kept it in front of him. Infield fly rule on the pop up if not for that.

I blame Shaheen. Or the moron who drafted him.

Kmet. Meh....

Sam Smith was a pretty good read in the Tribune and I'm sure his book is good but let's face it, Halberstam is the Michael Jordan of non-fiction writers. No need to point out a distinction of which book is better.

I definitely wasn't following the team back then (on account of being born two months before the trade), but based on the two links below, he was getting either internal or media criticism about being too heavy and it having an adverse impact on his knees. There's a quote in there about just requesting to be traded, not necessarily to Boston. http://archive.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2004/06/19/close_up_with_the_ultimate_closer/ https://web.archive.org/web/20070105194455/http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Lee_Smith_1957 I was only thirteen at the time, but my recollection was that it was a, “If you don’t like me, trade me,” more than any particular desire to be away from the Cubs. That was a spectacularly bad trade by the way. Neither pitcher acquired by the Cubs was still on the team by the end of 1989. The Cubs got Luis Salazar for Schiraldi. So I supposed that’s something. The Cubs had already traded away future HoF closer Dennis Eckersley away for nothing. They signed Goose Gossage to close in 1988. He was over the hill and awful. They traded away Jamie Moyer AND Rafael Palmeiro for Mitch Williams in 1989. He was pretty good in 1989 and then completely lost his horsefeathers in 1990 and was traded for table scraps. They signed Dave Smith to close in 1991. He was awful, posted a 6.00 ERA and lost his job before the year was half over. They went closer by committee in 1992, with predictable results. Finally, they signed Randy Myers to close in 1993 and he was ok for a few years. In those five seasons between the trade and signing Myers, fat Lee Smith with the bad knees pitched 385 innings with a 2.76 ERA and got 175 saves. Jim Frey managed the Cubs, led them to a spectacular 1984 season, and was fired in 1986. He hung around the booth and then was named GM in 1987 after Dallas Green was fired. He quickly named Zimmer manager and almost as quickly sent Smith to Boston. It really felt like old school GM and Manager setting the clubhouse with players they liked. There was no logical explanation for the trade except for something that bugged them or happened in the clubhouse that was never going to hit the news. Same when he traded Palmiero the next year (escapades that became rumor fodder several years later). Eckersley was traded by Green prior to Frey, but he was rumored to really enjoy the bar scene after the games and had to be traded to a less tempting spot. On that topic, in the 80's it was pretty easy to find neighborhood joints that housed Cub players well after the game ended. One of my favorite memories was sitting in a bar on Berteau and St. Louis telling Rick Sutcliffe about my fantasy league where I traded Fernando Valenzuela (who was having a monster year) for him (who was not). He told me that was probably a bad trade... There were a lot of rumors about infidelity and late nights so we painted every questionable move with an understanding that something no one would be proud of probably happened behind the scenes.

Believe me, as a season ticket holder I wanted to take a shower after saying I was on their side. The league is setting the rule changes that will lead to the suspensions not the Bears. Are the Bears complicit in that? Probably but I'm hoping it is being done to improve player health, not find a way to screw money out of the players. I may need to take another shower after writing that. I just think in this case, the agent is trying to establish precedent. My gut feel thinks they are making a bigger deal out of this than they should in the interest of showing the player they are covering all the bases and now everyone is painted into a corner. I'd suggest that between the two, they pick an arbitrator that can review any suspension to make sure neither are screwing each other.

Terrible look or not, wouldn't the get out of jail free card be troubling from an ownership standpoint? What would prevent the player from making a few sordid hits during a losing season to get to sit out while being paid? Or, what if the hit is particularly nasty and the player should take his punishment? The Bears are making the case of trust us, we'll take care of you if it is not deserved and have the Trevathan case as evidence. Roquan Smith has his college career as trust that he is not a dirty player. I think that is as far as that can go. I'm on the Bears' side here.

I am sure there is room at the Zachary Hotel. A nice 2 bedroom suite, replete with amenities all for $100/mo. He doesn't make enough to afford a fancy condo after all.

I've watched the full game three times now. Over time, this will be a game I individually watch more times than any other game I've ever seen. Heck three might be my record already. There was a particular Sunday night game though which and the specific details I forget. But what I remember was the announcing crew. They came in expecting to see the team everyone said was the best team in baseball. And they realized the Cub team they were expecting to see was undersold. The Cubs went out in the first several innings and displayed a brilliant, beautiful defense, a suffocating, powerful offense, and an exacting, focused starting pitcher all performing with youthful exuberance and flair. This was something that left them in awe. We have all had the pleasure of watching something I'm not too sure many fans have seen before. Yes, others have had a championship. But we are witnessing the pursuit of a perfect team playing a perfect game. When the playoffs started, my expectation was I wanted to see that perfect game to let everyone else realize what we have been watching. When the Cubs won the NLCS, it was with a game that was stress free. Hendricks dominated, the defense reigned, the offense provided plenty of support. It came on the heels of the two previous games which were also stress free early. And I realized – stress free was what I wanted, but there was a partial emptiness to it – dominating an opponent diminishes them and leaves others with the belief that you must have played someone inferior. As game 7 rolled around, I regressed. I wanted the stress free game. It was more important to me to come home with the prize rather than the adventure of how we got the prize. I would have taken a 20-0 whitewashing that only us fans would appreciate in the long run. But, I was wrong. This was not the perfect game from my perfect team. Far from it. But I can watch this game over and over. Every inning had something. We dominated yet the game was close. We made brilliant plays, we screwed up. The manager even made highly questionable moves. Incredible how much action was packed in the game – stealing before the pitch, picking off a base runner, scoring on a short fly ball, pulling effective pitchers, key home runs, bunting with 2 strikes, etc. Any of it could be dissected and discussed – so many things to analyze. And all of that was a far, far cry from what I asked and hoped for, and yet way more satisfying. This was baseball's finest hour. This was not the Cubs' best game. That was the Cubs' greatest game.

Think they pull Kershaw soon to save him for tomorrow?

Think they pull Kershaw soon to save him for tomorrow?

Think they pull Kershaw soon to save him for tomorrow?

Lurch!! Man, we were awful...

Assume at a minimum, Baez will be Lester's personal 3rd baseman going forward. Any bunt on the left side or right at Lester can be flipped to Javy like turning two.

Richard Daley is from Chicago (though he also briefly lived in Illinois).

Mostly names you know - fun quiz. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/batter-up-the-annual-baseball-quiz/2012/03/30/gIQADLU6lS_story.html

Saltwell had little to do with anything in that deal. Wrigley was way old school, as in pre-Jackie Robinson if you get my meaning. He couldn't stand the idea of a black man demanding more money. That was the reason Madlock was traded. It wasn't the money as you correctly pointed out. They agreed to pay Murcer more than Madlock was asking for. It was that Madlock was being "uppity" in the eyes of Philip K. Wrigley. I came close to writing what you wrote almost word for word. Being a neighborhood guy who's family was involved in the West side white flight, racism was still front and center in a lot of people's minds at that time. Certainly, the word on the street mirrored what you wrote. I held back saying it though because the perception on the street was still just a perception. Wrigley may have wrote an article praising players like Banks which made him appear to want subservient players. But, outside of that, he was pretty reclusive. Perhaps the Madlock situation all about racism, but I don't think we have facts to state that. It is just as logical that Wrigley viewed baseball as a game. Players (black or white) that demanded more, especially as the stands were emptying out, perhaps just didn't sit right with him. Of course, if I had to bet on it, I'd go with what you wrote.

Every time we trade someone, we should throw a massive party, where Tom, Theo, Jed, and the gang get to do the Limbo. Bar gets lowered each time payroll drops. I know we were a high payroll team with low payroll results. I was, though, hoping we would move to a high payroll team with high payroll results, rather than match the low payroll results with a low payroll. While I understand the need to go through a transition, it doesn't take a high priced front office to get poor results while saving the owner money. Salty Saltwell did that for Wrigley at a much lower salary than Epstein and Hoyer. At the end of the day, I want top results. If we pay a little for that great, especially if it lowers ticket prices. If not, I don't care how much or little they spend if it doesn't affect me. What are the poor results you are alluding to here? If you are going to call out the front office, please enlighten us with your perceived mishandling of the team thus far under Epstein and Hoyer. Salty Saltwell? Really? A google search and 1 minute read told me that he was the one that traded Bill Madlock for Bobby Murcer. Is that the type of front office you see here? My comment was pointed towards enthusiasm to drop payroll as the quotes I copied suggested. I understand the hyperbole/sarcasm in what they said, but I only meant to point out as others have that a big market team such as the Cubs have the resources to build at both the MLB roster and farm system. I have utmost confidence in this front office and support their moves. If they deem they need to trade for the future since the present is a no win situation then I support that. Personally, I was hoping for signing international guys like the Cubans and free agents such as Pujols or Fielder. And in fact, the window is not closed on that front. I will admit, I threw Saltwell out there as a lackey without thought to any specific moves. I don't post often, but I did weigh in on Madlock's trade in another thread. He was traded because he demanded more money and then they signed Murcer to more money than Madlock asked for (precursor to the Maddux situation later under Himes). But it also happened in times of poor attendance and getting Murcer was as much a way to potentially increase draw. Year Attendance Record 1970 1,642,705 84-78 1971 1,653,007 83-79 1972 1,299,163 85-70 1973 1,351,705 77-84 1974 1,015,378 66-96 Madlock 1975 1,034,819 75-87 Madlock 1976 1,026,217 75-87 Madlock 1977 1,439,834 81-81 Murcer 1978 1,525,311 79-83 Murcer 1979 1,648,587 80-82 So, no there is no correlation to this move and the current front office's moves. But, perhaps it does point out that attendance is not a given. And being a big market team is dependent on revenue. Cutting payroll for the sake of future flexibility alone may not yield the results if revenues drop.

Every time we trade someone, we should throw a massive party, where Tom, Theo, Jed, and the gang get to do the Limbo. Bar gets lowered each time payroll drops. I know we were a high payroll team with low payroll results. I was, though, hoping we would move to a high payroll team with high payroll results, rather than match the low payroll results with a low payroll. While I understand the need to go through a transition, it doesn't take a high priced front office to get poor results while saving the owner money. Salty Saltwell did that for Wrigley at a much lower salary than Epstein and Hoyer. At the end of the day, I want top results. If we pay a little for that great, especially if it lowers ticket prices. If not, I don't care how much or little they spend if it doesn't affect me.

I still don't get this approach. If there is a deal through rule 5, wouldn't it make more sense for the agreement to be the Cubs taking someone off the Red Sox that Boston doesn't want to lose and then immediately cut him and offer him back? It would give Boston an extra roster spot assuming he gets through the first 5 picks. Pay Boston $50k and give them back someone in their top 20 and call it a day on compensation? As for Flaherty, I'd guess they have their eye on someone from SD or Bos that is rated higher in their minds than him. If their is no deal ahead of time, I expect their pick to rob their old clubs of someone.

1. Epstein focused on the medical personnel in Boston seemingly as a way to gain an edge as to conditioning and reduced injuries. What innovative technique if any was Boston using in the minors to develop pitchers beyond the pitcher abuse points/pitch counts that are currently in vogue around the league? How about San Diego? 2. During their tenures at Boston and San Diego, was the emphasis on drafting mechanically sound pitchers or raw talent with the emphasis on developing/refining mechanics once they were on board? 3. Which Cubs' pitchers stands to benefit most from the new development approach? Which will be hurt or unaffected? 4. Especially at lower levels, my assumption is clubs have prospects work on aspects of their game without regard to the statistical result. How do you factor this into pitcher rankings, or is this why you get paid the big bucks? 5. Bill James was hired by Boston. When to you get added to the Cubs?

I find it humorous that even if Boston cries and pouts about it being a lateral move, then the precedent will be set by what the Cubs give up for Hoyer.

Wow - all my life watching, I never, ever believed it would be us doing something that is not a quick fix. I am used to being jealous when someone else took all the right steps to be an elite franchise. It is happening to us. Unbelievable.